Poster #80 - Expertise Outweighs Bias: An Investigation of Children's Selective Trust in Individuals with Disabilities

• In Event: Poster Session 08

Abstract

Preschoolers are selective in who they trust when learning new information, considering informant characteristics such as reliability and expertise (Marble & Boseovski, 2020). However, children are also susceptible to social biases and are more likely to trust informants from their in-group rather than their out-group (Corriveau et al., 2013). Limited research suggests that preschoolers show a lack of trust in informants with physical disabilities, which even overrides children’s preference for reliable informants (Jaffer & Ma, 2015). However, this previous research examined limited testimony contexts (i.e., testimony about facts and physical activities).

The current study assessed children’s trust of individuals with disabilities who provided testimony about various facts and actions that were more or less relevant to disabilities. Importantly, we examined contexts in which people with physical disabilities would ostensibly have greater expertise (e.g., how wheelchairs function). We expected children to show less trust individuals with physical disabilities when their testimony dealt with actions, as children may perceive this as a limitation of such informants. We also expected children to prefer informants with disabilities when their testimony was relevant to their disability. Finally, we expected this recognition of expertise to increase with age as children become more sensitive to expertise cues (Marble & Boseovski, 2020).

Data collection is ongoing and reported analyses are preliminary. The study employed a 2 (Age: 3- to 6-year-olds vs. 7- to 11-year-olds) x 4 (Condition: Disability-relevant action, disability-irrelevant action, disability-relevant fact, disability-irrelevant fact) design with age as a between-subjects variable and condition as a within-subjects variable. Participants heard two trials of testimony from each of the four conditions accompanied by line drawings of the informants. On each trial, participants heard conflicting statements from the two informants about a topic (e.g., how to stop when using a wheelchair) and were asked “Which do you think is right?” (see Table 1).
A mixed ANOVA revealed a significant effect of condition, F(1, 90) = 2.67, p = 0.04, η_ρ^2 = 0.03, (see Figure 1). Children were more likely to endorse testimony of the informant using a wheelchair in the disability-relevant actions condition (M = 1.21, SD = 0.07) than the disability-irrelevant action condition (M = 0.92, SD = 0.08). There was no significant difference in children’s informant selection in the disability-relevant fact and disability-irrelevant fact conditions. Tests against chance indicated that children were more likely than chance to select the informant using a wheelchair in the disability-relevant action condition, t(91) = 2.88, p = 0.005, d = .30, whereas children responded at chance levels in all other conditions, ps >.10. There were no significant effects of age, ps > .09.

The current findings suggest that children do not demonstrate an overall bias against individuals with disabilities in their informant selection. In contrast, they value the testimony of individuals with disabilities in contexts that seem most relevant. Future research should consider under what other conditions children may have such perceptions and how this information could be leveraged to increase positive perceptions of out-group members.

Authors

• Taylor Redd, Wingate University
  Presenting Author

• Candace Lapan, Wingate University