Lecture 9 Flashcards
What is meant by social categories? What kinds of information do we use to form social categories? Is it always bad that we see the world through social categories? Which factors can make perceiving others through social categories particularly harmful? Provide examples to support your points.
Social categories refer to the mental classifications or groups that individuals use to organize people based on shared characteristics, attributes, or memberships. These categories can include a wide range of distinctions such as race, gender, age, nationality, religion, occupation, and more. Humans naturally categorize information as a cognitive shortcut, helping them process vast amounts of social information efficiently
Information used to form social categories:
People use various cues and information to form social categories. These cues can include
Physical appearance: features such as skin colour, facial features, body size, and clothing
Behavioural cues: actions, gestures, and behaviours observed in social interactions
Speech and language: accents, dialects, and language use
Stereotypes and cultural norms: preconceived ideas and societal expectations associated with certain groups
Affiliation: membership in specific groups, organizations, or communities
Perceiving through social categories
Perceiving the world through social categories is not inherently negative. Categorization is a natural cognitive process that helps individuals make sense of complex social environments. It allows for quick decision-making, helps predict behaviour, and facilitates social interactions
Factors making it harmful:
However, perceiving others through social categories can become harmful under certain circumstances, such as:
Stereotyping: when individuals rely on stereotypes, assuming that everyone in a particular category shares the same traits or behaviours, it can lead to unfair judgments and discrimination
Prejudice and bias: unjust attitudes and opinions about individuals based on their social category can result in discriminatory actions
In-group favouritism: favouring individuals within one’s own social category over those in different categories can contribute to social division and exclusion
Implicit bias: unconscious biases that affect judgments and decision-making, often leading to unintended discriminatory behaviour
Examples:
Racial stereotypes: Assuming that all members of a particular racial group share specific characteristics
Gender bias: Believing that certain roles or professions are more suitable for a particular gender
Ageism: Discriminating against individuals based on their age, whether they are considered too young or too old for certain activities
Nationality-based prejudice: Making assumptions about a person’s abilities or personality traits based on their nationality
Be able to explain what a minimal group is. Do children actually treat others differently as a function of these arbitrary, short term groups? In which ways?
Minimal group: refers to a social categorization that is created in a minimal or arbitrary way, often without any meaningful basis or relevance. The classification into these groups is typically random, temporary, and lacks any substantial rationale. Minimal groups are used in social psychology experiments to investigate how people show favouritism or bias even in situations where group membership is arbitrary and inconsequential
Children’s behaviour in minimal groups: Research has shown that children do indeed treat others differently based on minimal group membership, even when the groups are arbitrary and short-term. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in various experiments using minimal group paradigms
Ways children treat others differently:
In-group favouritism: Children tend to show a preference for members of their own minimal group over members of other groups. This favouritism can manifest in various ways, such as choosing in-group members as playmates or expressing positive attitudes toward them
Out-group discrimination: Conversely, children may exhibit discriminatory behaviours or negative attitudes toward members of the out-group. This discrimination can include avoiding, excluding, or expressing bias against individuals perceived as belonging to a different minimal group
Allocation of resources: In experiments where children are given the opportunity to distribute resources (such as stickers or rewards), they often display a tendency to allocate more resources to in-group members, even when there is no practical reason to do so
Social influence: Children may conform to the norms and behaviours of their minimal group, adjusting their own actions to align with what is perceived as acceptable within the group. This social influence can contribute to the reinforcement of in-group biases
Perception of competence: Studies have found that children may perceive in-group members as more competent or talented than out-group members, even if the groups were formed arbitrarily. This bias in perception can affect collaborative activities and task assignments
Positive evaluation of in-group: Children may exhibit a positive evaluation of their own minimal group, attributing more positive traits or qualities to in-group members compared to out-group members
Be able to describe milestones in the perception of race. Integrating information with Term Test 1, how would you design an eye gaze experiment that measures: 1) whether infants display a preference for own-race versus other-race faces, 2) whether infants differ in their ability to discriminate own-race versus other-race faces, and 3) whether infants perceive race categorically. At birth, 3 months old, 6 months old, and 12 months old what would you expect?
