Children do not reliably endorse the more accurate informant when no objective reference is available¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 1, all age groups chose at chance rates on Endorse trials, with no correlation with age. → 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 Endorse trials, children saw same-size shapes after a computer glitch hid the target and indicated which was probably more like the target. All age groups chose at chance rates, r(78) = 0.18, p = 0.114, which the authors note was unexpected given a recent meta-analysis.

"all age groups chose at chance rates, with no difference between age groups, r(78) = 0.18, p = 0.114."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Area discrimination accuracy does not predict children's social judgments; age, not shared decision imprecision, accounts for the task correlations
• 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
• In Experiment 2, children's confidence-task performance correlated with Winner and Ask choices but not Endorse choices, controlling for age
• 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
• Children as young as 4 years can reason about their relative confidence by selecting which of two questions they feel most sure of answering — related