{"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.
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.