Newborns (Birth): Newborns generally do not display a preference for own-race versus other-race faces. Studies have shown that at birth, infants do not exhibit a preference for faces of their own racial or ethnic group
3 months old: By 3 months of age, infants start to show a preference for caregiver or familiar faces over unfamiliar faces. At this stage, infants may begin to demonstrate a preference for faces that belong to the racial or ethnic group of their primary caregivers
6 months old: Infants at 6 months old may become more attuned to racial differences. While they may not yet exhibit strong racial preferences, they might show heightened sensitivity to facial features associated with their own race
12 months old: By 12 months of age, infants are more likely to display preferences for faces that match the race or ethnicity of their primary caregivers. This preference becomes more pronounced as infants continue to learn and become familiar with the faces they encounter regularly
Designing an eye gaze experiments:
To measure the factors you outlined (1) preference for own-race versus other-race faces, (2) ability to discriminate own-race versus other-race faces, and (3) perception of race categorically, you could design an eye gaze experiment as follows:
Experimental design:
Participants: infants at different ages (birth, 3, 6, 12)
Stimuli: create a set of stimuli containing both own-race and other-race faces. Ensure that the faces are neutral and unfamiliar to the infants
Procedure
Preference for own-race vs other-race faces
Use a visual preference paradigm where infants are presented with pairs of faces—one from their own racial group and one from another racial group
Track infants’ eye gaze and measure the duration of gaze directed toward each face
Analyze whether infants show a visual preference for faces of their own race
Discrimination of own-race vs other-race faces:
Employ a habituation-dishabituation paradigm where infants are habituated to faces of their own race and then presented with both familiar and novel faces from their own and another racial group
Measure the dishabituation response, specifically looking for longer gazes at novel faces
Analyze whether infants can discriminate between faces of their own race and faces of another race
Perception of race categorically:
Use a categorical perception paradigm where infants are presented with a continuum of morphed faces representing a gradual change in race
Track infants’ eye gaze and measure the point at which they show a shift in attention from one category to another
Analyze whether infants perceive faces categorically based on race
Expected results:
At birth, you would not expect infants to show a clear preference for own-race faces
At 3 months, you might observe a subtle preference emerging
By 6 months, infants may show increased sensitivity to facial features associated with their own race
At 12 months, infants are likely to display a stronger preference for faces from their own racial or ethnic group
At which age do children appear to start treating others differently as a function of their race? At which ages does explicit, self-reported bias begin to decline in White children? What are ways that Black children show anti-Black bias? How does the Sturdivant & Alanis (2020) study with dolls presented in the linked video suggest implicit bias?
Age of different treatment based on race:
Children as young as preschool age have been shown to exhibit differential treatment based on race. Studies, including the classic doll experiments conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark in the 1930s, indicated that children around this age demonstrate racial biases in their preferences and interactions
Decline in explicit, self-reported bias in white children:
Research suggests that explicit, self-reported bias tends to decline in White children as they get older. Some studies have found a reduction in overt expressions of racial bias and prejudice in late childhood and adolescence. This decline may be influenced by factors such as increased exposure to diverse perspectives, education on racial issues, and the development of more nuanced social cognition
Anti-black bias in black children:
It’s important to note that Black children can also show anti-Black bias, which may be influenced by societal messages and stereotypes. Studies have indicated that, similar to White children, Black children may internalize negative stereotypes about their own racial or ethnic group. This phenomenon is known as internalized racism
Sturdivant & Alanis (2020) study and implicit bias:
The Sturdivant & Alanis (2020) study, as described in the linked video, likely suggests implicit bias through the use of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT is a commonly used tool to measure implicit biases that individuals may hold unconsciously
In the study:
Participants: college students were involved in the experiment
Procedure: The IAT was employed to assess implicit biases related to race. Participants were asked to associate positive and negative words with images of Black and White faces
Results: The study found that participants, including those who identified as non-racist and non-prejudiced, demonstrated implicit biases. The IAT revealed associations between positive words and White faces and negative words and Black faces, indicating an implicit bias that contradicted participants’ explicit attitudes
At 6-years-old, how do we expect Black and White children to respond to ambiguous, cross-race scenarios? How does this change by 13-years-old?
At 6 years old, researchers have found that both Black and White children may respond differently to ambiguous, cross-race scenarios. The study mentioned in your notes indicates that:
White 6 year olds: White children at this age were likely to attribute negative intentions to the Black character in the scenarios but did not systematically select an intention when evaluating the White character
Black 6 year olds: Black children did not systematically select an intention when evaluating White characters
By the age of 13, there seems to be a shift in the responses of both White and black children:
Adolescent responses (13 year old): By adolescence (13 and 14 years old), both White and Black children were found to attribute negative intentions in cross-race scenarios, regardless of the race involved. This shift suggests that, with age, both groups of children started attributing negative intentions not only to out-group members but also to members of their own racial group in cross-race scenarios
How do social categories formed around accent, language, and race influence children’s preferences for learning from new people and preferences for making friends with new people at 5 years old? Which factors do children prioritize above others?
