背景线索对儿童选择性信任的影响:积极信息和非循环解释信息的作用

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2025.03.02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 儿童如何有选择地采信他人提供的信息、获取知识,是儿童社会认知发展研究的重要问题。本研究选取194名5~9岁儿童,采用冲突信息源范式,考察儿童在不同问题情境中,先前背景线索(社会性线索和认识性线索)对其选择性信任的影响。社会性线索以包含效价的评价性信息(积极/消极)来界定,认识性线索以包含因果关系的解释性信息(循环解释/非循环解释)来界定。结果表明:(1)儿童存在背景线索偏好,在社会性线索中,更多选择相信积极信息;在认识性线索中,更多选择相信非循环解释信息;(2)两类偏好线索同时呈现,在涉及因果关系的问题情境中,5岁儿童已经倾向于选择有非循环解释背景线索的信息提供者;在涉及评价的问题情境中,直到9岁,儿童才有倾向性地选择有积极效价背景线索的信息提供者,9岁前的选择是随机的;(3)在缺乏先前背景线索的问题情境中(命名问题和人际交往问题),儿童对两位信息提供者的选择是随机的。结论:儿童对两类背景线索的利用呈现出不同的年龄发展特点;随着年龄增长,儿童会依据背景线索与问题情境的相关性,灵活地做出信任决策。

关键词: 儿童, 选择性信任, 背景线索, 积极信息, 非循环解释

Abstract: It is an important issue how children selectively trust information provided by others and acquire knowledge in children’s social cognitive development. A total of 194 children aged 5 to 9 were recruited in this study, and the 'conflicting sources’ paradigm was used to investigate the influence of previous background clues (social clues and epistemic clues) on children’s selective trust in different problem situations. Social clues were defined by evaluative information containing valence (positive/negative), while epistemic clues by explanations containing causal logic (noncircular/circular). The results showed that: (1) Children have a preference for background clues. In social clues, more children choose to believe positive information, and in epistemic clues, more children choose to believe noncircular explanation; (2) When both types of preference clues were presented at the same time, in the problem situations containing causal logic, 5-year-olds were inclined to learn from the informant with the previous clue of noncircular explanations. In the problem situations containing information valence, children only at the age of 9 tended to choose the informant with the previous clue of positive information, and children before the age of 9 selected randomly; (3) In problem situations without previous relevant clues (naming problems and interpersonal problems), children’s choices of the two informants were random. The results indicate that children’s usage of the two kinds of background clues presents different age development characteristics. As children grow older, they become flexible in making trust decisions based on the relevance of previous clues to problem situations.

Key words: children, selective trust, previous clues, positive information, noncircular explanations

中图分类号:

B844

张璟, 刘格格, 曹碧华. 背景线索对儿童选择性信任的影响:积极信息和非循环解释信息的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 313-321.

ZHANG Jing, LIU Gege, CAO Bihua. The Influences of Previous Clues on Children’s Selective Trust: The Role of Positive Information and Noncircular Explanations[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2025, 41(3): 313-321.

