Keywords
belief revision
order effects
recency
children
attitude change
judgment/decision
information integration
How to Cite
Abstract
Our attitudes/beliefs typically develop gradually, with information appearing over time. This study considered how 6- and 9-year-olds (N = 80) form beliefs from serial information, and how information order affects this, in parallel social and physical judgment tasks. Children updated their beliefs continuously, after each bit of information, or gave one judgment at the end of the series. Updating results showed strong, short-term recency effects; stable beliefs, reflecting all informers, developed as well. These stable beliefs were weaker for younger children; the recency was stronger. Both ages used a running average strategy when serially updating judgments, but a memory-based approach when responding only at the end. The latter produced no recency or age differences and led to stronger beliefs. It is concluded that children use the same serial judgment strategies as adults. Process parameters, e.g., recency weights, change with development/information complexity, but even young children form serial beliefs effectively.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., & Zanna, M.P. (Eds, 2014). The handbook of attitudes. Psychology Press.
Anderson, N.H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press
Anderson, N.H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Anderson, N.H., & Farkas, A.J. (1973). New light on order effects in attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 88-93
Anderson, N.H., & Schlottmann, A. (1991). Developmental study of personal probability. In N. H. Anderson (Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory: Vol. III. Developmental (pp. 111-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Asch, S.E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290
Bayless, S. & Schlottmann, A. (2010). Skill-related uncertainty and expected value in 5- and 7-year-olds. Psicologica. Special Issue on Functional Measurement. 31(3), 677-687.
Bizer, G.Y., Tormala, Z.L., Rucker, D.D., & Petty, R.E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(5), 646-653.
Bjorklund, D.F. (Ed., 1990) Children’s strategies. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Boseovski, J.J. & Lee, K. (2006). Children’s use of frequency information for trait categorisation and behavioural prediction. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 500-513.
Boseovski, J.J., Chiu, K., & Marcovitch, S. (2013). Integration of behavioral frequency and intention information in young children's trait attributions. Social Development, 22(1), 38-57.
Busemeyer, J.R. (1991). Intuitive statistical estimation. In N. H. Anderson (Ed.), Contributions to information integration theory: Vol. I. Cognitive (pp. 187-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Cain, K.M., Heyman, G.D., & Walker, M.E.(1997) Preschoolers’ ability to make dispositional predictions within and across domains. Social Development, 6(1), 54-75.
Chan, C.C., & Tardif, T.(2013). Knowing better: The role of prior knowledge and culture in trust in testimony. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 591.
Denrell, J. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951-978.
Dreben, E.K., Fiske, S.T., & Hastie, R. (1979). The independence of evaluative and item information: Impression and recall order effects in behavior-based impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1758-1768
Dozier, M. (1991). Functional measurement assessment of young children’s ability to predict future behaviour. Child Development, 62(5), 1091-1099.
Duffy, S., & Crawford, L.E. (2008). Primacy or recency effects in forming inductive categories. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 567-577.
Ebersbach, M. (2009). Achieving a new dimension: Children integrate three stimulus dimensions in volume estimations. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 877-883.
Ganea, P.A., Shutts, K., Spelke, E.S., & DeLoache, J.S. (2007). Thinking of things unseen: Infants' use of language to update mental representations. Psychological Science, 18, 734-739.
Ganea, P. A., & Harris, P. L. (2013). Early limits on the verbal updating of an object’s location. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 89-101.
Gawronski, B., & Strack, F. (Eds.). (2012). Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition. Guilford Press.
Gelman, S.A. & Markman, E.M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183-209
Gerstenberg, T. & Lagnado, D. (2012). When contributions make a difference: Explaining order effects in responsibility attribution.
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107-143.
Giles, J.W., & Heyman, G.D. (2005). Preschoolers use trait‐relevant information to evaluate the appropriateness of an aggressive response. Aggressive Behavior, 31(5), 498-509.
Harris, P.L. (2012). Trusting what you're told: How children learn from others. Harvard University Press.
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
Hogarth, H.J. & Einhorn, R.M. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
Hovland, C.I. (Ed.). (1957). The order of presentation in persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jacobs, J.E., & Narloch, R.H. (2001). Children’s use of sample size and variability to make social inferences. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 311–331
Jacobs, J.E. & Potenza, M. (1991). The use of judgment heuristics to make social and object decisions: A developmental perspective. Child Development, 62, 166-178.
