ArticleDevelopmental science2026
Executive Function Costs of Fantastical Interference in Narrative Comprehension: A Response to Lillard's (2026) Commentary.
Article in Developmental science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Through bringing together previous findings from 16 studies involving 121 effect sizes (based on 1,297 1.5- to 6-year-olds), Hinten et al.'s (2025) meta-analysis revealed that children who viewed fantastical media in an experimental setting performed worse on inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility tasks immediately post-viewing compared to those exposed to realistic media. Lillard's (2026) commentary provided one potential explanation for our findings, revolving around the idea that processing fantastical content is cognitively taxing because it conflicts with existing schemas. In this response, we extend Lillard's (2026) perspective by drawing on Loschky et al.'s (2020) Scene Perception and Event Comprehension Theory (SPECT) to provide an additional explanation: Fantasy overloads children's executive functions because it interferes with their narrative comprehension. SUMMARY: We present a novel perspective on why fantastical media may have adverse, short-term effects on children's executive functioning. Children's executive functions may become overloaded while watching fantastical media because fantastical elements can detract from and hamper narrative comprehension processes.
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.