Anticipating disagreement enhances source memory in English- and Turkish-speaking preschool children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metacognitive abilities like source memory are useful for justifying our beliefs to others. Do they arise because of this need? Here, we test whether circumstances that require source reporting enhance source memory. We test this in circumstances in which children anticipate a disagreement and when children speak a language with obligatory linguistic evidential marking of source (Turkish). We asked 160 English- and Turkish-speaking 3- and 4-year-olds to recall how they knew something and what they knew when communicating with an agreeing or disagreeing interlocutor. Four-year-old English speakers and 3- and 4-year-old Turkish speakers correctly recalled firsthand sources (seeing the object themselves) better than secondhand sources (hearing about it from the experimenter) when they expected their interlocutor to disagree. Disagreement did not affect memory for perceptual features, suggesting its influence is specific to source memory. Together, these results highlight the importance of social and linguistic influences on metacognition, though with some important qualifications about the types of sources relevant for justifying one's beliefs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".