One in 4 Americans supports MAHA, but three times as many share food-related concerns

Annenberg survey shows priorities for MAHA supporters and nonsupporters

Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

image: 

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, April 2026. See topline for details.

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center

PHILADELPHIA — The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement emerged as part of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign following former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s endorsement of Trump. Kennedy has predicted that the movement will be a factor in the forthcoming 2026 midterms. Now serving as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, RFK Jr., who has been campaigning for Republicans, told the Daily Signal in August: “Everywhere we go, we’re seeing incredible enthusiasm from the MAHA movement for this administration, so I think it’s going to be an important factor [in the midterms].”

In two nationally representative surveys this year, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) asked a panel of U.S. adults about MAHA-related policies, developing a portrait of MAHA supporters’ policy preferences. One Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey was conducted April 14-28, 2026, among 1,639 adults; the second was conducted Aug. 4-17, 2026, among 1,904 adults. See the end of this release or the topline for more information.

“The findings suggest that it’s important to distinguish support for MAHA from support for specific MAHA policies,” said Laura A. Gibson, an APPC research analyst. “Many people who say they don’t support the movement nonetheless share its concerns about additives, chemicals, and highly processed foods.”

The findings come amid possible signs of fracturing in the MAHA coalition’s support for the Trump administration. On Oct. 8, a group of MAHA loyalists issued a “scorecard” in which they said that the administration had “partially kept” five promises to Make America Healthy Again but had broken 37 others.  

A quarter of Americans support MAHA

In our April survey, 1 in 4 (26%) respondents say they are supporters of MAHA, 40% say they are not supporters of MAHA, and a third (33%) say they are not sure whether they support MAHA. (A different survey in April, by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found more people (41%) who said they are MAHA supporters and more (58%) who said they are not. In APPC’s survey, support and nonsupport both are lower because it included an explicit “or are you not sure” option.)

Politically, MAHA supporters are more likely than nonsupporters to identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents and to have a household income between $50,000 to $100,000 (middle income). About half of Republicans and Republican-leaners say they are MAHA supporters (51%), compared with 8% of Democrats and Democrat-leaners, and 16% of independents. Among Democrats, two in three (67%) say they do not support MAHA, compared with 14% of Republicans and 34% of independents. Just over half of independents (51%) report being not sure whether they support MAHA, compared with 35% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats.

Half of respondents with a household income over $100,000 say they are not MAHA supporters (50%), compared with 39% of those with a household income less than $50,000 and 32% of those with middle income. Just over a third of respondents with a middle income said they are MAHA supporters (37%), compared with 22% of those with a higher income and 21% with a lower income.

What do people in the MAHA movement support?

We asked about 17 health policy positions associated with the MAHA movement, some of which have become or are in the process of becoming official U.S. MAHA policy. We consulted several sources to build our list, including the 2025 executive order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission, the administration’s MAHA strategy, and the MAHA Action Candidate Pledge. Policy items included regulating additives in food, banning glyphosate (the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup), labeling ultra-processed foods, and reducing the number of childhood vaccines recommended by the CDC.

The graphics here show the findings by total respondents; those who say they are a supporter of the MAHA movement; those who say they are not a supporter of MAHA; and those who are not sure whether they support MAHA. The results described in the text focus on those who explicitly say they do – and those who say they do not – support MAHA.

Across all groups, favorability is high for all six of the MAHA agenda issues about regulating chemicals and additives in foods and processed foods. On average, 73% of all respondents favor these issues (83% of MAHA supporters and 73% of non-MAHA supporters). When asked to prioritize the 17 MAHA agenda issues, more MAHA supporters and nonsupporters selected these six items as being among their “Top 3” health issues (21%-60% selected them) than the other 11 MAHA proposals (2%-18%).

Regulating chemical additives in food was the leading priority for MAHA supporters, nonsupporters, and those unsure about MAHA. Removing highly processed foods from school lunches also ranked near the top for all three groups. Banning glyphosate was also a top priority. (For more detail on attitudes toward glyphosate, see the APPC release in August.) The only significant difference in priorities between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters is in labeling ultra-processed foods: More nonsupporters put it in their Top 3 (31%) than MAHA supporters (21%).

