Developing expectations regarding the boundaries of expertise

How experts and novices judge other people's knowledgeability from language use

How accurate are people in judging someone else's knowledge based on their language use, and do more knowledgeable people use different cues to make these judgments? We address this by recruiting a group of participants ("informants") to answer general knowledge questions and describe various images belonging to different categories (e.g., cartoons, basketball). A second group of participants ("evaluators") also answer general knowledge questions and decide who is more knowledgeable within pairs of informants, based on these descriptions. Evaluators perform above chance at identifying the most knowledgeable informants (65% with only one description available). The less knowledgeable evaluators base their decisions on the number of specific statements, regardless of whether the statements are true or false. The more knowledgeable evaluators treat true and false statements differently and penalize the knowledge they attribute to informants who produce specific yet false statements. Our findings demonstrate the power of a few words when assessing others' knowledge and have implications for how misinformation is processed differently between experts and novices.

CONFIANÇA SELETIVA EM CRIANÇAS PRÉ-ESCOLARES: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA

Embora o campo de estudos sobre confiança seletiva tenha ganhado destaque nos últimos anos, essa linha de pesquisa não é ainda suficientemente divulgada no Brasil. A presente revisão sistemática teve como objetivo avaliar a produção científica sobre confiança seletiva em crianças pré-escolares, bem como sobre possíveis variáveis que influenciam os julgamentos de confiança. A busca foi realizada nas bases de dados PSYCINFO, Scielo Brasil, PEPSIC e LILACS, utilizando-se as palavras-chave selective trust, epistemic trust e seus correspondentes em português ‘confiança seletiva’ e ‘confiança epistêmica’. De um total de 103 trabalhos, foram analisados 45 artigos empíricos, publicados entre 2008 e 2018, seguindo o protocolo PRISMA. Contrariando uma crença predominante em muitas culturas de que as crianças acreditam em tudo o que ouvem, elas não são consumidoras ingênuas de informação. Discutem-se os efeitos de variáveis individuais e contextuais sobre os julgamentos de confiança seletiva que apontam para direções futuras promissoras de pesquisa.

Inducing feelings of ignorance makes people more receptive to expert (economist) opinion

While they usually should, people do not revise their beliefs more to expert (economist) opinion than to lay opinion. The present research sought to better understand the factors that make it more likely for an individual to change their mind when faced with the opinions of expert economists versus the general public. Across five studies we examined the role that overestimation of knowledge plays in this behavior. We replicated the finding that people fail to privilege the opinion of experts over the public across two different (Study 1) and five different (Study 5) economic issues. We further find that undermining an illusion of both topic-relevant (Studies 2–4) and -irrelevant knowledge (Studies 3 and 4) leads to greater normative belief revision in response to expert rather than lay opinion. We suggest one reason that people fail to revise their beliefs more in response to experts is because people think they know more than they really do.

Content counts: A trait and moral reasoning framework for children's selective social learning

We present evidence that evaluative information plays a major role in children's selective social learning. We demonstrate that social learning patterns differ as a function of whether children are exposed to positively or negatively valenced information (e.g., content; informant characteristics) and that these patterns can be understood in the context of children's schemas for social groups, morality, and trait understanding. We highlight that attention must be given to theoretical ties between social learning and children's trait judgments and moral reasoning to strengthen our understanding of selective trust and account for variations in children's sophistication when they judge potential sources of information. Finally, we suggest revisions to current theoretical frameworks and offer suggestions to move the field forward.

Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science

In an era where expertise is increasingly critiqued, this study draws from the research on expertise and scientist stereotyping to explore who the public considers to be a scientist in the context of media coverage about climate change and genetically modified organisms. Using survey data from the United States, we find that political ideology and science knowledge affect who the US public believes is a scientist in these domains. Our results suggest important differences in the role of science media attention and science media selection in the publics "scientist" labeling. In addition, we replicate previous work and find that compared to other people who work in science, those with PhDs in Biology and Chemistry are most commonly seen as scientists.

Trust me, I'm a competent expert: Developmental differences in children's use of an expert's explanation quality to infer trustworthiness

In this study, we examined how 3-, 4-, 5-, and 7-year-old children respond when informants who are labeled as experts fail to provide high-quality explanations about phenomena within their realm of expertise. We found that 4-, 5-, and 7-year-olds discounted their initial trust in an expert who provided low-quality explanations in a task related to the expert's area of expertise. The 5-year-olds' distrust of the expert who provided low-quality explanations also generalized to additional learning tasks. When an expert provided explanations consistent with the expert's labeled expertise, 5-year-olds maintained a similar level of trust in the expert, but 7-year-olds displayed an increased level of trust in the expert within the expert's area of expertise. We did not find consistent preferences in 3-year-olds' judgments. We discuss the implications of these findings for age-based differences in children's relative weighting of trait-based versus real-time epistemic cues when evaluating informant reliability.

