ArticlePloS one2026
Literacy predicts performance on a second-order false-belief task.
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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.