Cited by 661Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentLanguage Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding

de Villiers, Jill G., Pyers, Jennie E.·2002·Cognitive Development

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0885-2014(02)00073-4

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. E.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Cognitive Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
1037-1060
ISSN
0885-2014 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2098767455
Cited by
661
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 23
FWCI
33.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cognitive Development (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
false belief understanding, theory of mind, complex syntax, language development, preschool children, language comprehension, language production

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