Dear Dr. Dotson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Asami Shinohara

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf-->--> -->-->2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.-->--> -->-->3. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.-->--> -->-->Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:-->--> -->-->-Name, initials, physical address-->-->-Ages more specific than whole numbers-->-->-Internet protocol (IP) address-->-->-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)-->-->-Contact information such as phone number or email address-->-->-Location data-->-->-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)-->--> -->-->Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.-->--> -->-->Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.-->--> -->-->Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.-->--> -->-->4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.-->--> -->-->5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. ?>

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and for your patience during the review process.

Your manuscript has been evaluated by peer reviewers with expertise in your field.

While the reviewers acknowledged the strengths of your work, they also raised significant concerns that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

In particular, the reviewers require you to clarify how the sample size was determined. They also noted errors in the statistical analysis, which should be carefully addressed.

Please review the reviewers’ comments and revise your manuscript with point-by-point responses. We do not encourage multiple rounds of major revision. Therefore, if the next revision does not provide satisfactory responses to the reviewers’ concerns, we will have to consider rejecting the manuscript.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  This paper examines how children reason about prosocial actions when a selfish intention is revealed after a prosocial behavior. The main finding is that when given a chance to reciprocate a prosocial act, children shared less when the puppet had previously demonstrated an undermining intention compared to a neutral one. However, children in the undermining condition did not show reduced liking or social bonding toward the selfish agent. I believe this paper makes a meaningful contribution to the field of prosocial development. I have several suggestions and questions regarding the current version of the manuscript:

1. On page 5, line 84, the authors state that they are interested in what happens when children initially believe one thing about a partner’s intentions and then receive contradictory evidence. They also mention they aim to investigate whether children engage in moral belief revision. However, the methodology does not include a measure of children’s beliefs about the partner’s initial intentions, nor does it directly assess belief revision. It is therefore unclear whether children inferred any intention at all prior to its revelation, or whether they had already assumed a selfish motive from the beginning.

2. I suggest the authors provide more justification for focusing solely on 5-year-olds, rather than including a broader age range. How might developmental differences affect the findings?

3. How was the sample size determined? Is it possible that the study is underpowered?

4. I found the procedure somewhat difficult to follow. In particular, the role of E3 was not immediately clear. I recommend providing a clearer description of E3’s function in the procedure.

5. The prosocial act performed by E2—allowing the child to play first—is relatively subtle. Would the results differ if the prosocial behavior were more direct or explicit, such as sharing or helping?

6. In the results section, I suggest including descriptive statistics for the liking, forced-choice, and social bonding measures. Additionally, it would be helpful to conduct analyses comparing performance to chance for each condition. For example, did children reciprocate significantly above chance in both the neutral and undermining conditions?

Reviewer #2: Summary

This study examined how the revelation of selfish intentions behind prosocial behavior affects children's reciprocity. When a puppet's prosocial behavior was followed by the revelation of selfish intent, 5-year-olds were less likely to behave reciprocally toward the puppet compared to when neutral (prosocial) intent was revealed. However, no differences were found between conditions in children's liking of the agent or social bonding measures.

General Comment

This paper addresses an interesting question about how children use information about hidden selfish intentions behind prosocial behavior in their reciprocal actions. Indeed, this research could potentially contribute new insights to our understanding of the development of reciprocity in children. However, this manuscript does not yet sufficiently meet the criteria upheld by this journal, particularly regarding research framing, erroneous analyses, and insufficient discussion.

Major Concerns

1. Research Framing

The introduction and discussion appear to be structured around two key concepts: reciprocity and belief revision. While I can understand that this is a study about reciprocity, the study's procedures and results do not support the claim that this is a study of belief revision.

The study's procedures only measure children's behavior and evaluations of/choices about the agent after intention disclosure. Therefore, the study fails to establish: (1) what beliefs children initially held about the prosocial agent, and (2) whether these beliefs changed "before and after" the presentation of intention information. The relationship between beliefs about prosocial behavior and evaluations of the agent (or whether such evaluations are included in beliefs) also remains unclear.

