Abstract
The purpose of the study is to examine young children’s (4- to 8-year-old) selective trust decisions in two different data sets; one was for interpersonal trust decision and the other was for epistemic trust decision. Children encountered with two assistants one provided them testimony about who trustworthy they are and the other assistant displayed trustworthy action while child was witnessing. Children in interpersonal trust study responded to three interpersonal trust questions. Children in epistemic trust study responded three ask questions. Findings showed that for interpersonal and epistemic trust decision young children did not differentiate between testimony and action. This tendency did not change with age and children’s socio-economic status. The study pointed that young children in Şanlıurfa did not consider action as a more valuable evidence for trustworthiness compared to testimony.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from following link: https://harranedutr-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/hkotaman_harran_edu_tr/EiRsqdLW-xBMoCsLfEzyUS4BchFkhA1BTh6ntMD8tCNxGg?e=kxzNz4
References
Agresti, A. (2003). Categorical data analysis. Wiley.
Arriaga, R. I., Fenson, L., Cronan, T., & Pethick, S. J. (1998). Scores on the scores on the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory of children from low and middle-income families. Applied Psycholinguist, 19(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010043
Balcı, A., Kotaman, H., & Aslan, M. (2019). Impact of earning on young children’s sharing behavior. Early Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2019.1674294
Bascandziev, I., & Harris, L. P. (2016). The beautiful and accurate: Are children’s selective trust decisions biased? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.017
Benenson, F. J., Pascoe, J., & Radmore, N. (2007). Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.10.003
Boseovski, J. J., & Thurman, L. S. (2014). Evaluating and approaching a strange animal: Children’s trust in informant testimony. Child Development, 85(2), 824–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12156
Clement, F., Koenig, M., & Harris, P. (2004). The ontogenesis of trust. Mind & Language, 19(4), 360–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2004.00263.x
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.
Corriveau, K., & Harris, L. P. (2009). Preschoolers continue to trust a more accurate informant 1 week after exposure to accuracy information. Developmental Science, 12(1), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00763.x
Croce, C. R., & Boseovski, J. J. (2020). Trait or testimony? Children’s preferences for positive informants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 190, 104726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104726
Destin, M., Hanselman, P., Buontempo, J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, S. D. (2019). Do student mindsets differ by socioecomonic status and explain disparities in academic achievement in the United States? AERA Open, 5(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419857706
Duffy, J., & Feltovich, N. (2002). Do actions speak louder than words? An experimental comparison of observation and cheap talk. Games and Economic Behavior, 39, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.2001.0892
Geçer, K. A., & Gümüş, E. A. (2010). Prediction of public and private university students’ communication apprehension with lecturers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3008–3014.
Hermes, J., Behne, T., Bich, A. E., Thielert, C., & Rakoczy, H. (2019). Children’s selective trust decisions: Rational competence and limiting performance factors. Developmental Science, 21, e12527. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12527
Hoicka, E., Butcher, J., Malla, F., & Harris, L. P. (2017). Humor and preschoolers’ trust: Sensitivity to changing intentions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 154, 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.006
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
Jaswal, K. V. (2010). Believing what you’re told: Young children’s trust in unexpected testimony about the physical World. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 248–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.06.002
Kim, S., Kalish, W. C., & Harris, L. P. (2012). Speaker reliability guides children’s inductive inferences about novel properties. Cognitive Development, 27, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2011.10.004
Koenig, A. M., & Harris, L. P. (2005). The role of social cognition in early trust. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 457–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.006
Kotaman, H. (2014). Turkish classroom teachers’ views on school readiness: a phenomenological study. Education, 3-13, 42(5), 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.736401
Kotaman, H., & Evran, D. (2022). Increasing teacher candidates cognitive learning through increasing instructor’s teaching immediacy. International Journal of Quality in Education, 6(1), 64–80.