MAHA supporters trust their personal healthcare providers

Support for MAHA does not suggest a broad distrust of medical professionals. Like survey respondents who do not support MAHA, MAHA supporters are overwhelmingly confident that their own doctor, nurse, or other primary healthcare provider is offering them trustworthy public health information (85% MAHA supporters and 91% nonsupporters, a statistically significant difference).

The April survey found a similar pattern when respondents were asked to choose between relying on trained medical professionals and relying primarily on their own judgment when making medical care and food choices for their family. Overall, 81% of U.S. adults chose doctors and health professionals over their own judgment. There was a significant difference between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters but both showed overall high rates of support for medical professionals (69% of MAHA supporters and 88% of nonsupporters).

Similar perceptions of the CDC and FDA but not the NIH

Similar proportions of MAHA supporters and nonsupporters say they are confident that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides the public with trustworthy information about matters concerning public health (57% and 58%, respectively), according to our August survey. Similar proportions also are confident in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – 58% of MAHA supporters and 62% of nonsupporters. Fewer MAHA supporters, however, say they are very confident: 6% compared with 16% of nonsupporters.

A significant difference between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters involves confidence in the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Only half of MAHA supporters express confidence in NIH, compared with 63% of nonsupporters.

The greatest difference between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters concerns confidence in HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a source of trustworthy public health information. In August, 75% of MAHA supporters say they are confident that Kennedy is providing trustworthy information about public health, compared with 12% of nonsupporters.

Favorability toward the political figures most closely associated with the movement shows similarly large differences. Sixty-two percent of MAHA supporters have a favorable opinion of Kennedy, compared with 4% of non-MAHA supporters. And 65% of MAHA supporters have a favorable opinion of President Donald Trump, compared with 5% of non-MAHA supporters.

“This pattern suggests that MAHA support is much more strongly associated with attitudes toward Kennedy himself than with rejection of the federal public health agencies he oversees,” said Ken Winneg, APPC’s managing director of survey research.
 

Vaccine policies show some of the greatest differences

In general, policies regarding vaccines produce some of the sharpest differences between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters. But the vaccine-related policies are less popular than the six food-related policies – and even among MAHA supporters, most get barely a majority in favorability.

Among all of the vaccine policies, the biggest gap in favorability between MAHA supporters and nonsupporters is for reducing the number of childhood vaccines recommended by the CDC, favored by 53% of MAHA supporters but 7% of nonsupporters. Replacing vaccine requirements with shared clinical decision-making shows a similar split (53% of MAHA supporters favor it vs. 15% of nonsupporters). Ending vaccine mandates in schools garners less support among both MAHA supporters (35%) and MAHA nonsupporters (4%).

MAHA supporters are much more likely than nonsupporters to rank reducing the number of CDC-recommended childhood vaccines among their Top 3 issues (17% vs. 6%). Even so, with only 17% of MAHA supporters putting it among their Top 3 issues, it is a lower priority than the food-related policies, which receive from 21%-60% support.

Low priorities: Raw milk sales and ending public water fluoridation

In addition to asking which three policies were the most important, the August survey asked which three policies were the least important. Making it easier to sell raw milk was the lowest priority among the 17 policies across all groups. It was among the bottom three issues for 31% of MAHA supporters and 38% for MAHA nonsupporters. Ending fluoridation was also a low priority: It was among the bottom three issues for 24% of MAHA supporters and 31% of nonsupporters.

About the survey

The survey data come from the 29th and 30th waves of the ASAPH survey, a nationally representative panel of U.S. adults conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews for wave 29 were conducted by web and telephone April 14-28, 2026, among 1,639 U.S. adults. The margin of sampling error is ±3.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Wave 30 included 1,904 U.S. adults and was conducted Aug. 4-17, 2026. Reported August data are limited to the 1,475 respondents who also completed the April survey (90% of April respondents did) with a margin of sampling error of ±3.5 percentage points. Data were weighted to represent the U.S. adult population.

