ArticlePloS one2024
Effects of group entitativity on young English-speaking children's interpretation of inclusive We.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pronoun we can be used to refer to various collections of people depending on various pragmatic factors. This article reports the results of two online experiments that investigated children's interpretation of inclusive we, in which the child-listener is part of the intended referent of we. 128 2- and 4-year-olds collaborated with three partners in a coloring task. Before they played together, one partner informed participants that, e.g., "we can color!" Participants had their own markers and had to choose to how many partners to distribute (virtual) markers. In the first experiment, the partners appeared more like an aggregation of individuals than a collaborative group. The second experiment flipped this so that the partners appeared more like a collaborative group. Contrary to expectations, there was relatively little evidence for development in children's interpretation of we. Additionally, participants did not sharply distinguish their interpretations of we from those of we both or we all. Rather, participants were more likely to choose group interpretations when contextual cues indicated that their partners were a collaborative group than an aggregation of individuals. Interestingly, this interpretational distinction was sharpest for the pragmatically ambiguous we, compared to the relatively unambiguous we both and we all. These results are informative about the kinds of cues that shape young children's interpretation of pragmatically ambiguous pronominal reference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.