参考文献

Bascandziev, I., & Harris, P. L. (2016). The beautiful and the accurate: Are children’s selective trust decisions biased? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 92-105.
Baum, L. A., Danovitch, J. H., & Keil, F. C. (2008). Children’s sensitivity to circular explanations.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 100(2), 146-155.
Boseovski, J. J. (2010). Evidence for “Rose-Colored Glasses”: Anexamination of the positivity bias in young children’s personality judgments. Child Development Perspectives, 4(3), 212-218.
Boseovski, J. J. (2012). Trust in testimony about strangers: Young children prefer reliable informants who make positive attributions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 543-551.
Boseovski, J. J., Marble, K. E., & Hughes, C. (2017). Role of expertise, consensus, andinformational valence in children’s performance judgments. Social Development, 26(3), 445-465.
Boseovski, J. J., & Thurman, S. L. (2014). Evaluating and approaching a strange animal: Children’s trust in informant testimony. Child Development, 85(2), 824-834.
Castelain, T., Bernard, S., & Mercier, H. (2018). Evidence that two-year-old children are sensitive to information presented in arguments.Infancy, 23(1), 124-135.
Castelain, T., Bernard, S., Van der Henst, J. B., & Mercier, H. (2016). The influence of power and reason on young Maya children’s endorsement of testimony.Developmental Science, 19(6), 957-966.
Clegg, J. M., Kurkul, K. E., & Corriveau, K. H. (2019). Trust me, I’m a competent expert: Developmental differences in children’s use of an expert’s explanation quality to infer trustworthiness.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 188, Article 104670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104670
Corriveau, K. H., & Kurkul, K. E. (2014). “Why does rain fall?”: Children prefer to learn from an informant who uses noncircular explanations. Child Development, 85(5), 1827-1835.
Croce, R. C., & Boseovski, J. J. (2020). Trait or testimony? Children’s preferences for positive informants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 190, Article 104726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104726
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643-669.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Fusaro, M., Corriveau, K. H., & Harris, P. L. (2011). The good, the strong, and the accurate: Preschoolers’ evaluations of informant attributes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 561-574.
Hermes, J., Behne, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2015). The role of trait reasoning in young children’s selective trust.Developmental Psychology, 51(11), 1574-1587.
Hermes, J., Behne, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2018). The development of selective trust: Prospects for a dual-process account. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 134-138.
Hermes, J., Behne, T., Bich, A., Thielert, C., & Rakoczy, H. (2018). Children’s selective trust decisions:Rational competence and limiting performance factors. Developmental Science, 21(2), Article e12527. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12527
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes Factors.The Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1), 2-9.
JASP Team. (2019). JASP (Version 0.16.2). [Computer software] Retrieved June 9, 2022 from https://jasp-stats.org/
Jaswal, V. K., Croft, A. C., Setia, A. R., & Cole, C. A. (2010). Youngchildren have a specific, highly robust bias to trust testimony. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1541-1547.
Kurkul, K. E., & Corriveau, K. H. (2018). Question, explanation, follow-up: A mechanism for learning from others?Child Development, 89(1), 280-294.
Kushnir, T., Vredenburgh, C., & Schneider, L. A. (2013).“Who can help me fix this toy?” The distinction between causal knowledge and word knowledge guides preschoolers’ selective requests for information. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 446-453.