Language and accent:
Learning preferences: Children, by the age of 5, tend to prefer learning from individuals who speak their native language without a foreign accent. This preference suggests that linguistic familiarity and clear communication play a role in children’s learning choices
Friendship preferences: Children in multilingual neighbourhoods, where various languages are spoken, may be more likely to learn from non-native speakers. This suggests that exposure to linguistic diversity in the environment can influence children’s preferences for learning and potentially extend to friendship choices
Race:
Learning preferences: previous research has shown that children may exhibit racial preferences in various contexts, influencing their social interactions and learning choices
Friendship preferences: Children’s preferences for making friends may be influenced by racial and ethnic factors. Research has demonstrated that, by early childhood, children can show a preference for members of their own racial or ethnic group when forming friendships
Factors prioritized by children
Learning: Children may prioritize factors such as linguistic familiarity, clear communication, and cultural relevance when selecting learning partners. These preferences may contribute to a more effective learning experience
Friendship: When making friends, children may initially prioritize familiarity, shared experiences, and common cultural elements. However, it’s crucial to note that individual differences and the specific context play significant roles in shaping these preferences
Be able to explain why exposure to neighbourhood diversity can positively influence children’s perceptions of or interactions with out-group members (e.g., based on race, accent). Provide an example of these effects for infants, 5-year-olds, and 13-year-olds. Thinking back to Term Test 1, in what way might face preferences and face scanning be differently affected?
Exposure to neighbourhood diversity can positively influence children’s perceptions of and interactions with out-group members, such as those based on race or accent. This positive impact is often attributed to increased familiarity, reduced stereotypes, and enhanced understanding of diverse perspectives. Here are examples of these effects at different developmental stages:
Infants:
Example: Infants raised in neighbourhoods with high cultural and linguistic diversity may have more exposure to individuals with various accents, languages, and ethnic backgrounds. This early exposure can contribute to the normalization of diversity, making infants more receptive to different linguistic cues and facial features
5-year olds:
Example: Children at the age of 5 growing up in diverse neighbourhoods are likely to have classmates, friends, and playmates from various cultural backgrounds. This exposure fosters positive social interactions, reduces bias, and promotes an understanding that differences in accents, languages, or racial backgrounds are a natural part of their social environment
13 year olds:
Example: Adolescents who have experienced neighbourhood diversity throughout their development are more likely to have developed cross-cultural competence and empathy. They may exhibit more inclusive attitudes, reduced racial or linguistic biases, and a greater ability to navigate interactions with individuals from diverse backgrounds
Face preferences and face scanning
Term test 1 connection: exposure to neighbourhood diversity can impact face preferences and face scanning in several ways. In a diverse environment, children may develop more flexible face preferences, recognizing and appreciating a broader range of facial features. Additionally, face scanning may be influenced by exposure to various facial expressions and cultural nuances, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of social cues
Example: A study examining face preferences in children from diverse neighbourhoods might find that these children demonstrate greater comfort and positive responses when exposed to faces with diverse features. Their face scanning patterns may reflect adaptability to facial expressions and characteristics that are representative of the varied individuals they encounter in their community
How is over-reliance on social categories in research harmful and/or limiting? How can a dimensional approach be applied instead? For Cikara et al. (2022), be especially familiar with the table on Slide 49. How does each of the three frameworks point to gaps in our current understanding? What is the main difference between assemblage theory and dynamic systems? In addition, pay particular attention to the concepts of the naturalness of social categories, social categories as explanations, bounded understandings of individuals, and static conceptions of people. Be able to provide an example of each of these issues.
