Do Young Children Use Verbal Disfluency as a Cue to Their Own Confidence?

IF 3.1 1区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Eloise West, Carolyn Baer, Lisa Yu, Darko Odic
{"title":"Do Young Children Use Verbal Disfluency as a Cue to Their Own Confidence?","authors":"Eloise West,&nbsp;Carolyn Baer,&nbsp;Lisa Yu,&nbsp;Darko Odic","doi":"10.1111/desc.13617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Metacognitive reasoning is central to decision-making. For every decision, we can also judge our trust in that decision, or our level of <i>confidence</i>. The mechanisms and representations underlying reasoning about confidence remain debated. We test whether children rely on <i>processing fluency</i> to infer their own confidence: do decisions that come quickly and easily lead to high confidence, while decisions that are slow and effortful result in low confidence? Using children's verbal disfluency—fillers (e.g., “umm,” “uhh”), hedges (e.g., “I think,” “maybe”), and pauses in speech—as an observable index of processing fluency, we assess whether children's reports of confidence are a read-out of their verbal disfluency. Five-to-eight-year-olds answered semantic questions about animals and performed perceptual comparisons, then reported their confidence in their answers in a two-alternative forced-choice confidence judgment task. Verbal disfluency predicted both answer accuracy and children's reports of confidence: children produced more fillers, more hedges, and longer speech onsets during incorrect trials and during low confidence trials. But we also found a dissociation between fluency and confidence. When examining trials where accuracy and confidence diverge (i.e., correct but low confidence or incorrect but high confidence trials), we observe no reliable relationship between confidence and fillers and hedges, and children take <i>longer</i> to begin answering on high confidence trials. We conclude that—in 5–8-year-old-children—fluency is a reliable tracker of <i>accuracy</i> but not confidence, and that fluency is only predictive of metacognitive judgments in children when confidence and accuracy are aligned.</p>","PeriodicalId":48392,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Science","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/desc.13617","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/desc.13617","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metacognitive reasoning is central to decision-making. For every decision, we can also judge our trust in that decision, or our level of confidence. The mechanisms and representations underlying reasoning about confidence remain debated. We test whether children rely on processing fluency to infer their own confidence: do decisions that come quickly and easily lead to high confidence, while decisions that are slow and effortful result in low confidence? Using children's verbal disfluency—fillers (e.g., “umm,” “uhh”), hedges (e.g., “I think,” “maybe”), and pauses in speech—as an observable index of processing fluency, we assess whether children's reports of confidence are a read-out of their verbal disfluency. Five-to-eight-year-olds answered semantic questions about animals and performed perceptual comparisons, then reported their confidence in their answers in a two-alternative forced-choice confidence judgment task. Verbal disfluency predicted both answer accuracy and children's reports of confidence: children produced more fillers, more hedges, and longer speech onsets during incorrect trials and during low confidence trials. But we also found a dissociation between fluency and confidence. When examining trials where accuracy and confidence diverge (i.e., correct but low confidence or incorrect but high confidence trials), we observe no reliable relationship between confidence and fillers and hedges, and children take longer to begin answering on high confidence trials. We conclude that—in 5–8-year-old-children—fluency is a reliable tracker of accuracy but not confidence, and that fluency is only predictive of metacognitive judgments in children when confidence and accuracy are aligned.

Abstract Image

幼儿是否会用语言不流利来暗示自己的自信?
元认知推理是决策的核心。对于每一个决定,我们也可以判断我们对这个决定的信任,或者我们的信心水平。关于信心推理的机制和表象仍然存在争议。我们测试孩子们是否依赖处理流畅性来推断他们自己的自信:快速而容易做出的决定是否会带来高度自信,而缓慢而费力的决定是否会导致低自信?使用儿童的语言不流利填充语(例如,“嗯”,“嗯”),模糊限制语(例如,“我想”,“也许”)和讲话中的停顿,作为处理流利性的可观察指标,我们评估儿童的自信报告是否是他们语言不流利的一种解读。5到8岁的孩子回答了关于动物的语义问题,并进行了感知比较,然后报告了他们对两种选择的强迫选择的信心判断任务的答案的信心。语言不流畅既能预测答案的准确性,也能预测孩子们的自信心:在错误的测试和低自信的测试中,孩子们会产生更多的填充语、更多的模糊限制语和更长的说话时间。但我们也发现了流利和自信之间的分离。当检查准确性和置信度偏离的试验(即正确但低置信度或错误但高置信度的试验)时,我们观察到信心与填充词和模糊解释之间没有可靠的关系,儿童需要更长的时间才能开始回答高置信度的试验。我们得出的结论是,在5 - 8岁的儿童中,流利度是准确性的可靠追踪者,而不是信心,并且当信心和准确性一致时,流利度只能预测儿童的元认知判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
8.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: Developmental Science publishes cutting-edge theory and up-to-the-minute research on scientific developmental psychology from leading thinkers in the field. It is currently the only journal that specifically focuses on human developmental cognitive neuroscience. Coverage includes: - Clinical, computational and comparative approaches to development - Key advances in cognitive and social development - Developmental cognitive neuroscience - Functional neuroimaging of the developing brain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信