The relationship between confidence and conformity in a non-routine counting task with young children: dedicated to the memory of Purificación Rodríguez
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2021
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Frontiers Media S.A.
Citations
Exportar
Citation
Lago, M. O., Escudero, A., & Dopico, C. (2021). The relationship between confidence and conformity in a non-routine counting task with young children: Dedicated to the memory of Purificación Rodríguez. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.593509
Abstract
Counting is a complex cognitive process that is paramount to arithmetical development at school. The improvement of counting skills of children depends on their understanding of the logical and conventional rules involved. While the logical rules are mandatory and related to one-to-one correspondence, stable order, and cardinal principles, conventional rules are optional and associated with social customs. This study contributes to unravel the conceptual understanding of counting rules of children. It explores, with a developmental approach, the performance of children on non-routine counting detection tasks, their confidence in their answers (metacognitive monitoring skills), and their ability to change a wrong answer by deferring to the opinion of a unanimous majority who justified or did not justify their claims. Hundred and forty nine children aged from 5 to 8 years were randomized to one of the experimental conditions of the testimony of teachers: with (n = 74) or without justification (n = 75). Participants judged the correctness of different types of counting procedures presented by a computerized detection task, such as (a) pseudoerrors that are correct counts where conventional rules are violated (e.g., first counting six footballs, followed by other six basketballs that were interspersed along the row), and (b) compensation errors that are incorrect counts where logical rules were broken twice (e.g., skipping the third element of the row and then labeling the sixth element with two number words, 5 and 6). Afterwards, children rated their confidence in their detection answer with a 5-point scale. Subsequently, they listened to the testimony of the teachers and showed either conformity or non-conformity. The participants considered both compensation errors and pseudoerrors as incorrect counts in the detection task. The analysis of the confidence of children in their responses suggested that they were not sensitive to their incorrect performance. Finally, children tended to conform more often after hearing a justification of the testimony than after hearing only the testimonies of the teachers. It can be concluded that the age range of the evaluated children failed to recognize the optional nature of conventional counting rules and were unaware of their misconceptions. Nevertheless, the reasoned justifications of the testimony, offered by a unanimous majority, promoted considerable improvement in the tendency of the children to revise those misconceptions.
Description
This research was funded by a project grant (PSI2017-82339-P) from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad.
Referencias bibliográficas:
• Asch S. E., (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. 70, 1–70. 10.1037/h0093718
• Bernard S., Proust J., Clément F., (2015). Four-to six-year-old children's sensitivity to reliability versus consensus in the endorsement of object labels. Child Dev. 86, 1112–1124. 10.1111/cdev.1236625864921
• Bjorklund D. F., Bering J. M., (2002). The evolved child: applying evolutionary developmental psychology to modern schooling. Learn. Individ. Differ. 12, 1–27. 10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00047-X
• Briars D., Siegler R. S., (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers' counting knowledge. Dev. Psychol. 20, 607–618. 10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.607
• Chan C. C. Y., Tardif T., (2013). Knowing better: the role of prior knowledge and culture in trust in testimony. Dev. Psychol. 49, 591–601. 10.1037/a003133623294151
• Chan W. W. L., Au T. K., Lau N. T. T., Tang J., (2017). Counting errors as a window onto children's place-value concept. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 51, 123–130. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.07.001
• Chu F. W., vanMarle K., Rouder J., Geary D. C., (2018). Children's early understanding of number predicts their later problem-solving sophistication in addition. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 169, 73–92. 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.01029353706
• Corriveau K. H., Harris P. L., (2010). Preschoolers (sometimes) defer to the majority in making simple perceptual judgments. Dev. Psychol. 46, 437–445. 10.1037/a001755320210502
• De Corte E., (2012). Constructive, self-regulated, situated, and collaborative learning: an approach for the acquisition of adaptive competence. J. Educ.192, 33–47. 10.1177/0022057412192002-307
• De Neys W., Lubin A., Houdé O., (2014). The smart nonconserver: preschoolers detect their number conservation errors. Child Dev. Res. 2014:768186. 10.1155/2014/768186
• Destan N., Hembacher E., Ghetti S., Roebers C. M., (2014). Early metacognitive abilities: The interplay of monitoring and control processes in 5- to 7-yearold children. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 126, 213–228. 10.1016/j.jecp.2014.04.001
• Deutsch M., Gerard H. B., (1955). A study of normative and informationalsocial influences upon individual judgment. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 51, 629–636. 10.1037/h0046408
• Einav S., (2014). Does the majority always know best? Young children's flexible trust in majority opinion. PLoS ONE 9:e104585. 10.1371/journal.pone.010458525116936
• Enesco I., Rodríguez P., Lago M. O., Dopico C., Escudero A., (2017). Do teachers' conflicting testimonies influence children's decisions about unconventional rules of counting? Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 32, 483–500. 10.1007/s10212-016-0319-4
• Escudero A., Rodríguez P., Lago M. O., Enesco I., (2015). A 3-year longitudinal study of children's comprehension of counting: do they recognize the optional nature of nonessential counting features? Cogn. Dev. 33, 73–83. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.05.003
• Flynn E., Turner C., Giraldeau L. A., (2018). Follow (or don't follow) the crowd: Young children conformity is influenced by norm domain and age. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 167, 222–233. 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.10.01429190511
• Freeman N. H., Antonucci C., Lewis C., (2000). Representation of the cardinality principle: early conception of error in a counterfactual test. Cognition 74, 71–89. 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00064-510594310
• Geary D. C., vanMarle K., Chu F. W., Rouder J., Hoard M. K., Nugent L., (2018). Early conceptual understanding of cardinality predicts superior school-entry number-system knowledge. Psychol. Sci. 29, 191–205. 10.1177/095679761772981729185879
• Gelman R., Gallistel C. R., (1978). The Child's Understanding of Number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gelman R., Meck E., (1983). Pre-schoolers' counting: principles before skills. Cognition 13, 343–359. 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90014-8
• Gelman R., Meck E., (1986). “The notion of principle: the case of counting,” in Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics, ed Hiebert J., (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 29–57.
