Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42234212›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2026

Children require more evidence to revise beliefs under gradual perceptual change.

Elisabeth Stöttinger, Beate Priewasser, Eva Rafetseder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 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

3 authors.

Elisabeth StöttingerUniversity of Sustainability - Charlotte Fresenius Privatuniversität, Christine-Touaillon- Straße 11/1, Vienna, 1220, Austria. elisabeth.stoettinger@uni-sustainability.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4544-8944
Beate PriewasserUniversity Hospital of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Salzburg, 5020, Austria.
Eva RafetsederUniversity of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9816-8607

Funding

Austrian Science Fund V480-B27UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship MR/T042249/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rafetseder et al. (2021) were the first to demonstrate that children have difficulty revising their beliefs when objects morphed from one object (e.g. a rabbit) into another (e.g. a duck). Children aged four to eight reported the second object significantly later than adults. This is surprising, because both children and adults were presented with the same initial information ("it is a rabbit") and were exposed to the same contradictory visual evidence. We conducted three experiments to replicate the results and to and explore reasons for children's delayed belief revision. In Experiment 1 (N = 58; 3- to 6-year-olds), we demonstrated that children only struggle to identify the second object in the gradual condition, while displaying adult-like categorical perception when the same images were presented individually outside of the morphing context. In Experiment 2 (N = 86; 6- to 11-year-olds), we found that only children aged 9 years and over showed a similar pattern to adults, and that a global processing style facilitated identification of the second object. In Experiment 3 (N = 47, 5- to 6-year-olds), when children were explicitly informed of the two possible interpretations of the morphed images, their performance improved, although not to the level observed in the individual condition of Experiment 1. These findings suggest that children of different ages struggle to revise their beliefs in a gradually changing environment for different reasons. While older children may use less efficient, potentially local, exploration strategies, younger children may have difficulties with mental imagery.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentConcept FormationPattern Recognition, VisualThinkingVisual PerceptionChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleBelief revisionLocal vs. global processingVisual imagery

Identifiers

PMID42234212
PMCPMC13234064

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.