Jarrold, C., Hall, D., Harvey, C.E., Tam, H., Towse, J.N., & Zarandi, A.L. (2015). What can we learn about immediate memory from the development of children's free recall? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1871-1894.
Kalish, C.W. (2012). How young children learn from examples: Descriptive and inferential problems. Cognitive Science, 36(8), 1427-1448
Kashima, Y., & & Kerekes, A.R.Z. (1994). A distributed model of averaging phenomena in person impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 407-455.
Keil, F.C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Kuhn, D. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In U. Goswami, Editor, Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (2nd Edition), Chapter 19, pp 492-523. Blackwell, Oxford.
Kruglanski, A.W., & Orehek, E. (2007). Partitioning the domain of social inference: Dual mode and systems models and their alternatives. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 291-316.
Lawson, C.A. (2014). Three-year-olds obey the sample size principle of induction: The influence of evidence presentation and sample size disparity on young children’s generalizations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 123, 147-154.
Lawson, C.A., & Fisher, A.V. (2011). It’s in the sample: the effects of sample size and diversity on the breadth of inductive generalisation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 499-519.
Liu, D., Gelman, S.A. & Wellman, H.M. (2007). Components of young children’s trait understanding: Behavior-to-trait inferences and trait-to-behavior predictions. Child Development, 78(5), 1543-1558.
Lucas, C.G., Bridgers, S., Griffiths, T.L., & Gopnik, A. (2014). When children are better (or at least more open-minded) learners than adults: Developmental differences in the forms of causal relationships. Cognition, 131, 284-299.
Mackie, D.M., & Asuncion, A.G.(1990). On-line and memory-based modification of attitudes: Determinants of message recall-attitude change correspondence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 5.
Master,A., Markman, E.M., & Dweck, C. (2012). Thinking in categories or along a continuum: Consequences for children’s social judgments. Child Development, 83(4), 1145-1163.
McGraw, K.M., Lodge, M. & Stroh, P. (1990). On-line processing in candidate evaluation: the effects of issue order issue importance and sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(1), 41-58.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. L. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.), Vol II: Special fields and applications (pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
Pennington, N. & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189-206.
Petty, R.E., & Brinol, P. (2010). Attitude change. Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science, 217-259.
Petty, R.E., Tormala, Z.L. Hawkins, C., & Wegener, D.T. (2001). Motivation to think and order effects in persuasion: The moderating role of chunking. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), 332-344.
Riskey, D.R. (1979). Verbal memory processes in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 271-281.
Ronfard, S., & Lane, J. D. (in press). Preschoolers continually adjust their epistemic trust based on an informant’s ongoing accuracy. Child Development.
Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E.(2001). On-line versus memory-based processing: The role of “need to evaluate” in person perception. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 27(12), 1599-1612.
Schäuble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: the role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57.
Schlottmann, A. (1999). Seeing it happen and knowing how it works: How children understand the relation between perceptual causality and knowledge of underlying mechanism. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 303-317.
Schlottmann, A., & Anderson, N.H. (1995). Belief revision in children: Serial judgment in social cognition and decision making domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1349-1364.
Schlottmann, A. & Anderson, N.H. (2007). Belief learning and revision studied with Information Integration Theory. Teorie & Modelli, Special Issue on Applications of Functional Measurement in Psychology, 12(1-2), 63-76.
Shanteau, J. (1970). An additive model for sequential decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 181-191.
Shanteau, J. (1972). Descriptive versus normative models of sequential inference judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 63-68.
Tormala, Z.L., & Petty, R.E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing: The role of “need to evaluate” in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1599-1612.
Trotman, K.T. & Wright, A. (2000). Order effects and recency effects: Where do we go from here? Accounting and Finance, 14(2), 169-182.
Uleman, J.S., Adil Saribay, S., & Gonzalez, C.M. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329-360.
Van Overwalle, F., & Labiouse, C. (2004). A recurrent connectionist model of person impression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(1), 28-61.
Wang, H., Zhang, J., & Johnson, T.R. (2000). Human belief revision and the order effect. In Twenty-second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ.
Wang, H., Johnson, T.R. & Zhang, J., & (2006). The order effect in human abductive reasoning: An empirical and computational study. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 18(2), 215-247
Xu, F. & Garcia, V. (2008). Intuitive statistics by 8-month-old infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(13), 5012-5015.
Zauberman, G., Diehl, K., & Ariely, D. (2006). Hedonic versus informational valuations: Task dependent preferences for sequences of outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 191-211.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.