Therefore, what can be concluded from this study's results is simply that children's reciprocal behavior decreases when selfish intentions behind prosocial behavior are revealed. Consequently, the introduction and discussion need to be restructured to focus specifically on children's reciprocity and the relationship between prosocial behavior and intention.

2. Critical Errors in Statistical Analysis

The reporting of analytical results in this paper contains several critical errors and insufficiencies.

Insufficient Data Reporting: For the Liking score, Forced Choice, and Social Bonding results, only analytical results (mainly p-values) are described, making it completely unclear what the actual data patterns were. For example, regarding the Liking score, while we understand there was no group difference, it's unclear whether this means the agent was liked in both groups (mean scores close to 7) or disliked (close to 1). Without these detailed results, readers struggle to understand the findings, and any discussion derived from the data becomes thin or erroneous.

Social Bonding Analysis Errors: More problematic is the analysis and interpretation of Social Bonding results:

1. Incorrect test statistic: The authors report "t = -0.814" for ordinal logistic regression, but ordinal logistic regression uses Wald z-statistics or likelihood ratio tests, never t-statistics. The correct analysis and statistical values need verification.

2. Inappropriate interpretation of non-significant results: Despite the model being statistically non-significant (evident from both the p-value and 95% CI crossing zero), the authors inappropriately interpret odds ratios. When results are non-significant, such effect size interpretations should be avoided.

3. Sign inconsistency: The authors state log odds = -0.42, but then write "exp(.42) = 1.52 times higher," with the sign reversed. Following the log odds value, it should be "1.52 times lower."

4. Misinterpretation of ordinal logistic regression: The odds scale interpretation treats this as a binary comparison ("not waiting at all vs waiting after one or more prompts"). However, the coefficient represents the change in cumulative log odds for being in lower versus higher categories across all possible thresholds, not just a single binary comparison.

3. Insufficient Discussion

The discussion is superficially shallow overall, with little reference to prior research, resulting in mostly simple result descriptions and mere speculation. This is particularly problematic given that belief revision cannot be addressed. For example, regarding why group differences were observed in reciprocal behavior but not in liking or social bonding, many points remain to be discussed: why such results occurred, whether both results would be expected to align in older children or adults, and if so, what developmental factors might be involved. Even Vaish et al. (2018), cited in this paper, found that behavioral and evaluative results did not necessarily align, but they provided sufficient discussion of this point. Without deepening the discussion by referencing such prior research, this paper remains merely a report of results, with limited scholarly contribution.

Other Concerns & Minor comments

Unclear sample size determination:

While the study included 48 participants, the rationale for determining this sample size is not provided. Although 48 participants may not be considered too small, demonstrating that the sample size and analyses are appropriate is essential for establishing this as rigorous scientific psychological research.

Disorganized literature review:

Throughout the introduction, the positioning of prior research findings and this study is poorly organized, giving the impression of a list of prior studies related to keywords like prosocial behavior, moral judgment, intention, and reciprocity. What's important for deriving this study's research question is: (1) children engage in prosocial behavior and evaluate prosocial people positively, (2) reciprocity toward others' prosocial behavior is observed in children, and (3) intention information is used in evaluations of others and reciprocity. The literature review should focus on these points, then explain how this study's questions differ from prior research.

Unclear emphasis on "after":

Several places emphasize "after" in "selfish intention revealed after a prosocial behavior" with italics, but it's unclear why "after" is considered so important. This study did not examine the effects of when selfish intentions are revealed, nor was this timing emphasized in discussions of prior research. While this study does have a structure where selfish intentions are revealed after prosocial behavior, emphasizing "after" may mislead readers about the main research objective (i.e., whether selfish intent affects reciprocity).

Missing exclusion criteria:

The raw data suggests that several participants were excluded from analysis, but there is no description of exclusion criteria or the number of excluded participants. If specific exclusion criteria were established, they need to be clearly stated.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript examines how five‑year‑old children update social decisions when a helper’s selfish motive is revealed after a prosocial act. Primary result: reciprocity dropped when the selfish intention was revealed.

I think this paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature and can be published after a moderate revision.