• Göbel S. M., McCrink K., Fischer M. H., Shaki S., (2018). Observation of directional storybook reading influences young children's counting direction. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 166, 49–66. 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.00128865295
• Händel M., de Bruin A. B. H., Dresel M., (2020). Individual differences in local and global metacognitive judgments. Metacogn. Learn. 15, 51–75. 10.1007/s11409-020-09220-0
• Harris P. L., Koening M. A., Corriveau K. H., Jaswal V. K., (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 69, 251–273. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710
• Haun D. B., Tomasello M., (2011). Conformity to peer pressure in preschool children. Child Dev.82, 1759–1767. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01666.x22023172
• Haun D. B., Van Leeuwen E. J., Edelson M. G., (2013). Majority influence in children and other animals. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 3, 61–71. 10.1016/j.dcn.2012.09.00323245221
• Jaswal V. K., Croft A. C., Setia A. R., Cole C. A., (2010). Youngchildren have a specific, highly robust bias to trust testimony. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1541–1547. 10.1177/095679761038343820855905
• Kamawar D., LeFevre J., Bisanz J., Fast L., Skwarchuck S., Smith-Chant B., et al. (2010). Knowledge of counting principles: how relevant is order irrelevance? J. Exp. Child Psychol. 105, 138–145. 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.00419793588
• Koening M. A., Harris P. L., (2007). The basis of epistemic trust:Reliable testimony or reliable sources? Episteme 4, 264–284. 10.3366/E1742360007000081
• Lago M. O., Rodríguez P., Escudero A., Dopico C., (2016). Detection of counting pseudoerrors: what helps children accept them? Br. J. Dev. Psy. 34, 169–180. 10.1111/bjdp.1212126568283
• Lago M. O., Rodríguez P., Escudero A., Dopico C., Enesco I., (2019). Children's learning from others: conformity to unconventional counting. Int. J. Behav. Dev.43, 97–106. 10.1177/0165025418820639
• Lane J. D., Harris P. L., Gelman S. A., Wellman H. M., (2014). More than meets the eye: young children's trust in claims that defy their perceptions. Dev. Psychol. 50, 865–871. 10.1037/a003429124015688
• LeFevre J., Smith-Chant B., Fast L., Skwarchuk S., Sargla E., Arnup J., et al. (2006). What counts as knowing? The development of conceptual and procedural knowledge of counting from kindergarten through Grade 2. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 93, 285–303. 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.00216360166
• Li P. H., Harris P. L., Koenig M. A., (2019). The role of testimony in children's moral decision making: evidence from China and United States. Dev. Psychol. 55, 2603–2615. 10.1037/dev000083931621344
• Loibl K., Leuders T., (2019). How to make failure productive: fostering learning from errors through elaboration prompts. Learn. Instruc. 62, 1–10. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.03.002
• Lubin A., Houdé O., Neys W., (2015). Evidence for children's error sensitivity during arithmetic word problem solving. Learn. Instruc. 40, 1–8. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.07.005
• Luchins A. S., Luchins E. H., (1950). New experimental attempts at preventing mechanization in problem solving. J. Gen. Psychol. 42, 279–297. 10.1080/00221309.1950.9920160
• Lyons K. E., Ghetti S., (2010). “Metacognitive development in early childhood: new questions about old assumptions,” in Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research, eds Efklides A., Misailidi P., (Boston, MA: Springer), 259–278.
