ArticleDevelopmental science2026
Development of Uncertainty Sensitivity: Early Competence or Protracted Development?
Article in Developmental science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of Uncertainty Sensitivity: Early Competence or Protracted Development?Developmental science · 2026Article
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
Abstract
The development of uncertainty sensitivity, a critical cognitive ability, presents a challenging paradox: Some evidence points to its emergence in infancy, whereas other evidence indicates much later emergence and protracted development. To resolve this paradox, we propose that early uncertainty sensitivity relies on perceptual cues to ignorance (e.g., occluded information), whereas uncertainty monitoring in the absence of such cues develops later. We tested this hypothesis using a random dot kinematogram task that manipulated uncertainty through signal-to-noise ratios, without perceptual cues to ignorance or knowledge. Participants aged 4-6 years and adults (N = 189) made perceptual judgments of the directionality of dot movement or opted out under varying uncertainty levels. While all groups demonstrated above-chance accuracy in perceptual judgments, children and adults differed markedly in their responses to uncertainty. Unlike adults, most children's decisions were not affected by uncertainty. These results suggest that without perceptual cues to ignorance, children struggle to detect, monitor, and respond to uncertainty. We propose that early uncertainty sensitivity found in some studies relies on perceptual cues to ignorance (i.e., bottom-up attentional mechanisms), with strategic uncertainty monitoring developing more gradually. Our findings help reconcile contradictory results in uncertainty sensitivity development and highlight the role of perceptual cues and metacognition in children's decision-making under uncertainty. SUMMARY: Children's uncertainty sensitivity often relies on perceptual cues to ignorance, whereas autonomous uncertainty monitoring without such cues develops later. Without perceptual cues to ignorance, only a minority of 4- to 6-year-olds exhibit uncertainty-driven behavior, despite above-chance perceptual discrimination. Our findings reconcile contradictory evidence about the early versus late emergence of uncertainty sensitivity in the developmental literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.