Knowledge matters: How children evaluate the reliability of testimony as a process of rational inference
Abstract
Children's causal learning has been characterized as a rational process, in which children appropriately evaluate evidence from their observations and actions in light of their existing conceptual knowledge. We propose a similar framework for children's selective social learning, concentrating on information learned from others' testimony. We examine how children use their existing conceptual knowledge of the physical and social world to determine the reliability of testimony. We describe existing studies that offer both direct and indirect support for selective trust as rational inference and discuss how this framework may resolve some of the conflicting evidence surrounding cases of indiscriminate trust. Importantly, this framework emphasizes that children are active in selecting evidence (both social and experiential), rather than being passive recipients of knowledge, and motivates further studies that more systematically examine the process of learning from social information.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Judgments of learning are often informed by how easily information is processed in the moment rather than by diagnostic evidence of learning, such as the ability to retrieve, explain, or transfer knowledge.
“Judgments of learning are often informed by how easily information is processed in the moment rather than by diagnostic evidence of learning, such as the ability to retrieve, explain, or transfer knowledge [20].”
From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [20]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 57 · Cited by 225
- Authors
- Sobel, D. M., & Kushnir, T.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2013
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 779-797
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W2319344250
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8
- FWCI
- 22.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1223777, 1023179)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- selective trust, witness testimony, reliability of testimony, rational inference, causal learning, conceptual knowledge, social learning, children's reasoning, evidence selection
- MeSH terms
- Child Development, Child, Preschool, Concept Formation, Humans, Judgment, Learning, Social Perception, Trust
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review