Limits theory: Relying solely on social categories can limit the development and advancement of psychological theories. It may oversimplify complex human behaviours and interactions by reducing them to categorical distinctions, ignoring the rich variability within and between groups
Limits replicability: Research based on rigid social categories may lack generalizability across diverse contexts and populations. This can impede the replicability of findings and hinder the identification of universal principles that apply across different social and cultural settings
Reinforces stereotypes: Social categories may perpetuate stereotypes, leading to biased interpretations of behaviour. This reinforcement of stereotypes can contribute to a distorted understanding of individuals and may inadvertently contribute to social inequalities and discrimination
Dimensional approach
A dimensional approach involves considering constructs in a more nuanced and flexible manner, acknowledging the dynamic and multifaceted nature of human experiences. Instead of relying on fixed categories, researchers consider dimensions such as time, place, accent, phenotype, and religion, providing a more comprehensive understanding of individual variation
Naturalness of social categories:
Issue: assuming that social categories are inherently natural and static can lead to essentialist thinking, overlooking the fluid and context-dependent nature of identity
Examples: stereotypes that associate certain traits or behaviours as inherently characteristic of a particular race, gender, or nationality
Social categories as explanations:
Issue: Using social categories as explanatio
ns for behaviour oversimplifies complex phenomena and neglects the influence of situational factors and individual differences
Examples: Explaining an individual’s behaviour solely based on their gender without considering other relevant factors
Bounded understandings of individual:
Issue: Viewing individuals through fixed social categories may constrain our understanding of their diverse experiences, beliefs, and behaviours
Example: Assuming that all individuals within a particular ethnic group share identical cultural practices without recognizing internal variations
Difference between assemblage theory and dynamic systems:
Assemblage theory: Emphasizes the dynamic and relational nature of social entities, highlighting how interactions and connections between diverse elements shape social realities. It focuses on the emergent properties that arise from these assemblages
Dynamic systems: Examines how complex systems, such as human behaviuor, evolve over time. It considers the interplay of multiple factors and their dynamic interactions, acknowledging the continuous change and adaptation within systems
Why is imitation and testimony so important to our learning? Why does it enable us to acquire information and innovate in ways other species cannot? What are the drawbacks and how does this result in over-imitation? How does this connect to Gopnik’s proposals in Lecture 5?
Importance of imitation and testimony in learning:
Efficiency: Imitation and testimony allow for efficient learning by capitalizing on the knowledge and experiences of others. Rather than relying solely on trial-and-error learning, individuals can acquire information quickly by observing and replicating behaviours
Knowledge accumulation: Humans can accumulate knowledge across generations through social learning. This enables the transmission of information from one generation to the next, fostering cultural and technological advancements that surpass individual lifespans
Avoidance of risk: Learning from others allows individuals to avoid the risks associated with trial-and-error learning. By observing successful strategies and behaviours, one can benefit from the experiences of others without personally experiencing the potential negative consequences
Advantages over other species
Cumulative cultures: Humans exhibit cumulative culture, wherein knowledge and innovations are built upon and refined over time. This cumulative aspect of cultural evolution sets human learning apart from that of other species
Pedagogical cues: Humans are sensitive to pedagogical cues, such as intentional demonstrations and cues indicating that someone is attempting to teach. This sensitivity enhances the effectiveness of social learning in humans
Drawbacks leading to over-imitations:
Conventional actions: There are instances where imitation serves a conventional rather than an instrumental purpose. People may imitate actions not because they are functionally necessary but because they signal social norms or traditions
Normative pressure: Over-imitation can result from normative pressure, where individuals imitate actions because they perceive them as the socially accepted or “right” way to perform a task, even if those actions are not strictly necessary.
Connection to Gopnik proposals in lecture 5
In Lecture 5, Alison Gopnik discusses the idea of “child as scientist,” highlighting the exploratory and innovative nature of children’s learning. Gopnik proposes that children engage in a form of scientific thinking, conducting experiments and forming hypotheses about the world around them
The connection lies in the notion that both imitation and testimony, while valuable for efficient learning, can sometimes lead to a form of conservatism in thinking. Over-imitation, where individuals replicate actions without understanding their functionality, may limit creative problem-solving and hinder the exploration of alternative solutions. Gopnik’s proposals encourage a balance between social learning and individual exploration, allowing for both the transmission of valuable knowledge and the flexibility needed for innovative thinking. Children, like scientists, benefit from a blend of social learning and individual experimentation to foster a rich and adaptive learning environment.
Be able to describe the phenomenon of over-imitation and one experimental method for showcasing it. Who is more likely to over-imitate, children raised in cultures where formal education is common or: 1) chimpanzees, 2) adults in the same cultures, 3) children raised in cultures where formal education is not common (e.g., Kalahari desert)?
