Author
Listed:
- Lindow, Stefanie
- Lehmann, Anne
- Buttelmann, David
- Betsch, Tilmann
Abstract
A child’s world is full of cues that may help to learn about decision options by providing valuable predictions. However, not all cues are always equally valid. To enhance decision-making, one should use cue validities as weights in decision-making. Prior research showed children’s difficulty in doing so. In 2 conceptual replication studies, we investigated preschoolers’ competencies when they encounter a cue whose prediction is always correct. We assessed 5- to 6-year-olds’ cue evaluations and decision-making in an information-board-game. Participants faced 3 cues when repeatedly choosing between 2 locations to find treasures: A nonprobabilistic, high-validity cue that always provided correct predictions (p = 1) paired with 2 probabilistically correct (Study 1: p = .34, p = .17) or 2 nonprobabilistic, incorrect cues (Study 2: p = 0). Participants considered cue validities—albeit in a rudimentary form. In their cue evaluations, they preferred the high-validity cue, indicating their ability to understand and use cue validity for evaluations. However, in their decision-making, they did not prioritize the high-validity cue. Rather, they frequently searched and followed the predictions of less valid (Study 1) and incorrect cues (Study 2). Our studies strengthen the current state of decision research suggesting that the systematic use of cue validities in decision-making develops throughout childhood. Apparently, having appropriate cue evaluations that reflect cue validities is not sufficient for their use in decision-making. We discuss our findings while considering the importance of learning instances for the development of decision competencies.
Suggested Citation
Lindow, Stefanie & Lehmann, Anne & Buttelmann, David & Betsch, Tilmann, 2023.
"Preschoolers’ use of cue validities as weights in decision-making: Certainty does not substantially change the world,"
Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18, pages 1-1, January.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:18:y:2023:i::p:-_38
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:18:y:2023:i::p:-_38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.