Children’s Trust in Adults’ Testimony Paul L. Harris

2. Children’s Trust in Adults’ TestimonyPaul L. Harris

3. Collaborators • Fabrice Clément (University of Geneva) • Melissa Koenig (University of Chicago) • Marta Giménez (Open University, Spain) • Francisco Pons (Aalborg University, Denmark) • Elizabeth Meins (University of Durham)

4. Collaborators • Elisabeth Pasquini (Harvard University) • Rita Astuti (LSE, London) • Suzanne Duke (Harvard University) • Jessica Asscher (University of Amsterdam) • Kathleen Corriveau (Harvard University)

5. Collaborators • Rémi Torracinta (Cycle de Drize, Geneva)

6. Overview • The scope of testimony • The early development of selective trust • Parallel testimony: The case of death • Testimony and ontology

7. The Scope of Testimony:Coady’s Parable • “My first morning in Amsterdam I wake uncertain of the time and ring the hotel clerk to discover the hour, accepting the testimony of his voice...I read a paperback history book which contains all manner of factual claims that neither I nor the writer can support by personal observation or memory or by deduction from either: the deeds of a man called Napoleon Bonaparte...I reflect that on arriving at a strange city a day or so earlier, I had only the aircrew’s word that this was Amsterdam...”

8. The development of trust and doubt • When children are given information that they cannot check for themselves, do they accept information from any informant? • Alternatively, do they select among informants?

9. The development of trust and doubt • Do they keep track of an informant’s past reliability? • Do they prefer information from reliable as opposed to unreliable informants?

10. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • 3- and 4-year-olds received: • Familiarization trials • Judgment trials • Test trials

11. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • Familiarization trials: children observed two adults: • a reliable adult who consistently named familiar objects accurately. • an unreliable adult who consistently named objects inaccurately.

12. “That’s a ….ball” “That’s a …shoe”

13. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • Children then received Judgment Trials: • Judgment Trials: “Did either of them say anything right/wrong? …Who?”

14. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • Children then received Test Trials: • Test Trials: An unfamiliar object was introduced and each informant named it differently.

15. “That’s a wug”. “That’s a dax”.

16. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • Children were asked: “What do you think it’s called?”

17. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • Children were divided into two groups: • Judgment not perfect • Judgment perfect

18. Koenig, Clément & Harris (2004) • We then asked how these two groups performed on test trials. • How often did they choose the more reliable informant?

19. Selection of more reliable informant on test trials by age and judgment

20. Next Steps • How long does selectivity last? • Are preschoolers only sensitive to consistent accuracy versus consistent inaccuracy? • Do preschoolers prefer familiar informants? • Does attachment have an impact?

21. Corriveau & Harris (2006) • Given that 3- and 4-year-olds are selective, how long does their selectivity last? • Day 1: Familiarization + Judgment + Test trials • One Day Later: Test Trials • One Week Later: Test Trials

22. Selection of more reliable informant on test trials by time and judgment

23. Pasquini et al. (2006) • 3- and 4-year-olds again observed two adults: • An adult who was more reliable over four trials • An adult who was less reliable over four trials

24. Pasquini et al. (2006) • 100% versus 0% • 100% versus 25% • 75% versus 0% • 75% versus 0% • 75% versus 25%

25. Pasquini et al., (2006)

26. Pasquini et al., (2006) • 3-year-olds were above chance only when one informant was 100% correct. They were ‘unforgiving’ of even one error. • 4-year-olds were systematically above chance on all conditions. Their trust was undermined more gradually.

27. Pasquini et al., (2006) • 3-year-olds display an all-or-nothing response. • 4-year-olds display a graded response.

28. All-or-nothing • 3-year-olds

29. All-or nothing • 3-year-olds

30. Graded • 4-year-olds

31. Graded • 4-year-olds

32. Graded • 4-year-olds

33. Graded • 4-year-olds

34. Corriveau et al. (2006) • Do children trust familiar more than unfamiliar informants? • 3- and 4-year-olds were given test trials with one familiar and one unfamiliar caregiver at Centers 1 and 2. • Children were shown an unfamiliar object and each caregiver gave a different name.

35. “That’s a wug”. “That’s a dax”. Caregiver 1 Caregiver 2

36. Choice of informant by Age and Caregiver at Center 1

37. Choice of informant by Age and Caregiver at Center 2

38. Corriveau, Meins & Harris (in preparation) • Children falling into four attachment groups groups (avoidant, secure, ambivalent and disorganized) were given test trials in which their mother and an unfamiliar experimenter gave different names for an unfamiliar object.

39. “That’s a wug”. “That’s a dax”. Mother Stranger

40. Choice of informant (mother versus stranger) by attachment status

42. Summary of early selective trust • 3- and 4-year-olds monitor for accuracy and prefer reliable informants. • They remember errors for at least one week. • Whereas 3-year-olds display mistrust after a single error, 4-year-olds are more forgiving. • 3- and 4-year-olds prefer familiar informants, unless they have an avoidant attachment.

43. The development of trust and doubt • Children will regard many adults as trustworthy because: • They will have made accurate claims • They will be familiar to the child. • Children will trust these adults – even when they cannot check their claims.

44. Parallel Testimony:The Case of Death • Standard developmental approach: children gradually consolidate a biological ‘theory’ of death as a terminal point for all processes. • Yet most children probably receive two parallel accounts of death: a biological and a religious account. • Do children assimilate both different accounts?

45. Harris & Giménez (2005) • Spanish children aged 7 and 11 years were given two stories about the death of an elderly person:

46. Biological Story • “In this picture you see Juan’s grandfather. At the end of his life Juan’s grandfather got very ill and died. He was taken to a hospital where they tried to help him he was too old and they could not cure him. The doctor came to talk to Juan about what had happened. He said to Juan: “You grandfather is dead now.”

47. Religious Story • “In this picture you see Marta’s grandmother. At the end of her life Marta’s grandmother got very ill and died. She was taken to a hospital where they tried to help her but she was too old and they could not cure her. The priest came to talk to Marta about what had happened. He said to Marta: “Your grandmother is with God now.”

48. Harris & Giménez (2005) • After each story, children were asked questions about the bodily and mental functioning of the dead person: • Example of question about bodily functioning: “Have his eyes stopped working?” • Example of question about mental functioning: “Can he still see?”

49. Proportion of ‘does not work’ replies by Story and Process Type (Spain)

50. Harris & Giménez (2005) • More ‘does not work’ judgments given: • For body than for mind • For biological story than for religious story