Comments

1) The “neutral” condition is not neutral. The control puppet states, “I only let you play because I wanted you to have fun,” which is explicitly other‑regardingand morally positive, not neutral. This makes the contrast “self‑regarding vs. other‑regarding,” not “undermining vs. neutral,” and it may inflate differences in reciprocity by juxtaposing a plainly benevolent motive against a plainly selfish one. I recommend renaming conditions accordingly and, ideally, adding a true neutral motive.

2) Alternative explanation: equity repair rather than “moral belief revisionn. When E2 announces they got a cookie for letting the child play, children may infer an advantage accrued to E2. Choosing not to give the additional toy to E2 can be read as equity restoration (a fairness decision), not necessarily a revision of moral beliefs about intentions per se. The present design cannot distinguish “motive‑based discounting” from “resource‑balancing.”

3) Primary effect size and its reporting. The paper reports p = .009, but no effect size. Please report also an effect size.

4) Statistical inconsistency in the social‑bonding analysis. In the Results you write that the ordinal‑logit coefficient for the undermining condition is −0.42 (95% CI [−1.45, 0.59]) but then interpret the odds as exp(.42) = 1.52 times higher—this reverses the sign of the coefficient and converts a non‑significant, negative effect into a positive one. I think the correct transformation of −0.42 is exp(−0.42) ≈ 0.66 (i.e., ~34% lower odds), and the effect is non‑significant and should be interpreted accordingly.

5) Methodological details. You report a final N = 48 (24/condition) but do not state how many children were initially recruited, how many were excluded (e.g., those who did not say “now”), or why. CONSORT‑style accounting (or a simple flow diagram) is needed to assess selection bias. Please also specify how condition was randomly assigned, whether assignment was balanced across time of day/experimenter, and whether the live experimenter (E1) was blind to condition during outcome collection. Pre‑registration (if any) should be declared; otherwise, please say so explicitly.

6) Theoretical positioning. There is quite a lot of literature on moral preferences among adults, which I think is relevant here (e.g., Alger & Weibull, 2013; Capraro & Rand, 2018; Capraro & Perc, 2021; Basic & Verrina, 2024).

References

Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2013). Homo moralis—preference evolution under incomplete information and assortative matching. Econometrica, 81(6), 2269-2302.

Bašić, Z., & Verrina, E. (2024). Personal norms—and not only social norms—shape economic behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 239, 105255.

Capraro, V., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 99-111.

Capraro, V., & Perc, M. (2021). Mathematical foundations of moral preferences. Journal of the Royal Society interface, 18(175), 20200880.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript investigates how preschool-aged children evaluate prosocial actions when selfish intentions are revealed later on. Using a Zoom-based puppet paradigm, the authors tested whether five-year-old children would reciprocate prosocial behavior differently depending on whether the prosocial act was later framed as motivated by selfish versus neutral intentions. The study itself is well-designed and on an interesting topic within the domain of prosociality and intentions. However, I have a number of concerns about the manuscript:

My biggest concern is the review of the literature, both in breadth and recency. The reference list is extremely brief for such a well-studied topic, with one-fourth coming from the same research group and no citations beyond the year 2020. Several arguments made seem to be lacking appropriate citations. For example, the sections on children’s sensitivity to intentions can include works by Baird, Astington, Killen, Carey, Nielsen, Blake, and many more. Research by Baillargeon, Smetana, Harris, and others come to mind on the topic of the early development of reciprocity. The authors might also consider discussing connections to moral reasoning frameworks (e.g., Killen, Rutland). The literature included is also heavily US-centric, when many of the findings discussed have been replicated in other countries, which significantly undermines the impact of the work. On the topic of contradictory evidence, work on children’s ability to consider counterfactuals may help inform hypotheses and/or make sense of the results. Overall, the research groups I’ve suggested is only a small portion of the relevant literature.

The methodology and results section were very brief and skewed informal in tone. Despite a very small sample size, there is no discussion of power analysis to support or justify it; as a result, I am skeptical about the rigorousness of the statistical analyses conducted. There is no discussion of preregistration -- and if that is the case this should be acknowledged in the main text. Statistical reporting do not follow APA style. Description of the measures are inconsistent (for example, for social evaluation the authors specify it is forced choice, but do not elaborate for the reciprocity measure).