Landrum, A. R., Eaves, B. S. J., & Shafto, P. (2015). Learning to trust and trusting to learn: A theoretical framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 109-111.
Landrum, A. R., & Mills, C. M. (2015). Developing expectations regarding the boundaries of expertise.Cognition, 134, 215-231.
Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. A. (2013). Informants’ traits weigh heavily in young children’s trust in testimony and in their epistemic inferences. Child Development, 84(4), 1253-1268.
Mills, C. M., Danovitch, J. H., Rowles, S.P., & Campbell, I. L. (2017). Children’s success at detecting circular explanations and their interest in future learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1465-1477.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A.,& Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100.
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267-278.
Ronfard, S., Bartz, D. T., Cheng, L., Chen, X., & Harris, P. L. (2018). Children’s developing ideas about knowledge and its acquisition. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 54, 123-151.
Tong, Y., Wang, F., & Danovitch, J. (2020). The role of epistemic and social characteristics in children’s selective trust: Three meta-analyses.Developmental Science, 23(2), Article e12895. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12895
柴凯轩, 李宜霖, 朱莉琪. (2019). 儿童在因果知识领域内的选择性学习. 心理科学进展, 27(8), 1427-1438.
胡传鹏, 孔祥祯, Wagenmakers, E. J., Ly, A., 彭凯平. (2018). 贝叶斯因子及其在JASP中的实现. 心理科学进展, 26(6), 951-965.
李婷玉, 刘黎, 李宜霖, 朱莉琪. (2018). 冲突情境下幼儿的选择性信任和信念修正. 心理学报, 50(12), 1390-1399.
林崇德. (主编). (2018). 发展心理学. 人民教育出版社.
唐卫海, 钟汝波, 许晓旭, 刘希平. (2019). 面孔吸引力和信息正确性对幼儿选择性信任的影响. 心理学报, 51(1), 71-84.
童钰, 王福兴, 李卉. (2019). 信息提供者的先前准确性对幼儿选择性信任的影响. 心理发展与教育, 35(3), 257-266.
王静梅, 张义宾, 郑晨烨, 卢英俊, 秦金亮. (2019). 3～6岁儿童执行功能子成分发展的研究. 心理发展与教育, 35(1), 1-10.
袁鸣, 邓铸, 季培. (2013). 儿童社会认识论:儿童对信息提供者的选择性信任. 心理科学进展, 21(3), 480-486.
张璟, 李婷敏, 郑沁婷, 周双珠, 熊红星. (2020). 线索冲突情境下幼儿对不同领域知识的选择性信任特点. 心理科学, 43(2), 371-377.
张耀华, 朱莉琪.(2014).认识性信任: 学龄前儿童的选择性学习.心理科学进展, 22(1), 86-96.
张芷诺, 杜瑶, 汤玉龙. (2022). 双加工模型视角下的儿童选择性信任. 心理科学, 45(2), 379-385.
钟汝波. (2022). 儿童选择性信任决策水平发展的双加工机制及影响因素 (博士学位论文). 天津师范大学.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	王堃炎, 黄英航, 邓珏, 王璇, 张向葵. 从善念到善行:4~7岁儿童社会善念与亲社会行为的发展关联[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 457-466.
[2]	于晓, 张雅欣, 戚玥, 常尚钺, 何雯惺, 陈英和. 学龄儿童自然联结的发展轨迹及其与创造力倾向的关系:累加效应还是交互效应？[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 467-477.
[3]	陈紫薇, 黄潇潇, 俞国良. 父母教养行为与儿童心理健康关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 563-576.
[4]	吴旻, 张杰, 叶攀琴, 龚茜, 袁柯曼. 留守儿童非自杀性自伤行为的发展轨迹:同伴侵害模式的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 586-595.
[5]	舒展, 彭申立, 赵纤, 黎志华. 累积家庭风险对低收入家庭儿童外化问题影响的即时与延时效应:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 596-608.
[6]	韩燕, 郭筱琳, 杨文静, 张恒, 王腾飞. 阅读困难儿童的执行功能结构分化滞后于正常发展儿童[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 326-336.
[7]	范兴华, 靳嘉宁, 燕利飞, 李潇潼, 邓汇溪. 留守困境对初中儿童个人成长主动性发展的影响:社会支持的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 427-436.
[8]	张攀, 杨娟, 王小英. 象似性手势对3~4岁儿童汉语动作动词记忆和泛化的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 153-161.
[9]	袁雯, 张旭然, 郭惠, 李燕芳. 儿童欺凌网络的结构特征与变化特点：基于社会网络分析视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 234-244.
[10]	谢宇, 贺荟中, 王磊, 戴惟熙. 孤独症儿童与典型发展儿童内隐学习物品情景线索的比较研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 761-769.
[11]	范兴华, 燕利飞, 靳嘉宁, 李潇潼, 邓汇溪, 余思. 父母关爱对4~6年级留守儿童幸福感发展的影响:积极诠释生活的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 859-868.
[12]	刘畅, 蒋柳青, 郑天鹏, 边玉芳. 父母情绪调节困难与父母情绪社会化行为的关系:基于主客体互倚模型的交叉滞后研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 652-662.
[13]	王宇轩, 刘梦连, 杨滢晖, 毕鸿燕. 学龄儿童与成人形音整合的比较研究:字形与字音的相互影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 457-464.
[14]	王彦姣, 黄家桢, 龙嘉, 王沛. 领域一般和领域特殊能力与计算障碍的内在联系及其启示——基于元分析视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 473-481.
[15]	冯娜, 梁峰, 王芬, 何春丽, 张慧. 基本情绪与道德情绪对不同年龄群体道德判断的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 491-499.