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¶

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 Experiment 1, children at ages 6 and 7 reliably chose the closer contestant as the Winner, though 4-year-olds did not. → 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

In Experiment 1's drawing-contest selective social learning task, both informants gave incorrect copies differing only in error magnitude (ratios of 1.2 vs. 2.0). Winner judgments replicated Einav and Robinson's (2010) magnitude-of-error paradigm despite using photographs and area rather than numerosity.

"At ages 6 and 7, children reliably chose the closer contestant as the Winner, though children at age 4 did not (see Table 1 for means and tests against chance of 50%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Area discrimination accuracy does not predict children's social judgments; age, not shared decision imprecision, accounts for the task correlations
• Children do not reliably endorse the more accurate informant when no objective reference is available
• 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
• In Experiment 2, children's confidence-task performance correlated with Winner and Ask choices but not Endorse choices, controlling for age — related
• Errors of assent to suggestion outnumber errors of dissent in children's selective judgment, and independent judgment develops through three stages — related