For more information, download the topline and methodology reports.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, climate and other consequential health issues through its Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) survey panel. In addition to Gibson and Winneg, the ASAPH survey team includes Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, which oversees the survey; research analyst Shawn Patterson Jr.; and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, APPC director emerita.

See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:

• 988 Lifeline: Knowledge of the 988 Suicide Lifeline remains low (Oct. 9, 2026)
• RFK Jr. and the measles vaccine: About 1 in 3 Americans Say RFK Jr. Recommends Measles Vaccine (Sept. 29, 2026)
• Confidence in public health officials: Public confidence in Fauci declines since spring, but still exceeds RFK Jr. (Sept. 9, 2026)
• Confidence in healthcare providers: Public confidence in one’s own healthcare provider remains high (Aug. 31, 2026)
• Banning glyphosate: Bipartisan majorities in U.S. favor banning glyphosate  (Aug. 20, 2026)

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

---

Method of Research

Survey

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, April 2026. See topline for details.

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey, August 2026. See topline for details.

 

Habitat quality accounts for shifts in Finnish species more than the climate

According to a study published by researchers at the University of Helsinki, habitat degradation threatens Finnish biodiversity more than the public discourse focused on climate change might suggest.

University of Helsinki

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

image: 

Forested areas accommodate different species communities than agricultural environments or wetlands, and species are lost if their habitats are altered.

view more 

Credit: Pinja Kettunen

Researchers at the University of Helsinki wanted to understand which is the dominant factor for species occurrence and abundance: the climate or habitat-related variables, such as their natural state and the share of land shaped by human activity. Solutions to mitigate biodiversity loss depend on the answer to this question.

Contrary to the researchers' expectations, habitat composition offers a better explanation than the climate for the occurrence and abundance of most animal groups. This conclusion highlights the importance of land-use planning in safeguarding biodiversity.

“The habitat proved to be of special importance to butterflies, birds, and small mammals. As for large mammals and moths, the relative importance of the habitat and climate were equal,” explains Emy Guilbault, the article’s lead author.

The study examined 503 terrestrial animal species, including changes in their occurrence, over a period of 20 years. The data covered the whole of Finland with all its climatic zones.  Analysing more than three million observations required the use of advanced statistical methods. 

Climate accounts for differences between north and south, while habitats explain local variation

The climate is the best explanation for the observed variation in species communities from year to year as well as between more extensive geographical areas, such as Southern and Northern Finland. Tackling climate change is essential in order to retain the distinctive characteristics of northern and southern fauna.

In contrast, the importance of habitats increases when variation in biodiversity is examined locally and regionally.  Forested areas accommodate different species communities than agricultural environments or wetlands, and species are lost if their habitats are altered. Consequently, land-use decisions greatly impact the occurrence and location of species communities.

Species-specific characteristics determine the dominant factor

The study also investigated the impact of what are known as functional traits of species on the results. For example, body size, reproductive cycle rate, and degree of specialisation affect the extent to which the climate and habitat determine species occurrence and abundance.

In almost all taxonomic groups, species with slow reproductive cycles were more sensitive to climatic conditions than species with faster ones. Similarly, small mammals preferring a specific habitat or food were dependent on the climate, while the importance of the habitat was more prominent in larger, less specialised mammalian species. 

For birds, butterflies and moths, body size or degree of specialisation had no effect on which – the climate or habitat quality – was more dominant.

Biodiversity decline cannot be explained by climate change only

The researchers believe that biodiversity loss in Finland cannot be attributed to climate change alone.

“In many cases, land use can have an even more decisive impact on species, especially locally and regionally. At the same time, climate change and habitats cannot be completely separated from each other, because it is together that they will determine the state of our species communities in the coming decades,” says Guilbault.

The climate and habitats have significant combined effects on biodiversity, as species are forced to simultaneously adapt to the changing climate and habitat degradation. 

“To preserve biodiversity, we should put greater effort into the protection and restoration of the remaining habitats.  Maintaining habitat diversity is an action that also helps species cope with climate change.   Moreover, conservation efforts should take species characteristics, regional differences and temporal variation into account”, says Professor Jarno Vanhatalo.

