ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
The contributions of language and inhibitory control to false belief reasoning over time.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. 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.
- Language and cognitive function in children: a narrative review of neural, behavioral, and developmental evidence.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Language and "Theory of Mind" development of bilingual and monolingual children in Bulgaria.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Introduction: The role of language in false belief reasoning has been much debated for twenty-five years or more, especially the relative contributions of general language development, complement syntax, vocabulary, and executive function. However, the empirical studies so far have fallen short, in that they generally have too few participants for adequate statistical modeling; they do not include control variables; or they are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal, making inferences about causal direction much more tenuous. Methods: The present study considers the role of these different variables in the development of false belief reasoning over several months of testing, with 258 children aged three to five years. The children are also from under-resourced communities, broadening the populations that generally contribute such data. Results: A cross-sectional and a longitudinal regression analysis reveals the contribution of each variable to the children's success on the false belief measures. Finally, a structural equation model tests the relative contribution of the different potential factors over time, how they interact, and change. The model is an excellent fit to the data. Inhibitory control, complement comprehension and vocabulary all have effects on false belief reasoning at the first time point (T1). However, at T3, the major proximal contribution is the child's comprehension of complements, though the longitudinal pathways of vocabulary and inhibitory control also pave the way. Discussion: Our data confirm the specific contribution of complement syntax but also makes clear, as do training studies, that a certain amount of preparedness in vocabulary and in executive function skills is also necessary.
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.