Over-imitation: refers to the tendency of individuals to replicate both relevant and irrelevant actions when learning from others, even when the irrelevant actions do not contribute to the task’s success
Experimental method: one experimental method for showcasing over-imitation involves using a puzzle box. In this setup
A demonstrator (either an adult or a child) shows a series of actions to open a puzzle box, including both necessary and unnecessary steps
Participants (observers) are then asked to replicate the demonstrated actions to open the box
Observers tend to over-imitate by reproducing not only the necessary actions but also irrelevant or unnecessary ones demonstrated by the model
Likelihood of over-imitation:
Children raised in cultures with formal education: Children raised in cultures with formal education are more likely to over-imitate. This is because formal education often involves a structured learning environment where conformity to established norms and procedures is emphasized
Chimpanzees: Chimpanzees are less likely to over-imitate compared to humans. While they can imitate and learn from others, their imitation tends to be more focused on the functional aspects of a task rather than replicating unnecessary actions
Adults in cultures with formal education: Similar to children, adults in cultures with formal education may exhibit over-imitation tendencies. The emphasis on conformity and adherence to established practices in formal education settings can influence adults to replicate both relevant and irrelevant actions
Children raised in cultures without formal education (e.g., Kalahari Desert): Children raised in cultures where formal education is not common may be less prone to over-imitation. These cultures often emphasize experiential learning and practical skills, and children in such environments may focus more on task relevance rather than blindly copying all action
Under which conditions do children over-imitate the most, and under which conditions do they over-imitate the least? Why do we think that children are over-imitating for reasons other than just not understanding that some of the steps are silly or unnecessary? Provide three distinct explanations.
Unclear purpose or functions of actions:
Most over-imitation: Children are more likely to over-imitate when the purpose or function of certain actions is unclear or ambiguous. If they cannot discern the instrumental relevance of each step, they may replicate all actions, including unnecessary ones
Least over-imitation: Clear understanding of the functional relevance of each step may reduce over-imitation. When the purpose of actions is evident, children are more likely to focus on the relevant steps and skip unnecessary ones
Social context and model’s status:
Most over imitation: If the model is perceived as an authority figure or holds a high status in the social group, children may be more inclined to over-imitate. Social context, such as the presence of an authoritative figure, can contribute to increased conformity
Least over-imitation: In situations where the model’s status is unclear or when the social context doesn’t emphasize the authority of the model, children may be less prone to over-imitation
Cultural emphasis on tradition and conformity:
Most over imitation: Cultures that strongly emphasize tradition, conformity, and adherence to established practices may foster over-imitation in children. In such cultures, there might be a higher value placed on replicating actions exactly as demonstrated, regardless of their necessity
Least over imitation: Cultures that encourage individual exploration, critical thinking, and a focus on task efficiency may reduce over-imitation. When children are encouraged to understand the reasons behind actions, they may be less likely to blindly copy irrelevant steps
Explanations for over imitation
Normative social learning:
Over-imitation can be explained as a form of normative social learning, where individuals mimic actions not just for instrumental purposes but to conform to social norms and expectations
Social cohesion and identification:
Over-imitation signals social cohesion and identification with the model. By replicating both relevant and irrelevant actions, individuals express a similarity to the model, reinforcing social bonds within the group
Cultural transmission of tradition:
Over-imitation may be a mechanism for the cultural transmission of tradition. In cultures valuing adherence to established practices, over-imitation ensures the faithful replication of rituals and norms across generations
How do children interpret instrumental and conventional actions differently? Use an experiment to illustrate how inferences about the instrumental versus conventional purpose of an action shape children’s willingness to engage in “silly” actions. Is over-imitation more common for instrumental or conventional actions?
