Young children distinguish the impossible from the merely improbable
Open accessAbstract
From infancy, children show heightened interest in events that are impossible or improbable, relative to likely events. Do young children represent impossible and improbable events as points on a continuum of possibility, or do they instead treat them as categorically distinct? Here, we compared 2- and 3-y-old children’s learning (N = 335) following nearly identical events that were equi-probable, improbable, or impossible. We found that children learned significantly better following impossible than possible events, no matter how unlikely. We conclude that young children distinguish between the impossible and the merely improbable.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration
Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa3799 · Cited by 617 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- [1]E. S. Spelke, K. Breinlinger, J. Macomber, K. Jacobson, Origins of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 99, 605 (1992). 1454901
- [2]F. Xu, V. Garcia, Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 5012– 5015 (2008). 18378901 PMC2278207
- [3]E. Téglás, V. Girotto, M. Gonzalez, L. L. Bonatti, Intuitions of probabilities shape expectations about the future at 12 months and beyond. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 19156– 19159 (2007). 18025482 PMC2141924
- [5]M. Oaksford, N. Chater, Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning (Oxford University Press, 2007). 19210833
- [6]A. Shtulman, S. Carey, Improbable or impossible? How children reason about the possibility of extraordinary events. Child Dev. 78, 1015– 1032 (2007). 17517019
- [7]A. Shtulman, B. Phillips, Differentiating “could” from “should”: Developmental changes in modal cognition. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 165, 161– 182 (2018). 28648467
- [9]A. E. Stahl, L. Feigenson, Expectancy violations promote learning in young children. Cognition 163, 1– 14 (2017). 28254617 PMC5837281
- [10]B. P. Leahy, S. E. Carey, The acquisition of modal concepts. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24, 65– 78 (2020). 31870542
- [11]M. I. Foster, M. T. Keane, M.T., Why some surprises are more surprising than others: Surprise as a metacognitive sense of explanatory difficulty. Cogn. Psychol. 81, 74– 116 (2015). 26330382
- [12]F. Margoni, L. Surian, R. Baillargeon, The violation-of-expectation paradigm: A conceptual overview. Psychol. Rev. 131, 716– 748 (2023). 37917445
- [13]J. Perez, L. Feigenson, Violations of expectation trigger infants to search for explanations. Cognition 218, 104942 (2022). 34740084
- [14]A. E. Stahl, L. Woods, Infants preferentially learn from surprising teachers. Infancy 27, 887– 899 (2022). 35616335
- [15]K. Halvor Teigen, M. Juanchich, A. H. Riege, Improbable outcomes: Infrequent or extraordinary? Cognition 127, 119– 139 (2023). 23376297
- [16]A. E. Stahl, L. Feigenson, Data from “Young children distinguish the impossible from the merely improbable.” Harvard Dataverse. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/ZQ1PF9. Deposited 18 July 2024. PMC11573604 39495919 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Logical Concepts of (Im)possibility Guide Young Children's Decision‐Making
Cesana‐Arlotti, N., Jáuregui, S., Mazalik, P., Nichols, S., & Halberda, J. (2025) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.70044 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Children’s reasoning about possible outcomes of events in the present and the future
Küçük, E. N., & Kibbe, M. M. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vudfm · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L.
- Affiliations
- The College of New Jersey (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stahl, Aimee E.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2024-11-04
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 46
- Pages
- e2411297121-e2411297121
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC11573604
- OpenAlex
- W4404024943
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- HHS | NIH (R21 HD077407)
- NSF (2044433)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- impossible events, young children, probability judgment, cognitive development, contingency learning
- MeSH terms
- Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Learning, Male
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
