Children weigh the number of informants and perceptual uncertainty when identifying objects

Thinking for themselves? The effect of informant independence on children's endorsement of testimony from a consensus

“…Accordingly, chance was calculated to be 1.33 of a possible total of 4 [probability of success per trial (0.33) x 4]. This criterion has been used in previous selective trust studies where participants were given a choice of three responses but only two were indicated by the informants (see Bernard, Proust, et al, ; Corriveau et al, ). However, we also ran a second comparison to directly test whether participants had a systematic preference for endorsing one group over the other.…”

“…If so, the younger children may have endorsed the NIC ‘friends’ because they viewed them as a collective with whom they wished to affiliate more than the IC. Previous work suggests that 5‐year olds’ trust in the consensus may, under certain circumstances, be driven by social rather than epistemic reasons, in contrast to older children (Bernard, Proust, et al, ). An interesting question is whether this social motivation is particularly compelling if the consensus members are perceived as friends.…”

“…When the epistemic credentials of the majority and the dissenter are unknown (as in the above studies), children trust the consensus, but when consensus reliability is undermined by other epistemic cues, they endorse the dissenter. Specifically, plausibility or conventionality of testimony (Bernard, Harris, Terrier, & Clément, ; Guerrero, Cascado, Sausa, & Enesco, ; Schillaci & Kelemen, ), informants’ expertise (Boseovski, Marble, & Hughes, ), access to knowledge (Einav, ), previous accuracy (Bernard et al, ), and previous success (Wilks, Collier‐Baker, & Nielsen, ) all trump the consensus cue, although the evidence is mixed regarding the age at which children recognize when it is best not to trust the majority. In several studies, this was seen from 4 years, whereas in others not before 5 or 6 years of age.…”

“…Our primary aim was to examine age‐related changes: We asked whether 5‐, 6‐, and 8–9‐year olds differ in the way they consider the reliability of the two consensus groups. We tested 5‐ and 6‐year olds in light of the findings that at this age children can scrutinize the reliability of a consensus group on the basis of various competence cues (Bernard, Harris, et al, ; Einav, ) and extended the age range to 8–9 years because of concurrent development in children's understanding of how social motivation may influence individuals’ behavior (for review see, Mills, ), which we considered relevant to our task.…”

Does children’s moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers’ moral and social-conventional judgments

“…For example, when unfamiliar images are labeled in a way that conflicts with children's prior knowledge of conventional names or information, 3-and 4-year-olds tend to accept claims made by others (Bernard, Harris, Terrier, & Clément, 2015;Jaswal, 2004). Similarly, when categorizing objects by their labels, children also tend to conform (Bernard, Proust, & Clément, 2015;Corriveau et al, 2009;Fusaro & Harris, 2008).…”