About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 1. Attention, Learning, Memory

Paper #1
Individual Differences in Memory and Epistemic Vigilance predict Children’s Resistance to Misleading Suggestions
Author information	Role
Isaac Bisla, University of Minnesota, United States	Presenting author
Natalie Worzalla, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Sydney Indihar, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Melissa Koenig, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Previous research has highlighted how individual differences, such as cognitive, psychosocial, and demographic factors influence children's vulnerability to misleading suggestions (Bruck & Melnyk, 2004). However, little research has explored how children’s epistemic vigilance, the ability to monitor the reliability of sources, may support children in resisting suggestion. This study investigates epistemic vigilance in children aged 3-6 years (N = 94, Target N = 150) as an early capacity that could aid their ability to identify and resist misinformation. The study examined two aims: (1) Does early epistemic vigilance predict children’s resistance to suggestion, and (2) Does executive functioning and theory of mind moderate the relationship between epistemic vigilance and suggestibility? Children’s epistemic vigilance were assessed through an accuracy monitoring task, where they assessed the accuracy of two informants and their suggestibility was measured by their responses to leading questions. Children were presented with a 1-minute silent video depicting a petty theft followed by a 1-minute narration of the same event. Following this, they were randomly assigned to an epistemic vigilance or memory condition. In the epistemic vigilance condition, children completed an accuracy monitoring task involving two informants who provided accurate and inaccurate statements about events in the vignette. Participants were asked to evaluate each informant’s statement as “right” or “wrong.” In the memory condition, children were asked yes/no questions about the same statements provided by the experimenter. Following these tasks, all children completed a suggestion task containing 10 leading questions, where 8 contained misleading information and 2 contained correct information to prevent perseverating response patterns. Preliminary results showed no significant difference in children’s suggestibility between the epistemic vigilance and memory conditions, t(92) = -0.092, p = .927, d = -0.02, (M for Epistemic Vigilance Condition = 3.53; M for Memory Condition = 3.59) suggesting that both conditions supported children's resistance to misleading statements. A hierarchical regression analysis showed that age significantly predicted suggestibility, B = -0.118, p = .008, with older children being less suggestible. Children’s accuracy monitoring was a significant negative predictor of suggestibility (B = -0.698, p = .004), as was their memory performance (B = -0.68, p = < 001). This was after controlling for age, indicating that children with higher epistemic vigilance or better memory were better able to resist misleading information. Further analysis revealed that theory of mind was also a significant predictor, B = -2.716, p = .025, with children higher in theory of mind demonstrating lower levels of suggestibility. The interaction between accuracy monitoring and theory of mind was marginally significant, B = 0.405, p = .050, suggesting that theory of mind may enhance the effect of epistemic vigilance on resisting suggestibility. Note that no significant interaction was found between epistemic vigilance and executive functioning, B = -0.022, p = .127. These findings suggest that age-related changes in children’s ability to resist suggestion are likely driven by improvements in memory, accuracy monitoring, and theory of mind. Further research should explore children’s memory for more complex or emotionally charged events to better understand how these factors interact and influence children’s resistance to misleading information.

