Can children and adults balance majority size with information quality in learning from preferences?

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Rebekah A Gelpí, Amy Whalen, Thomas L Griffiths, Fei Xu, Daphna Buchsbaum
{"title":"Can children and adults balance majority size with information quality in learning from preferences?","authors":"Rebekah A Gelpí, Amy Whalen, Thomas L Griffiths, Fei Xu, Daphna Buchsbaum","doi":"10.1037/xge0001724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We investigate how 3- to 5-year-old U.S. and Canadian children (<i>N</i> = 189) and U.S. adults (<i>N</i> = 241) balance the number of endorsements for a given option with the quality of the informants' source of information when deciding which of two boxes contains the better option. When choosing between two different boxes endorsed by groups of equal sizes, both children (Experiments 1-3) and adults (Experiment 6) tend to choose boxes endorsed by informants with visual access to the boxes over informants with hearsay. However, children's choices were biased toward the larger group when the size of the group conflicted with the quality of the source of the groups' information (Experiments 4 and 5), while adults more often chose the option endorsed by the group with the higher quality information (Experiment 6). Children were more likely to conform to a majority opinion when compared with both adults and to a normative computational model that endorses a group proportional to the number of independent, direct observations made by that group's informants. These findings suggest that, while adults balance the size of a majority with the quality of the informants' information source, preschoolers can evaluate when groups differ in the source of their information but may assume that the presence of a majority endorsing an option is inherently informative over and above the information source group members' testimony relied on. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001724","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We investigate how 3- to 5-year-old U.S. and Canadian children (N = 189) and U.S. adults (N = 241) balance the number of endorsements for a given option with the quality of the informants' source of information when deciding which of two boxes contains the better option. When choosing between two different boxes endorsed by groups of equal sizes, both children (Experiments 1-3) and adults (Experiment 6) tend to choose boxes endorsed by informants with visual access to the boxes over informants with hearsay. However, children's choices were biased toward the larger group when the size of the group conflicted with the quality of the source of the groups' information (Experiments 4 and 5), while adults more often chose the option endorsed by the group with the higher quality information (Experiment 6). Children were more likely to conform to a majority opinion when compared with both adults and to a normative computational model that endorses a group proportional to the number of independent, direct observations made by that group's informants. These findings suggest that, while adults balance the size of a majority with the quality of the informants' information source, preschoolers can evaluate when groups differ in the source of their information but may assume that the presence of a majority endorsing an option is inherently informative over and above the information source group members' testimony relied on. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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