Experimenter: “That’s a bear.”
Toddler “Nooo it isn’t, it’s a bottle!” (Laughter)
You can bet the experimenter gave the whole thing away with lots of play-face expressions as well. The toddler probably trusts both speakers, but are expecting one of them to carry on fooling around.
Indeed, 4-year-olds monitor apparent differences in reliability even when no obvious
errors are involved. Having watched one informant name objects accurately and another
informant make non-committal remarks about them (e.g., “Let me look at that”) or
express ignorance, children subsequently invested more trust in the accurate as opposed
to the non-committal informant (Corriveau, Meints & Harris, 2009) or the ignorant11
informant (Koenig & Harris, 2005). Fourth, reliability monitoring can reverse the normal
pattern of vertical trust. Although preschoolers trust an adult informant over a peer, that
preference is reversed if the peer proves more reliable (Jaswal & Neely, 2006). Finally,
selective trust is not transient. When a second test phase was administered, either 3-4
days or an entire week after the initial test phase, 3- and 4-year-olds still invested more
trust in the previously correct informant (Corriveau & Harris, 2009a).
Anyone who knows toddlers knows this is a GAME.
Experimenter: “That’s a bear.” Toddler “Nooo it isn’t, it’s a bottle!” (Laughter)
You can bet the experimenter gave the whole thing away with lots of play-face expressions as well. The toddler probably trusts both speakers, but are expecting one of them to carry on fooling around.
I think it’s more than just that simple game:
-- Harris and Corriveau 2011