Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40757719›Full record

ArticleChild development

Nonverbal Rationality? 2-Year-Old Children, Dogs, and Pigs Show Unselective Responses to Unreliability but to Different Degrees.

Kirsten H Blakey, Eva Rafetseder, Giacomo Melis, Ariane Veit, Kea Amelung, Franziska Freudensprung, Kinga Kovacs, Zsófia Virányi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kirsten H BlakeyPhilosophy, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4347-6124
Eva RafetsederPsychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9816-8607
Giacomo MelisPhilosophy, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9084-884X
Ariane VeitMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4657-2296
Kea AmelungMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Franziska FreudensprungMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Kinga KovacsMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Zsófia VirányiMesserli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3963-8426

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/T042249/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some philosophers argue that reflection is key to rational thinking. By tying reflective thinking to language, they struggle to account for minimally verbal infants and exclude nonhuman animals. This study assessed processing of undermining defeaters-a basic form of reflective thinking-in 36 two-year-old British children (13 female; M

Indexed as

Child BehaviorChild DevelopmentNonverbal CommunicationThinkingAnimalsChild, PreschoolDogsFemaleHumansMaleSwinebelief revisionrational thinkingreflection

Identifiers

PMID40757719
PMCPMC12598444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.