• Lyons K. E., Ghetti S., (2011). The development of uncertainty monitoring in early childhood. Chid Dev. 82, 1778–1787. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01649.x21954871
• McGuigan N., Burgess V., (2017). Is the tendency to conform influenced by the age of the majority? J. Exp. Child Psychol. 157, 49–65. 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.12.00728110153
• McNeil N. M., (2007). U-Shaped development in math: 7-year-olds outperform 9-year-olds on equivalence problems. Dev. Psychol. 43, 687–695. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.68717484580
• McNeil N. M., Alibali M. W., (2005). Why won't you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learningand performance on equations. Child Dev. 76, 1–17. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00884.x16026503
• Morgan T. H., Laland K., Harris P. L., (2015). The development of adaptive conformity in young children: effects of uncertainty and consensus. Dev. Sci. 18, 511–524. 10.1111/desc.1223125283881
• Muldoon K., Lewis C., Freeman N. H., (2003). Putting counting to work: preschoolers' understanding of cardinal extension. Int. J. Educ. Res. 39, 695–718. 10.1016/j.ijer.2004.10.006
• Muldoon K. P., Lewis C., Francis B., (2007). Using cardinality to compare quantities: the role of social-cognitive conflict in early numeracy. Dev. Sci. 10, 694–711. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00618.x17683352
• Paliwal V., Baroody A. J., (2020). Cardinality principle understanding: the role of focusing on the subitizing ability. ZDM Mathem. Educ. 52, 649–661. 10.1007/s11858-020-01150-0
• Pham T., Buchsbaum D., (2020). Children's use of majority information is influenced by pragmatic inferences and task domain. Dev. Psychol. 56, 312–323. 10.1037/dev000085731804096
• Piaget J., Szeminska A., (1941). La génèse du nombre chez l'enfant. Neuchâtel: Delachaux–Niestlé.
• Rakoczy H., Ehrling C., Harris P. L., Schultze T., (2015). Youngchildren heed advice selectively. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 138, 71–87. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.00726037403
• Rodríguez P., Lago M. O., Enesco I., Guerrero S., (2013). Children's understanding of counting: kindergarten and primary school children's detection of errors and pseudoerrors. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 114, 35–46. 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.08.00523063094
• Roebers C. M., (2002). Confidence judgments in children's and adults' event recall and suggestibility. Dev. Psychol. 38, 1052–1067. 10.1037//0012-1649.38.6.105212428714
• Roebers C. M., Cimeli P., Röthlisberger M., Neuenschwander R., (2012). Executive functioning, metacognition, and self-perceived competence in elementary school children: an explorative study on their interrelations and their role for school achievement. Metacogn. Learn. 7, 151–173. 10.1007/s11409-012-9089-9
• Roebers C. M., Howie P., (2003). Confidence judgments in event recall: developmental progression in the impact of question format. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 85, 352–371. 10.1016/s0022-0965(03)00076-612906847
• Roebers C. M., Krebs S. S., Roderer T., (2014). Metacognitive monitoring and control in elementary school children: their interrelations and their role for test performance. Learn. Indiv. Differ. 29, 141–149. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.003
• Roebers C. M., von der Linden N., Howie P., (2007). Favourable and unfavourable conditions for children's confidence judgments. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 25, 109–134. 10.1348/026151006X104392
• Schneider W., (1998). Performance prediction in young children: effects of skill, metacognition, and wishful thinking. Dev. Sci. 1, 291–297. 10.1111/1467-7687.00044
• Schraw G., (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacogn. Learn. 4, 33–45. 10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3
• Seston R. S., Kelemen D., (2014). Children's conformity when acquiring novel conventions: the case of artifacts. J. Cogn. Dev. 15, 569–583. 10.1080/15248372.2013.784973
• Siegler R. S., (2003). “Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education,” in A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, eds Kilpatrick J., Martin W. B., Schifter D. E., (Reston, VA: National Councilof Teachers of Mathematics), 219–233.
• Smortchkova J., Shea N., (2020). Metacognitive development and conceptual change in children. Rev. Phil. Psych. 11, 745–763. 10.1007/s13164-020-00477-7
• Spiess M. A., Meier B., Roebers C. M., (2016). Development and longitudinal relationships between children's executive functions, prospective memory, and metacognition. Cogn. Dev. 38, 99–113. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.003
• Van der Ven S. H. G., Kroesbergen E. H., Boom J., Leseman P. P. M., (2012). The development of executive functions and early mathematics. A dynamic relationship. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 100–119. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02035.x22429060
• van Loon M., de Bruin A., Leppink J., Roebers C., (2017). Why are children overconfident? Developmental differences in the implementation of accessibility cues when judging concept learning. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 158, 77–94. 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.00828236719
• Vo V. A., Li R., Kornell N., Pouget A., Cantlon J. F., (2014). Young children bet on their numerical skills: metacognition in the numerical domain. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1712–1721. 10.1177/095679761453845824973137