Area discrimination accuracy does not predict children's social judgments; age, not shared decision imprecision, accounts for the task correlations¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In hierarchical regressions, area accuracy contributed nothing meaningful to Winner, Ask, or Endorse judgments, and age was the only significant predictor. → Carolyn Baer 2021

Evidence¶

Carolyn Baer 2021¶

Carolyn Baer, Puja Malik, & Darko Odic. (2021). Are children's judgments of another's accuracy linked to their metacognitive confidence judgments? Metacognition and Learning (2021) 16:485–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09263-x

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Hierarchical regression in Experiment 3 entered age and area accuracy in step 1 and confidence performance in step 2 for each selective social learning measure. Contrary to the SDT/Simulation prediction, area accuracy was not a meaningful predictor in any model (Table 4).

"In step 1, there was no meaningful contribution of area accuracy, with age serving as the only significant predictor."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Children aged 6–7 reliably identify the contestant whose copied shapes are closer in size to a target, replicating magnitude-of-error selective social learning
• Children do not reliably endorse the more accurate informant when no objective reference is available
• In Experiment 2, children's confidence-task performance correlated with Winner and Ask choices but not Endorse choices, controlling for age — related
• Children's self-focused confidence reasoning and other-focused accuracy reasoning show no consistent correlation across four studies when mental-state language and response biases are eliminated — related