Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41849265›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2026

Doll play improves false belief reasoning: Evidence from a randomized-control trial.

Sarah A Gerson, Jennifer Keating, Salim Hashmi, Ross E Vanderwert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sarah A GersonCardiff University Centre for Human Developmental Science (CUCHDS), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8710-1178
Jennifer KeatingCardiff University Centre for Human Developmental Science (CUCHDS), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5930-8080
Salim HashmiDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2022-5851
Ross E VanderwertCardiff University Centre for Human Developmental Science (CUCHDS), School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2280-8401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Play is often described as a child's "occupation," both because young children spend the majority of their time playing when given the option and because it is a critical mechanism through which children learn both cognitive and socio-emotional skills. In a randomized control trial (N = 73), we found the first causal evidence that doll play, more so than creative tablet play, improves false belief understanding in 4- to 8-year-old children following a six week long play intervention. Improvements in false belief were particularly strong for children who had more parent-reported peer problems. Consistent with prior research, children were more likely to play socially with dolls than socially with tablets during the intervention period and were more likely to use internal state language about others when playing with dolls than with tablets (when observed in the laboratory). Together, this shows that doll play may be an important play pattern for practicing and improving social processing skills like false belief reasoning. The mechanism underlying this improvement requires further investigation, but we speculate that dolls may encourage social interaction and further practice of these skills outside of social interactions.

Indexed as

Play and PlaythingsChildChild, PreschoolCognitionFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41849265
PMCPMC12998878

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.