The researchers take comfort in knowing that their results show that land use and habitat protection can be addressed more effectively locally than tackling climate change globally.  We have means to protect Finland’s species, and the most effective of these are in our own hands.

Original article

Guilbault, E., Antão, L.H., Santangeli, A. et al. Shifting balance between habitat and climate in boreal biodiversity patterns across space, time and taxa. Nature Communications, published 14 October 2026 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-78359-2

Additional information

Emy Guilbault, Humboldt Foundation Research Fellow
emy.guilbault@uni-potsdam.de
+614 1404 3190

Jarno Vanhatalo, professor
jarno.vanhatalo@helsinki.fi
+358 50 3175 494

---

Journal

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-026-78359-2

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Animals

Article Title

Shifting balance between habitat and climate in boreal biodiversity patterns across space, time and taxa

Article Publication Date

14-Oct-2026

 

KU Leuven and Resurrect Bio join forces to engineer durable resistance to disease in banana and cassava

New partnership combines AI-driven protein design with high-throughput plant screening to restore the ability of crop immune receptors to recognise major pathogens

KU Leuven

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBluesky
Email

Banana and cassava are essential to food security and rural livelihoods across Africa and the Global South, and provide income for millions of smallholder farmers. They are also important commercial crops. Both crops can tolerate challenging growing conditions, but diseases remain a major threat to their production, often with limited options for effective and sustainable control. A new research partnership between the KU Leuven Tropical Crop Improvement Laboratory, the Experimental Plant Systems Biology Lab and Resurrect Bio aims to tackle some of the most devastating diseases affecting these tropical crops.

The collaboration combines expertise in plant genetics, genetic engineering, genetic technologies, sequencing, protein interactions and plant-pathogen interactions with Resurrect Bio’s FloraFold® AI platform and high-throughput in-planta screening technology. It also draws on the high-throughput screening technologies for banana and cassava available at KU Leuven.

Together, the partners aim to identify plant immune receptors and design precise genetic changes that restore their ability to recognise pathogens. The goal is to accelerate the discovery and engineering of immune receptors capable of providing durable resistance against major pathogens. Initial research will target several major diseases. In banana, these include Fusarium wilt (including Tropical Race 4), Xanthomonas wilt, black Sigatoka and banana bunchy top virus. In cassava, the research will focus on cassava mosaic disease and cassava brown streak disease.

“Banana and cassava are essential to food security and rural livelihoods across Africa and the Global South,” says Prof. Hervé Vanderschuren. “Their improvement allows the design of agrosystems that are more durable. Partnerships between academic research and innovative biotechnology companies are essential to translate scientific discoveries into solutions with real-world impact. We’re looking forward to working with the team at Resurrect Bio to develop new solutions for the crops that are so important to farmers and communities around the world." The partners see the collaboration as an opportunity to bring cutting-edge technologies closer to crops that are critically important for millions of smallholder farmers and for the global sustainability of commercial crops.

About the partners

• The Tropical Crop Improvement Laboratory at KU Leuven, headed by Prof. Hervé Vanderschuren, focuses its research on breeding tropical crops, integrating conventional breeding, molecular breeding, and functional genomics and phenotyping. 
• The Experimental Plant Systems Biology Lab, headed by Prof. Devang Mehta at KU Leuven, studies biomolecular interactions using advanced proteomics: the study of the structure and function of proteins, including the way they work and interact with each other inside cells.
• Resurrect Bio is a plant biotech start-up that uses gene editing to make crops resistant to disease by fixing their immune systems. The company focuses on giving the world’s farmers a better way to protect their plants, using the crop’s own immune system instead of spraying chemicals. 

 

Access to ASL from birth supports childhood math proficiency in deaf children, UConn researcher finds in first-of-its-kind study

'If you compare hearing kids learning spoken English from their parents at home to deaf kids learning ASL from their parents at home, those kids are indistinguishable'

University of Connecticut

Facebook

WeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

One fish.

Two fish.

Three fish.

The concept of counting a small number of objects is so simple, so fundamental, that we often take for granted what one, two, and three really mean when applied to the world.

