The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
Carey, S. E. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1037/e513702014-002 · Cited by 2,324
Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time
Boroditsky, L. (2001) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 · Cited by 1,815
How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1192788 · Cited by 1,815
Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change
Vosniadou, S. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3 · Cited by 1,421
Toward an Epistemology of Physics
diSessa, A. A. (1993) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008 · Cited by 1,351
Toward an epistemology of physics
diSessa, A. A. (1993) · Cited by 1,265
Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics
Clement, J. (1982) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.12989 · Cited by 1,258
The Child's Conception of Physical Causality
P., J., Piaget, J., & Gabain, M. (1932) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1415393 · Cited by 1,176
From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts
Michelene, T. H., Slotta, J. D., & Leeuw, N. D. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5 · Cited by 990
Cognitive Development: Foundational Theories Of Core Domains
Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (1992) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002005 · Cited by 986
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372
Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.916216 · Cited by 393
Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis
Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2021) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700 · Cited by 314
The Development of Students' Understanding of Science
Vosniadou, S. (2019) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00032 · Cited by 212
Garrett, R., Nisbet, E. C., & Lynch, E. K. (2013) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12038 · Cited by 180
Metadata
- Authors
- Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J.
- Affiliations
- Occidental College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shtulman, Andrew
- ORCID
- 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