Kotaman, H., & Aslan, M. (2021). Whom to trust joker or teacher. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1788534
Landrum, R. A., Pflaum, D. A., & Mills, M. C. (2016). Inducing knowledgeability from niceness: Children use social features for making epistemic inferences. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(5), 699–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2015.1135799
Lopez-Mobilia, G., & Woolley, D. J. (2016). Interactions between knowledge and testimony in children’s reality-status judgments. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(3), 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2015.1061529
Luu, B., De Rosnay, M., & Harris, L. P. (2013). Five-year-olds are willing, but 4-year-olds refuse, to trust informants who offer new and unfamiliar labels for parts of the body. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.003
McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (methodological), 42(2), 109–127.
Moore, C., Bryant, D., & David, F. (1989). Mental terms and the development of certainty. Children Development, 60, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131082
Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, J. E. (2009). Identifying unreliable informants: Do children excuse past inaccuracy? Developmental Science, 12(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00750.x
Pesch, A., & Koenig, A. M. (2018). Varieties of trust in preschoolers’ learning and practical decisions. PLoS ONE, 13(8), e0202506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202506
Pogrebna, G., Krantz, H., Schade, C., & Keser, C. (2011). Words versus actions as a means to influence cooperation in social dilemma situations. Theory Decision, 71, 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9248-5
Robinson, E. J., & Whitcombe, E. L. (2003). Children’s suggestibility in relation to their understanding about source of knowledge. Child Development, 74(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00520
Sandilos, E. L., Whittaker, V. J., Vitiello, E. V., & Kinzie, B. M. (2019). Preschoolers’ school readiness profiles and the teacher-child relationship: A latent transition approach. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 62, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.02.010
Sinyavskaya, A. (2010). Actions speaks louder than words. Psych News: The Official Newsletter of the Psych Collective, 10(1), 3–4.
Tomasello, M. (2020). İnsan ahlakının doğal tarihi. (A natural history of human morality). Koç Üniversitesi yayınları.
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, e12895. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.1289
United Nations Development Programme. (2020). UN human development report. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2020
Funding
The authors whose names are listed above did not receive funding from any organization or person.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors whose names are listed above certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent licensing arrangements), or non- financial interest (such as personal or Professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Inform consent letter
Parents of participants sign following consent letter.
This study conduct by Prof. Dr. Hüseyin KOTAMAN from Harran University. The purpose of this study is to examine children’s preference for interpersonal and epistemic trust between two agents, one actually displayed a trustworthy action and other just provided testimony about being a trustworthy person. If you agree participation of your child to the study you child will encounter with two research assistants. One of the assistant will display trustworthy action by not lending her friends possesion to another person and other assistant will read your child a short story about trustworthy person and will tell your child that she is a trustworthy person too. After these encounters another research assistant will show pictures of three unfamiliar geometrical shapes one by one, will give following instructions and will ask your child: “Do you know the name of this shape? (If the child provided a response, the assistant told him or her that “it is not called that”) I do not know, either.” Then, she pointed to the pictures of the two research assistants that the child had met before for the verbal and action sessions and provided the following instruction: “Maybe these sisters can help us. Which one would you like to ask the name of this shape?” 1) When your parents are not at home which one of these (pointing pictures of two assistants) two you would like to stay with? 2) Suppose that you are going somewhere that you cannot take your favorite toy with you. To whom would you like to leave your favorite toy? (if child provides responses such as I leave it to my mom, the third research assistant points at the photos of assistants and asks “Which of these two would you like to leave your toy?”) 3) If these two sisters (assistants) promise you something which one do you think would keep her promise? Your child will be informed that s/he can quit the study whenever s/he wants to. If you accept participation of your child to the study please sing below.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Highlights
• For epistemic trust children did not prefer action over testimony.
• For interpersonal trust children did not prefer action over testimony.
• For epistemic trust children’s preference did not change with age.
• For interpersonal trust older children significantly prefer testimony over action.
• In both domains children’s preferences did not change according to mother education, father education, age, income and gender.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kotaman, H., Polat, C. Do Action Speaks Louder Than Words? Young Children’s Selective Trust Decisions. Curr Psychol 43, 13291–13300 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05403-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05403-5