Not just reading the words, or recognizing the numeric characters – 1, 2, and 3 – but understanding how those numbers apply to sets of things around us. How they answer the question, “How many?”

Understanding that the final number word said when counting a group of objects represents the total quantity of items in that set is a mathematical concept known as the cardinal principle, and it’s something that typically developing children usually grasp between the ages of 3½ and 5½.

“Kids learn to count, then they start understanding what the words mean, and then they understand this cardinal principle – that the last number word that you say, if you’ve followed all of the counting principles, is a property of the set,” says Marie Coppola, a professor of psychological sciences and linguistics in UConn’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences who studies language acquisition and language creation as well as the relationship between language and cognition.

“It’s not like there’s something special about that last one that makes it seven,” Coppola says. “No, it’s the whole set that’s seven. It’s an abstraction, and it marks a real milestone in children’s number development.”

Achieving that milestone is a critical component in later mathematics proficiency.

But what if a child doesn’t know the word “one” to begin with, or doesn’t understand what “two” means when applied to a set?

That can be the case for children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing, where language acquisition that otherwise would begin in infancy oftentimes doesn’t begin until later in development.

Cascading Impact

Fewer than 10% of deaf and hard-of-hearing children are born in the United States to deaf parents who use American Sign Language, or ASL, meaning that very few acquire language at home starting at birth like most hearing children do.

Many parents are instead encouraged to pursue spoken language, assistive technologies, and speech therapies for their children, and Coppola notes that while some deaf children do acquire those spoken-language skills, a large number do not.

“Even though we know ASL is a natural language, there is this very, very strong idea – it’s millennia old – that speech is associated with intelligence and ability to learn,” says Coppola. “And that really persists even in the face of so much counterevidence.”

Researchers have reported that significant gaps exist between hearing and deaf and hard-of-hearing children in language development in early childhood. Even in high-income nations with strong infrastructure in special education, deaf and hard-of-hearing children lag about one year behind their hearing peers in mathematics.

The impact cascades through later educational experiences as well. Deaf and hard-of-hearing students score lower on standardized mathematics assessments conducted between ages 8 and 16, researchers have found. In 2017, 15.2% fewer deaf and hard-of hearing individuals earned bachelor’s degrees compared with hearing individuals.

But there isn’t any fundamental reason why deaf children can’t achieve proficiency at the same rate as hearing children, Coppola maintains, and researchers have been working to increase our understanding of why these differences exist and about the approaches that make greater proficiency possible.

“I’ve been very passionate about building an evidence base for the benefits of early access to language for deaf and hard-of-hearing children for a very long time,” Coppola says. “There has been more than 30 years of research showing that later access to language leads to less proficient language development. But that didn’t seem to be getting anyone’s attention.”

Hoping to capitalize on the growing popularity of STEM education and careers, Coppola wants that attention now, with novel research that focuses on the early access to language’s impact not on literacy – but on math.

How High Can They Count?

In 2016, Coppola received a National Science Foundation CAREER Program award to explore the hypothesis that access to language from birth, be it spoken English or ASL, would impact a child’s development of numeracy skills.

The findings from her team’s study were recently published in the Sept.1 issue of the journal Child Development.

To begin investigating the links between language and math proficiency, Coppola worked with specialized schools around the United States to recruit deaf and hard-of-hearing students between the ages of 3 and 7 years old, including those identified as having been exposed to ASL by at least one signing parent since birth, those exposed to spoken English since birth, and those who began acquiring either spoken English or ASL later in childhood.

“Honestly, that was the most difficult part of the study, because only one to two kids per thousand has a significant hearing loss around the time of birth,” Coppola says. “Of this small population, only 5% of them have deaf parents, so we focused on the schools that had a lot of native signing kids.”

She notes that the study would not have been possible without the collaboration of the participating programs.

Once participants were identified and agreed to participate, Coppola’s team began flying around the country to conduct assessments, focused mostly on how well the children had grasped the cardinal principle.