For discussion, the exploration of why they find a significant difference in reciprocity but not social evaluation is very brief and could be expanded – likely after a more thorough literature review is conducted on the topic. There is also no explicit discussion for the social bonding results. Overall, the contribution is difficult to judge due to the lack of depth in interpreting the results.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Rizu Toda

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Dotson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Asami Shinohara

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

Your manuscript has been evaluated by the peer reviewers from the previous round.

While two reviewers accepted the paper, one reviewer still has concerns that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

Therefore, I invite you to revise your manuscript.

Please review the reviewer’s comments and revise your manuscript with point-by-point responses.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I find the revisions satisfactory and do not have further comments. The authors have addressed all of my concerns raised in the previous round of review with care and clarity.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this research again. I acknowledge that the authors have made numerous revisions in response to reviewer feedback, particularly regarding the framing of the study and the analysis and interpretation of results. However, these revisions leave fundamental issues concerning the positioning and significance of this research unresolved, and raise additional concerns.

The primary issue is that the shallow discussion in the Introduction and Discussion remains unaddressed. While the authors' decision to remove the brief revision discussion and focus on the relationship between reciprocity and intention has improved alignment between the Introduction and the experimental content, the literature review remains superficial. As Reviewers 3 and 4 noted in the previous round, prosocial behavior and reciprocity are extensively researched topics. Due to the insufficient review and discussion of this substantial body of work, it remains unclear what novel contribution this study makes to this well-established field.

More specifically, the Introduction notes that numerous studies have already demonstrated that young children consider agents' intentions when engaging in prosocial and reciprocal behaviors. What, then, distinguishes this study from prior work? Why does the current research question arise from these existing findings? The current Introduction presents prior findings and the current study in somewhat disconnected manner, obscuring the study's significance.

Below are additional detailed comments on specific sections.

<introduction>

In reviewing the literature on prosociality and reciprocity, findings from infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are sometimes conflated under the term "young children." Given that age is crucial for understanding development, the review should clearly specify which developmental stage each finding pertains to.

The Introduction presents research on adult behavioral economics and introduces the homo moralis model, which appears irrelevant to this study. If this model underlies the research and testing its applicability to children is important, this should be discussed in the Discussion section (currently, it is mentioned only in this Introduction paragraph). Otherwise, it is misleading and should either be removed or reframed.

The rationale for including "willingness to play with E2" and "social bonding" as dependent variables is unclear. I understood that prize allocation to E2 measures reciprocity and liking scores assess evaluation of E2. The purpose of the remaining two measures needs explanation in either the Introduction or Methods. Clarifying this would enable deeper discussion of why reciprocity showed condition differences while the other three measures did not.

<methods>

The Methods section remains unclear in places. For example, were questions about reciprocity, social evaluation, and social bonding counterbalanced? How was the new toy (colorful bouncy ball) introduced to children?

<results>

P-value reporting is inconsistent (e.g., p = 0.009, p < 0.01, p = .812). Please standardize the format for accurate reporting.

<discussion>

Lines 279-281 (p. 14) state: "Taken together, our results provide evidence that children considered the prosocial action, the revealed intention, and their own personal benefits." However, the experiment does not demonstrate consideration of personal benefits. Since the ball given to E2 belonged to E1, not the participant, it had no impact on the participant's personal benefits.

Lines 300-307 (p. 15) propose belief revision to explain why only reciprocity was affected by intention. However, this explanation is insufficient for why reciprocity alone was influenced. Moreover, given the partial effects observed, it is premature to conclude that children revise moral beliefs similarly to physical and social beliefs. If discussing belief revision, you must explain why intention information revised beliefs about the prosocial act but left beliefs about the agent unaffected.

In summary, while the authors' substantial revisions have improved the manuscript from its initial version, it remains unclear what contribution this research makes to the extensive existing literature on this topic.</discussion></results></methods></introduction>

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

<p>When revealed after the fact, selfish intentions undermine prosocial actions in 5-year-olds

PONE-D-25-28793R2

Dear Dr. Dotson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Asami Shinohara

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********