Cited by 119Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesChild and Animal Learning Development

Human development of the ability to learn from bad news

Open access
Moutsiana, Christina, Garrett, Neil, Clarke, Richard C., Lotto, R. Beau, Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne, Sharot, Tali·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Humans show a natural tendency to discount bad news while incorporating good news into beliefs (the “good news–bad news effect”), an effect that may help explain seemingly irrational risk taking. Understanding how this bias develops with age is important because adolescents are prone to engage in risky behavior; thus, educating them about danger is crucial. We reveal a striking valence-dependent asymmetry in how belief updating develops with age. In the ages tested (9–26 y), younger age was associated with inaccurate updating of beliefs in response to undesirable information regarding vulnerability. In contrast, the ability to update beliefs accurately in response to desirable information remained relatively stable with age. This asymmetry was mediated by adequate computational use of positive but not negative estimation errors to alter beliefs. The results are important for understanding how belief formation develops and might help explain why adolescents do not respond adequately to warnings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1305631110

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Children were more likely to update accurately for good news compared to bad news, and with age, the differences in updating between good news and bad news decreased and lost significance in adulthood.

    “Similarly, in a belief-updating task on good and bad news by Moutsiana et al., children were more likely to update accurately for good news compared to bad news, and with age, the differences in updating between good news and bad news decreased and lost significance in adulthood [43].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moutsiana, C., Garrett, N., Clarke, R. C., Lotto, R. B., Blakemore, S.-J., & Sharot, T.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-09-09
Volume
110
Issue
41
Pages
16396-16401
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2009127026
Cited by
119
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • WestminsterResearch (University of Westminster) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
belief updating, age differences, adolescents, risk-taking, estimation error, computational modeling, belief formation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Child, Decision Making, Humans, Learning, Risk-Taking

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