“The easiest thing is the counting – how high can they count?” Coppola explains. “We had two ways of getting them to count. One was just counting, without any objects. For the second condition, we gave them a board that had these very colorful fish and had them count the fish. If they could count up to 10, then we gave them another 10, and they’d count up to 20.”

The data collection process took years and was led by a team comprised of deaf and hearing research assistants who interacted with each of the 178 children included in the study.

“If you’re going to say that deaf kids are struggling with something, you want to give that kid the best opportunity to communicate what they know,” Coppola says. “And that means having a deaf person who’s a proficient signer and who is really good at interacting with deaf kids who may not have had all the language access that they should have had.”

Each child participant was evaluated on their grasp of number concepts, with researchers noting the highest number each child correctly counted without any mistakes, like skipping a number, saying number words out of order, or repeating numbers.

The children were also asked to create sets of specific quantities to assess how well they understood the meanings of the number words they knew, and whether they understood the cardinal principle.

Indistinguishable

What they found, Coppola says, was clear.

“If you compare hearing kids learning spoken English from their parents at home – the way that all hearing kids are – to deaf kids learning ASL from their parents at home, those kids are indistinguishable,” Coppola says. “They have totally comparable performance.”

The study also found that the children who had early access to spoken English or ASL at home performed better at the numbers tasks than children who were exposed at later points in their development, even when controlling for external factors, including socioeconomic status, or SES.

“If you pick any math development paper out of the literature, SES is a significant factor,” says Coppola, but it had no impact in this study.

The findings, Coppola notes, dovetail with research from Boston University that found deaf children of hearing parents demonstrated age-level vocabulary development when exposed to ASL by the time they were 6 months old.

“It turns out that, regardless of how old kids were when they started having good access to language, knowing how to count is really important for understanding the cardinal principle,” Coppola says. “This is not surprising, but it is the first really hard evidence that this is the case for both hearing kids and deaf kids.”

A Language of Academics

This study represents the first to systematically assess how the timing of access to language, the modality of language learned, and hearing status affect children’s acquisition of the cardinal principle and the ability to create sets larger than six.

The study demonstrated, the researchers note, that deafness itself does not impede numeracy development – underscoring the equivalence of early sign and spoken language in supporting number cognition.

The implications, according to Coppola, are broad, though her primary focus is on the people who would impact deaf and hard-of-hearing early learners the most: their parents.

“I designed this whole study and the whole proposal, the whole grant project, to be aimed at parents,” Coppola says. “If hearing parents have a deaf child, and they don’t know what to do, and they want their kid to succeed like a typically hearing child, well, here you go. Now you can see that kids who are exposed to ASL from early in life look like typically hearing children.”

Hearing parents can even be learning to sign right alongside their deaf children, Coppola notes, and research has shown that hearing parents can support age-appropriate development.

More broadly, Coppola hopes that the study will contribute to broader conversations and efforts to impact best-practice recommendations and early intervention methodologies for deaf and hard-of-hearing children – something she acknowledges will take time.

But as evidence-based literature like her study gain attention, and as Deaf culture becomes increasingly more visible through social media and popular culture, Coppola is hopeful that the work of members of the Deaf Community to shift the ways service providers and clinicians approach the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing children will ultimately change.

And she’s energized to tackle the task herself.

“I want people to see that ASL is a language of academics, Coppola says. “This is why I sign my talks if there’s some percentage of deaf people in the audience. It’s why I try to amplify the perspectives of deaf people whenever I can.

“Kids experience so many conditions and circumstances where the best intervention or approach is not obvious. It’s so clear in this case, and yet it’s still not happening after decades. So, I’m really very motivated to try and change this.”

This study was coauthored by Kristin Walker, department of psychology at Stony Brook University; Emily Carrigan, an independent researcher based in North Carolina; and Anna Shusterman, department of psychology at Barnard College of Columbia University.

It was supported U.S. National Science Foundation Grants 1553589, 0845966, 1420966, and 2010547; and by NSF National Research Fellowship Program Grant 2234683.

---

Journal

Child Development

DOI

10.1093/chidev/aacag159

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Early exposure to language supports number concept development: Insights from deaf children acquiring signed and spoken language