Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42685114›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Literacy predicts performance on a second-order false-belief task.

Tan Arda Gedik, Vania De la Garza, Ewa Dabrowska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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

3 authors.

Tan Arda GedikDepartment of Psychology, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1429-9675
Vania De la GarzaLehrstuhl für Language and Cognition, Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Ewa DabrowskaLehrstuhl für Language and Cognition, Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vast majority of research on false-belief understanding has been conducted with literate populations. However, to our knowledge, no prior study has examined how literacy acquisition itself influences false-belief reasoning. The development of false-belief understanding is shaped by a range of factors, including language skills, education, reading experience, and cognitive abilities. Illiterate speakers often show substantial variability in language skills and cognitive abilities. In this study, we investigated the impact of nonverbal IQ, inhibitory control, and reading fluency on false-belief understanding in adult native Turkish speakers, comparing literate and illiterate participants. We found considerable individual differences in false-belief performance across both groups, as well as in the cognitive measures. Strikingly, reading fluency (assessed via a 1-minute timed word-reading task) emerged as the most significant predictor of false-belief performance, accounting for 49% of the variance. We propose that literacy acquisition may support the development of false-belief reasoning by enhancing language skills, cognitive control, metalinguistic awareness, and perspective-taking through engagement with written narratives. These findings carry broader implications for psychology, linguistics, and adult education.

Indexed as

CultureLiteracyAdultCognitionComprehensionFemaleHumansLanguageMaleReadingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42685114
PMCPMC13537559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.