Children's trust in informants in risky decisions
Children's trust in informants in risky decisions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100846
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Buttelmann, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Betsch, Tilmann;Lehmann, Anne;Buttelmann, David
在适应一个充满风险的世界时，决策者必须能够把握环境的概率性质。到目前为止，关于使用概率能力的个体发生的发展研究使用了不同的范式，并发现了不一致的结果。合并了两个范例(基于概率推断的选择；信任告密者的决定)，我们测试了程序上的差异是否导致了不一致的结果。6岁、9岁和22岁的被试(N=108)在一项通常用于信任告密者研究的标签任务中学习了三个告密者的相对准确性。被调查者的效度不同(正确率分别为0.17、0.34、0.83)。随后，向参与者展示了一个信息板，通常用于概率推理选择的研究。在两个选项之间进行选择之前，他们被允许检查告密者对选择结果的预测。在选择之后，参与者指出他们会在其他领域(如生物学、艺术)信任哪个告密者。信任决策和选择之间的巨大对比效应表明，概率推理选择中概率的利用比信任决策中发展得更慢：6岁儿童和部分9岁儿童在他们的选择中并不依赖高有效性告密者的预测，即使他们信任其他领域的告密者。在成年人中，这一模式发生了逆转。我们在讨论我们的发现时，考虑到这些范式的结构差异可能会对认知加工施加不同的限制。
When adapting to a risky world, decision makers must be capable of grasping the probabilistic nature of the environment. Developmental research on the ontogeny of the ability to use probabilities thus far has used different paradigms and revealed inconsistent findings. Merging two paradigms (choices based on probabilistic inferences; trust-in-informants decisions), we tested whether procedural differences are responsible for the inconsistent findings. 6-, 9-, and 22-yearolds (N = 108) learned the relative accuracy of three informants in a labelling task commonly used in trust-in-informants research. Informants differed with regard to their validity (rates of being correct = 0.17; 0.34; 0.83). Subsequently, participants were presented with an information board typically used in research on probabilistic-inference choices. Prior to choosing between two options, they were allowed to inspect informants' predictions regarding choice outcomes. After choices, participants indicated which informant they would trust in other domains (e.g., biology, arts). A large contrast effect between trust decisions and choices indicates that the utilization of probabilities develops more slowly in probabilistic-inference choices than in trust decisions: 6-year-olds and a portion of 9-year-olds did not rely on the predictions of the high validity informant in their choices even though they trusted the informant in other domains. In adults, that pattern was reversed. We discuss our findings while considering the possibility that structural differences of the paradigms may impose different constraints on cognitive processing.