Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42538344›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Common thought patterns reflect generosity, fairness, and social context.

Lisa M Bas, Ruien Wang, Jonathan Smallwood, Anita Tusche

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lisa M BasDepartment of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3L3, Canada. lisa.bas@queensu.ca.
Ruien WangDepartment of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3L3, Canada.
Jonathan SmallwoodDepartment of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3L3, Canada.
Anita TuscheDepartment of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, K7L 3L3, Canada. anita.tusche@queensu.ca.

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2019-0432Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council 430-2022-00013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans generate thousands of thoughts each day, many of which concern other people. Yet it remains unclear whether these ongoing thoughts vary systematically across social contexts that demand meaningful social behavior, and whether they reflect individual differences in social preferences such as generosity and fairness. To address this question, we combined multidimensional experience sampling (MDES) with an altruism task administered online or in person (total N = 320). Participants made monetary sharing decisions across social contexts that varied in partner cues (distressed, neutral, unidentifiable), while intermittently reporting their ongoing thoughts using MDES. Dimensionality reduction of MDES responses using principal component analysis revealed a small set of common, interpretable, and robust thought patterns characterizing moment-to-moment cognition during social choice. Critically, the expression of these thought patterns tracked variation in social context, generosity, and model-based parameters indexing fairness preferences. Moreover, these patterns generalized to a separate non-social task that did not require social behavior, indicating that they reflect common patterns of cognition rather than task-specific artifacts. Together, these findings provide initial evidence that ongoing thought states offer reliable insights into social preferences, introducing a novel framework for studying the link between ongoing cognition and social behavior in the laboratory and everyday life.

Indexed as

AltruismSocial BehaviorSocial EnvironmentThinkingAdultCognitionDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42538344
PMCPMC13427752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.