Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37226682›Full record

ArticleChild development

Counterfactual choices and moral judgments in children.

Shalini Gautam, Ruby Owen Hall, Thomas Suddendorf, Jonathan Redshaw

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Child development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. The recursive grammar of mental time travel.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shalini GautamSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6565-7458
Ruby Owen HallSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Thomas SuddendorfSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Jonathan RedshawSchool of Psychology, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When making moral judgments of past actions, adults often think counterfactually about what could have been done differently. Considerable evidence suggests that counterfactual thinking emerges around age 6, but it remains unknown how this development influences children's moral judgments. Across two studies, Australian children aged 4-9 (N = 236, 142 Females) were told stories about two characters who had a choice that led to a good or bad outcome, and two characters who had no choice over a good or bad outcome. Results showed that 4- and 5-year-olds' moral judgments were influenced only by the actual outcome. From age 6, children's moral judgments were also influenced by the counterfactual choices that had been available to the characters.

Indexed as

JudgmentMoralsAdultAustraliaChildChild DevelopmentChild, PreschoolFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID37226682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.