Paper #2
Can Lying Be Good? Examining the Impact of Cultural Expectations on Children’s Honesty Judgments
Author information	Role
Dr. Shaocong Ma, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China	Presenting author
Michelle Yik, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China	Non-presenting author
Dr. Eva E. Chen, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Research in selective trust indicates that from a young age, children value informants’ honest intentions when deciding from whom to obtain new information, while also preferring to learn from those who conform to cultural norms. However, cultural norms around truth-telling may conflict with the natural tendency for honesty. In Chinese culture, modesty is highly valued, even when it involves downplaying—and even lying about—achievements. Against these cultural expectations, how might Chinese children consider individuals who provide accurate versus inaccurate information? And how might these considerations shift in adulthood? We conducted two studies to investigate these questions with Chinese participants, including 97 children (47 girls and 50 boys, Mage = 8.29 years) and 49 adults (28 women and 21 men, Mage = 21.04 years). Participants were presented with stories featuring two protagonists: one who told the truth and one who lied about their academic achievements to manage their reputations. In Study 1, the lie-teller exaggerated their performance, in contrast with the Chinese norm of modesty. In Study 2, the lie-teller downplayed their performance, aligning with the cultural modesty norm. Across the two studies, the truth-tellers always told the truth about their performance. Participants then evaluated the protagonists’ warmth and competence, as well as indicated their preferences for socializing and learning from the protagonists. In Study 1, where the lie-teller violated the modesty norm (i.e., exaggerated their achievements), both children and adults perceived the truth-teller as warmer and more competent (p’s ≤ .010) compared to the lie-teller. They also preferred to learn new information from and socialize with the truth-teller over the lie-teller (p’s < .001). In Study 2, where the lie-teller’s behavior aligned with the norm of modesty (i.e., downplayed their achievements), the same participants still preferred to learn from the truth-teller over the lie-teller (p’s < .005). However, while children also perceived the truth-teller as warmer and more competent (p’s < .005; Figure 1), the adults no longer showed the same preference. Similarly, children continued to prefer socializing with the truth-telling protagonist, but not the adult participants. Children’s preferences for the truth-teller were more pronounced among those who did not explicitly understand the cultural norm of showing modesty (Figure 2). These results suggest that, consistent with previous work, Chinese individuals generally prioritize informants’ honesty when deciding from whom to learn, regardless of cultural norms. However, cultural norms and individuals’ personal understanding of these norms influence their perceptions of an informant’s warmth and competence, as well as their preferences to socialize with the informant. To summarize, our paper provides insights into the factors that shape our judgments about misinformation and how cultural norms can influence our social perceptions and behaviors from childhood.

Paper #3
Selective Trust in Brazilian Preschoolers: The Role of Socioeconomic Status and Broken Promises
Author information	Role
Debora de Hollanda Souza, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brazil	Presenting author
Abstract
Two studies investigated possible effects of socioeconomic background on selective trust in Brazilian preschool children. In the first study, 93 children at 3- and 4-years of age (43 from mid-SES and 50 from low-SES families) were administered the following tasks: a) a standard selective trust task (Corriveau et al., 2009); and b) the Theory of Mind Scale (Wellman & Liu, 2004). Additionally, participants also received the Hispanic-American version of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese by Capovilla and Capovilla (1997) and Capovilla et al. (1997). A one-way ANOVA revealed a main effect of SES on vocabulary scores, F (1,92) = 25.09, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.22, with mid-SES children outperforming low-SES children. An SES effect was also found on theory of mind scores, F (1, 92) = 12.87, p = .001, ηp2 = 0.12, with better performance from the mid-SES group, in comparison to the low-SES children. Interestingly, we found that the performance of low-SES children in the selective trust task (as measured by Ask and Endorse trials) was significantly better (M = 5.4; SD = 2.0) than the performance of the mid-SES group (M = 4.4; SD = 1.8); F (1, 85) = 8.6, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.1. One possible interpretation of this finding relates to children’s early life experiences, as recent evidence suggests that growing up in a low-SES environment may be associated with being more vigilant to interpersonal trust violations, extending trust more carefully later in life (Stamos, Altsitsiadis, & Dewitte, 2019). To examine the possibility that low-SES Brazilian children were especially sensitive to violations of interpersonal trust, a second study investigated whether children’s selective trust can be influenced by a history of broken promises and the reasons that led to the promises being broken. Here, 44 Brazilian preschool children aged 5 to 6 years of age were assessed by a selective trust task and the Morally Relevant Theory of Mind task (MoToM; Killen et al., 2011). For the selective trust task, participants were randomly distributed into three conditions, each involving someone who broke their promise (for acceptable or unacceptable reasons). A chi-square test did not reveal significant differences between conditions, χ2 (2, 44) = 1.81, p > 0.05. Nonetheless, data from the preference question during fam trials (Which of the two characters would you like to have as a friend?) revealed a clear preference for the more trustworthy informant in all three conditions (n=39; 88.6%). Overall, these results suggest that breaking promises and understanding the underlying motivation for such acts is predictive of children’s interpersonal trust, and may be less predictive of their testimonial learning. Furthermore, these findings suggest that selective learning may not depend on a full-fledged theory of mind and point to promising lines of investigation on how mechanisms of selective trust may vary across cultural and socioeconomic contexts.

⇦ Back to session