ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2017
Wondering how: Children's and adults' explanations for mundane, improbable, and extraordinary events.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- "When something like a ladybug lands on you": Origins and development of the concept of luck.Developmental psychology · 2020Article
- Preface for the special issue on The Process of Explanation : Guest Editors: Andrei Cimpian (New York University) and Frank Keil (Yale University).Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children aged 5 through 9 years and adults judged the reality status of parallel mundane, improbable, and extraordinary events, generated an explanation for each event, and evaluated explanations purportedly generated by other participants. Participants of all ages claimed that mundane and improbable events could happen, whereas extraordinary events could not. Participants also overwhelmingly generated natural explanations for all three types of events but did so most for mundane, less for improbable, and least for extraordinary events. Supernatural explanations followed the reverse pattern, indicating that an event's possibility affects explanation. Participants also evaluated natural explanations most favorably and evaluated claims that there was no explanation for an event least favorably across all story types. However, significant rejection of the "no explanation" claim did not emerge until age 8 years, indicating that age affects acceptance of the idea that some events might be unexplainable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28176289What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.