Not just social networks: How people infer relations from mutual connections.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.3758/s13423-024-02603-3
Claudia G Sehl, Stephanie Denison, Ori Friedman
{"title":"Not just social networks: How people infer relations from mutual connections.","authors":"Claudia G Sehl, Stephanie Denison, Ori Friedman","doi":"10.3758/s13423-024-02603-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People can infer relationships from incomplete information about social networks. We examined whether these inferences depend on domain-specific knowledge about social relationships or instead depend on domain-general statistical reasoning. In five preregistered experiments, participants (total N = 1,424) saw two target entities and their connections to others in social, semisocial, and nonsocial networks. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants made similar judgments across social and nonsocial networks: with greater proportion of mutual connections and number of connections, the two entities were judged as more likely to be connected to each other. These findings support the domain-general account. The next experiments provided further support for this account, while also investigating the question of whether people use mutual connections to infer the broader structure of networks. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants were asked whether entities connected to both targets were connected to each other, and judgments were hardly affected by network information. In Experiment 5, participants judged connections were more likely when entities were connected to both targets rather than when they were connected to only one. Overall, the findings support the domain-general account of network inferences and further suggest that participants' inferences primarily concerned target entities and not the broader structure of the network.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02603-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People can infer relationships from incomplete information about social networks. We examined whether these inferences depend on domain-specific knowledge about social relationships or instead depend on domain-general statistical reasoning. In five preregistered experiments, participants (total N = 1,424) saw two target entities and their connections to others in social, semisocial, and nonsocial networks. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants made similar judgments across social and nonsocial networks: with greater proportion of mutual connections and number of connections, the two entities were judged as more likely to be connected to each other. These findings support the domain-general account. The next experiments provided further support for this account, while also investigating the question of whether people use mutual connections to infer the broader structure of networks. In Experiments 3 and 4, participants were asked whether entities connected to both targets were connected to each other, and judgments were hardly affected by network information. In Experiment 5, participants judged connections were more likely when entities were connected to both targets rather than when they were connected to only one. Overall, the findings support the domain-general account of network inferences and further suggest that participants' inferences primarily concerned target entities and not the broader structure of the network.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不仅仅是社交网络:人们如何从相互联系中推断关系
人们可以从社交网络的不完整信息中推断出各种关系。我们研究了这些推断是依赖于特定领域的社会关系知识,还是依赖于一般领域的统计推理。在五个预先注册的实验中,参与者(总人数 = 1,424)看到了两个目标实体及其在社交、半社交和非社交网络中与他人的联系。在实验 1 和 2 中,参与者在社交网络和非社交网络中做出了相似的判断:相互连接的比例和连接的数量越大,这两个实体被判断为更有可能相互连接。这些发现支持了领域一般解释。接下来的实验进一步支持了这一观点,同时还研究了人们是否利用相互连接来推断更广泛的网络结构这一问题。在实验 3 和实验 4 中,参与者被问及与两个目标相连的实体是否相互连接,他们的判断几乎不受网络信息的影响。在实验 5 中,当实体同时与两个目标相连时,被试判断相互连接的可能性更大,而当实体只与一个目标相连时,被试判断相互连接的可能性更小。总之,实验结果支持网络推断的领域一般解释,并进一步表明参与者的推断主要涉及目标实体,而不是更广泛的网络结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
期刊最新文献
Similarity in feature space dictates the efficiency of attentional selection during ensemble processing. The self-relevant spotlight metaphor: Self-relevant targets diminish distractor-response-binding effects. Optimal metacognitive decision strategies in signal detection theory. Readers may not integrate words strictly in the order in which they appear in Chinese reading. Further perceptions of probability: Accurate, stepwise updating is contingent on prior information about the task and the response mode.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1