Instrumental actions
Definitions: Instrumental actions are those with a clear and practical goal or purpose. They are performed to achieve a specific outcome
Interpretation: Children tend to recognize the functional significance of instrumental actions. They understand that these actions are performed to achieve a specific goal or result
Conventional actions:
Definitions: Conventional actions are those that follow established social norms or traditions. They may not have a clear practical purpose but are performed because they are customary or expected in a particular context
Interpretation: Children may interpret conventional actions as being driven by social norms or expectations. The emphasis is on the cultural or social significance of the action rather than a practical outcome
Experiment illustrating interpretations of actions
Experimental setup: Researchers present children with a task involving a series of actions performed by an adult. Some of these actions are instrumental, contributing to the completion of a task, while others are conventional, following a set of customary behaviours
Procedure
Instrumental actions: The adult demonstrates actions that clearly contribute to achieving a goal, such as assembling a puzzle
Conventional actions: The adult also performs actions that are conventional, with no direct contribution to the task’s completion but aligning with cultural norms or rituals
Observations: Children are then observed for their willingness to engage in both instrumental and conventional actions. The goal is to understand how their interpretations of the purpose (instrumental vs. conventional) influence their behaviour
Findings:
Children are more likely to imitate instrumental actions, recognizing their functional significance in achieving a goal
Over-imitation is more common for conventional actions, where children replicate behaviours not because of their practical value but to adhere to social norms or traditions
Conclusion:
The experiment highlights that children differentiate between instrumental and conventional actions, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of the purpose behind each category. While they may selectively imitate instrumental actions for their practical value, over-imitation becomes apparent in the context of conventional actions, emphasizing the role of social and cultural factors in shaping behaviour
What is the difference between imitation and testimony? In what ways does it seem children confer special trust to verbal testimony (e.g., versus an arrow)? Which factors shape children’s willingness to adopt others’ testimony? How do 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds respond differently?
Imitation:
Definition: Imitation involves copying or reproducing the actions of others. Children observe someone performing a specific behavior and replicate it in their own actions
Mechanism: Imitation is a form of learning through direct observation and replication, where individuals mimic behaviors they have witnessed
Testimony:
Definition: Testimony refers to learning from information provided by others, typically through verbal communication. It involves trusting and accepting what someone else conveys verbally
Mechanism: Testimony relies on the transmission of knowledge through language, where individuals gain information without direct observation but rather through communication
Special Trust in Verbal Testimony: Children often confer special trust to verbal testimony, and several factors contribute to this inclination:
Language as a Source of Information:
Children recognize language as a powerful tool for conveying information
Verbal testimony is perceived as a direct source of knowledge, especially when compared to non-verbal cues like arrows or gestures
Social Influence:
Verbal communication is a primary means of social interaction
Children, being social beings, are inclined to trust and adopt information conveyed through language, considering it an essential aspect of social learning
Factors Shaping Children’s Trust in Testimony: Several factors influence children’s willingness to adopt others’ testimony:
Accuracy:
Children tend to trust information from sources that have proven to be accurate in the past
Accuracy serves as a crucial factor in determining the reliability of testimony
Familiarity:
Children may be more likely to trust individuals they are familiar with or perceive as authority figures
Familiarity with the informant can enhance the perceived credibility of their testimony
Age:
Older individuals may be viewed as more knowledgeable due to their accumulated experiences
Age can serve as a cue for children to determine the trustworthiness of the information provided
Differences Between 3-Year-Olds and 4-Year-Olds: 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds may respond differently to testimony:
Age-Based Trust:
3-year-olds might rely more on age as a cue for trust, whereas 4-year-olds may start considering accuracy as a primary factor
Skepticism Development:
As children grow older, they may become more discerning, evaluating testimony based on accuracy rather than solely on the informant’s age or familiarity.
When are children most likely to rely on consensus to learn new information or make choices? How is this shaped by both context and cultural background?
When Children Rely on Consensus:
Children are most likely to rely on consensus when faced with situations where individual judgement is challenging or when information is ambiguous. Consensus becomes a valuable cue when:
Unverifiable Information:
Children may turn to consensus when information is difficult to verify independently, such as claims about invisible entities, the afterlife, or future predictions.
Complex or Uncertain Situations:
In situations where there is no clear, straightforward answer, children may defer to what most people believe or agree upon.
Shaping Factors: The reliance on consensus is shaped by various factors, including context and cultural background:
Cultural Differences:
Cultural norms influence the extent to which consensus is considered a valid cue for information
In some cultures, collective decision-making and shared beliefs are emphasized, leading to a higher reliance on consensus.
Social Context:
The social context in which children make decisions plays a crucial role
In collaborative or group-oriented settings, children may prioritize consensus more than in individual decision-making contexts.
Nature of the Information:
The type of information being considered influences the reliance on consensus.
For abstract or unverifiable concepts, children may lean more towards what others believe, especially when faced with uncertainty.
Contextual and Cultural Variations:
Contextual Variation:
In situations where there is no clear right or wrong answer, children may be more likely to seek consensus, as it provides a sense of collective agreement.
Cultural Background:
Cultural backgrounds that emphasize communal values and shared knowledge may lead children to rely more on consensus.
In individualistic cultures, where independence is emphasized, children might prioritize personal judgement over consensus
