Cited by 424Science Education and PedagogyEvolution and Science EducationEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions

Shtulman, Andrew, Valcarcel, Joshua·2012·Cognition

Abstract

When students learn scientific theories that conflict with their earlier, naïve theories, what happens to the earlier theories? Are they overwritten or merely suppressed? We investigated this question by devising and implementing a novel speeded-reasoning task. Adults with many years of science education verified two types of statements as quickly as possible: statements whose truth value was the same across both naïve and scientific theories of a particular phenomenon (e.g., "The moon revolves around the Earth") and statements involving the same conceptual relations but whose truth value differed across those theories (e.g., "The Earth revolves around the sun"). Participants verified the latter significantly more slowly and less accurately than the former across 10 domains of knowledge (astronomy, evolution, fractions, genetics, germs, matter, mechanics, physiology, thermodynamics, and waves), suggesting that naïve theories survive the acquisition of a mutually incompatible scientific theory, coexisting with that theory for many years to follow.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even for people who learned 'correlation is not causation' with classroom examples, it can still be challenging to apply their learning to new contexts.

    “Even for people who learned 'correlation is not causation' with classroom examples, it could still be challenging to apply their learning to new contexts [46, 38].”

    From Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data (2020) · cites this paper as [46]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J.
Affiliations
Occidental College (US)
Corresponding author
Shtulman, Andrew
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
124
Issue
2
Pages
209-215
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140347507
Cited by
418
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 4
FWCI
83.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (DRL-0953384)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
naive theories, scientific knowledge, intuitive theories, theory change, conceptual change, science education
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Science, Knowledge, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review