"Is it worth my time and effort?": How children selectively gather information from experts when faced with different kinds of costs

Gathering good-quality information is important for effective learning, but children may often need to expend time or energy (i.e., costs) in order to do so. In this study, we examined how 4- and 5-year-olds (N = 91) gather information from others when one source of information comes at a cost. Children were given three types of question cards (doctor-related, mechanic-related, and neutral questions) and could assign each question to either a doctor or car mechanic puppet. One puppet (either the doctor or the car mechanic, counterbalanced) could be accessed immediately, but the other puppet required either waiting 30 s or completing a tedious sorting task first. Children's verbal intelligence and executive function skills were also assessed. Results showed that cost influenced how children sought information from each of the expert puppets; children selected the costly expert for domain-relevant questions at chance levels and otherwise strongly preferred to question the non-costly puppet. In addition, executive function skills (but not verbal intelligence) related to how frequently children were willing to direct questions to the costly puppet. Overall, these results indicate that children are influenced by costs when gathering information from others and that their ability to expend a cost to gather good-quality information may relate to their inhibition skills. Implications for encouraging effective learning are discussed.

Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts

Emerging technologies have led to an increase in species observations being recorded via digital images. Such visual records are easily shared, and are often uploaded to online communities when help is required to identify or validate species. Although this is common practice, little is known about the accuracy of species identification from such images. Using online images of newts that are native and non-native to the UK, this study asked holders of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) licences (issued by UK authorities to permit surveying for this species) to sort these images into groups, and to assign species names to those groups. All of these experts identified the native species, but agreement among these participants was low, with some being cautious in committing to definitive identifications. Individuals’ accuracy was also independent of both their experience and self-assessed ability. Furthermore, mean accuracy was not uniform across species (69–96%). These findings demonstrate the difficulty of accurate identification of newts from a single image, and that expert judgements are variable, even within the same knowledgeable community. We suggest that identification decisions should be made on multiple images and verified by more than one expert, which could improve the reliability of species data.

Adults’ and Children’s Understanding of How Expertise Influences Learning

Abstract. Adults and children use information about expertise to infer what a person is likely to know, but it is unclear whether they realize that expertise also has implications for learning. We explore adults’ and children’s understanding that expertise in a particular category supports learning about a closely related category. In four experiments, 5-year-olds and adults (n = 160) judged which of two people would be better at learning about a new category. When faced with an expert and a nonexpert, adults consistently indicated that expertise supports learning in a closely related category; however, children’s judgments were inconsistent and were strongly influenced by the description of the nonexpert. The results suggest that although children understand what it means to be an expert, they may judge an individual’s learning capacity based on different considerations than adults.

Ultrasociality and the division of cognitive labor

Gowdy & Krall describe the development of ultrasociality in terms of economics and the division of labor. We propose that the division of cognitive labor allows humans to behave in an ultrasocial manner without the radical evolutionary changes that are experienced by other species, suggesting that species may traverse different paths to achieve ultrasociality.

Interactions Between Knowledge and Testimony in Children's Reality-Status Judgments

In two studies we attempt to capture the information processing abilities underlying children's reality-status judgments. Forty 5- to 6-year-olds and 53 7- to 8-year-olds heard about novel entities (animals) that varied in their fit with children's world knowledge. After hearing about each entity, children could either guess reality status immediately or listen to testimony first. Informants varied in their expertise and in their testimony, which either supported or refuted the entities' existence. Results revealed that children were able to evaluate the fit between the new information and their existing knowledge; this information then governed their decision regarding whether to seek testimony. Testimony had the strongest effect when new information did not conflict with, but was also not representative of, children's knowledge.

Expertise in unexpected places: Children's acceptance of information from gender counter-stereotypical experts

The current study examined children's willingness to accept novel information from expert informants with nontraditional gender role interests. Four- to 8-year-olds heard conflicting information about traditionally feminine or masculine domains from a gender counter-stereotypical expert (e.g., a boy with expertise in ballet) and a layperson of the other gender (e.g., a girl with little knowledge about ballet). Participants were asked which informant was correct, who they would prefer to learn from in the future, and to rate their liking of each informant. Overall, participants selected the gender counter-stereotypical expert as correct. Four- to 5-year-olds reported a preference to learn from same-gender participants in the future irrespective of expertise, whereas 6- to 8-year-olds reported wanting to learn from counter-stereotypical experts. Boys showed relatively greater acceptance of information from a male counter-stereotypical expert than from a female counter-stereotypical expert. Although participants reported greater liking of same-gender informants, liking evaluations were largely positive irrespective of gender norm deviations. Implications for children's acceptance of gender nonconforming activities are discussed.