Agreement is not Enough: Children’s Understanding That the Power of Consensus Stems From Group Composition

• In Event: Poster Session 13
  In Poster Session: PS 13 Topic - Social Cognition

Abstract

People seek to explain the phenomena that they observe in their everyday lives, and often look to the majority opinion to do so (e.g., Mercier & Morin, 2019). But there are many circumstances in which there is no clear majority, rather there are multiple perspectives, each shared among different groups of people. Without relevant expertise to assess the actual contents of each view, there is greater risk of accepting views based on social preference alone and thus being misinformed (see Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; Pew Research Center, 2014). In such circumstances, it is critical to consider what information is available for evaluation, namely, the groups’ social composition and its relevance with respect to the view that each group shares. The current investigation examines whether social diversity versus homogeneity among groups with a shared view, guides children and adults’ inquiries about natural and cultural phenomena, respectively.
In this online study, children (N=36, 7-8-year-olds) and adults (N=36) are introduced to a faraway planet home to four alien groups. Participants are tasked with finding out why various ‘weird’ things happen on this planet, but can only do so by asking for help from one of two groups of aliens, each of whom think something different. Presented with a total of 8 trials, or ‘weird’ things that happen, half involve a universal and naturally occurring phenomenon (natural trial-type) and half a culturally specific phenomenon observed in a select alien group (cultural trial-type). Across all trials, participants identify one of two groups of aliens, either a homogeneous or a diverse alien group, as the best group to ask why that ‘weird’ thing happens.
When seeking explanations for cultural phenomena, we expect children and adults to judge a view shared among members of that culture as most reliable (See Figure 1). Whereas, when pursuing explanations regarding natural phenomena, we expect shared group membership to undermine the legitimacy of a shared view; thus, we expect participants to indicate a diverse group as most reliable, but with a stronger effect among adults (See Figure 2). The first set of analyses will examine whether performance differs among children and adults and whether the selections of groups with different social compositions differs by trial-type. Following, we will assess whether participants reliably select the different consensus groups in line with predictions for both trial-types. Both sets of analyses will use Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Models, with age (children versus adults) and trial-type (cultural versus natural) entered as predictors, and with items and participants entered as random intercepts to account for repeated measures. However, for the first analysis, whether the diverse consensus was chosen or not will be entered as the outcome variable, whereas for the second analysis, whether the predicted consensus group was chosen or not will be entered as the outcome variable.
Data collection is ongoing and recruitment activities include social media platforms, email listservs, and a university family database. This research has potential to inform strategies aimed at combatting misinformation through the use of social information for critical evaluation.

Authors

• Karen Carmel Levush, University of Maryland, College Park
  Presenting Author

• Jenna Alton, University of Maryland - College Park
  Non-Presenting Author

• Lucas Payne Butler, University of Maryland - College Park
  Non-Presenting Author