Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-lqwgf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-28T03:00:44.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relational models are too elaborate for basic social relationship reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Lindsey J. Powell Open the ORCID record for Lindsey J. Powell [Opens in a new window]  and
Rodney Tompkins Open the ORCID record for Rodney Tompkins [Opens in a new window]
Lindsey J. Powell*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, USA ljpowell@ucsd.edu rtompkins@ucsd.edu
Rodney Tompkins
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, USA ljpowell@ucsd.edu rtompkins@ucsd.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thomas proposes that infants use relational models to reason about interactions between relationship partners. However, many basic social interactions do not contain enough information to differentiate between models. We propose that both basic interaction reasoning and the formation of diverse, culturally relevant relationship categories are better accounted for by positing relationship features that can be flexibly combined.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e44
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 64, 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doan, T., Ong, D. C., & Wu, Y. (2024). Emotion understanding as third-person appraisals: Integrating appraisal theories with developmental theories of emotion. Psychological Review, 132(1), 130–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000507 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earp, B. D., McLoughlin, K. L., Monrad, J. T., Clark, M. S., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments. Nature Communications, 12, Article 5776. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26067-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennessy, V., Spelke, E. S., & Powell, L. J. (2025). Infants’ recognition of social conventions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 47, 1350–1356.Google Scholar
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2016). The naïve utility calculus: Computational principles underlying commonsense psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(8), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.05.011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, K., Smith-Flores, A. S., Liang, K. N., Ong, D. C., & Powell, L. J. (2025). Vicarious emotion predictions integrate information about relationship strength. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 47, 372–378.Google Scholar
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., Sullivan, K. R., & Kinzler, K. D. (2016). Early emerging system for reasoning about the social nature of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(34), 9480–9485. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605456113 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mascaro, O., & Csibra, G. (2012). Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(18), 6862–6867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, L. J. (2022). Adopted utility calculus: Origins of a concept of social affiliation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1215–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211048487 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, L. J., & Winkielman, P. (2024). Watching others mirror: Explaining the range of third-party inferences from imitation. In Genschow, O. & Cracco, E. (Eds.). Automatic Imitation (pp. 333–351). Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Quillen, T. (2023). Rational information search in welfare-tradeoff cognition. Cognition, 231, Article 105317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith-Flores, A. S., & Powell, L. J. (2023). Joint reasoning about social affiliation and emotion. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00181-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2022). What Babies Know. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatone, D., & Csibra, G. (2020). Infants infer different types of social relations from giving and taking actions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 42, 2980–2986. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4fc5w6m2 Google Scholar
Tatone, D., Geraci, A., & Csibra, G. (2015). Giving and taking: Representational building blocks of active resource-transfer events in human infants. Cognition, 137, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.12.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, A. J., Woo, B. M., Nettle, D., Spelke, E. S., & Saxe, R. (2022). Early concepts of intimacy: Young humans use saliva sharing to infer close relationships. Science, 375(6578), 311–315. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh1054 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, R., Vasquez, K., Gerdin, E., Dunham, Y., & Liberman, Z. (2024). Expectations of intergroup empathy bias emerge by early childhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(11), 2700–2714. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001505 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, R., & Powell, L. J. (2025). Early evaluations of caregivers who help and hinder safe and dangerous goals. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 47, 4079–4086.Google Scholar