As a Students. Who do we trust? Lecturers? A Portrait of Psychology Students Vulnerability of Error

What Is Truth?

Knowing = Believing?

We learn by Trusting!?

1Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -

[email protected]

The Common View of Truth

Correspondence

• Theories are true if they correspond with nature

Coherence

• Theories are true if they are consistent with the rest of our knowledge

Pragmatic

• Theories are true if they “success”


[email protected]

Knowledge = Believing?

• Knowledge is, justified true belief (Bem & Jong, 2004)

“I know ” = “I believe to trust this information”

• to “know” is to …

– Create mental representation that

– Accurately corresponds to actual world and

–Justified logically and empirically


[email protected]

Nature of Knowledge (Bem & Jong, 2004)

Realism

• Knowledge pictures the objective world.

• Truth is correspondence between knowledge and world

Idealism/Relativism

• Knowledge is a subjective (social) construction.

• Truth is coherence with the rest of knowledge

Pragmatism

• Knowledge is functional and interactive, coping with the world. Determined by it practical use

• Truth is success


[email protected]

• Objectivity in the sense of letting the world speak for itself.

• When we ask whether some theoretical term is objectively real, for example, whether personality traits really exist, we can only give the answer in the form of a statement

Realism

• Mathematical proofs are true when derived from a theorem’s axioms. Mathematics is a self-contained construction of the mind: its truth cannot be checked by empirical means

• It makes no sense to start to measure actual triangle sin the world to see whether their angles always add up to 180 degrees. Rather, we deduce this result from a web of other internally cohering statements

Idealism

• More modern term that emphasizes the collective nature and social determinants of ideas, and the impossibility of universal, objective knowledge.

• It is believed that much of science is a human construction, a reflection of social interactions in a collective of researchers and society at large, more than a reflection of the world

Relativism

• Knowing is coping with the world rather than mirroring it.

• Therefore, we should expect that the meaning of theoretical terms derives from their practical use

Pragmatism


[email protected]

• One of the most important predictors of children’s language development is their knowledge base – (Pinkham & Celano, 2012)

• Knowledge may help children encode, retrieve, and comprehend new information that they encounter.

• Knowledge may help children learn how to think about and use what they have comprehended– (Pinkham & Neuman, 2012)

Why is it Important?


[email protected]

Source of Our Knowledge

• Much of our general knowledge is based on information that other people have provided rather than direct experience.

• Such social learning reduces the need for direct observation and inefficient trial-and-error learning and may thus be integral to the development of human culture

– (Pinkham et al, 2014)


[email protected]

As a Servant of the Truth,Who’s to be trusted?

Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster [email protected]

We Learn by Trusting??

• By age 4, children selectively trust information provided by their mothers and other familiar adults over information provided by strangers– (Corriveau & Harris, 2009)

• Children hold fairly reasonable expectation that knowledge increases with age, leading them to privilege information provided by adults, and tend to privilege familiarity– (Cartwright, 1991)


[email protected]

• When trusted informants provide children with new knowledge, their testimony may serve to scaffold future learning.

• The initial, fragile connections formed as a result of the testimony may encourage children’s theory development and the construction of elaborated concepts

– (Gelman, 2009)

We Learn by Trusting..


[email protected]

We Learn by SELECTIVELY Trusting!

• Harris & Koenig (2005), Children observe two informants labeling familiar objects. One informant labels the objects correctly; the other informant labels the objects incorrectly.

• Children are then shown an unfamiliar object, and each informant provides a different label.

• When asked for the object’s name, preschoolers tend to select the label provided by the informant with a history of correctly labeling familiar objects.


[email protected]

A Credible Informant?

• But under real-life circumstances, relative credibility may be more ambiguous.

• Children must frequently evaluate testimony without the benefit of explicit contrasts (e.g., “Is Haykal a reliable source?” rather than “Is Haykal more reliable than Syed?”) or about entirely unfamiliar domains (e.g., “Is Haykal a reliable source about psychology?”)


[email protected]

“We are adults now. Who do we trust?”

Coherence• Theories are true if they are consistent with the rest of our knowledge

“We choose to trust you, our beloved lecturers”

“Us” (N=103)

Cohort N Mean IPK St. Deviation

2010 22 3.22 0.286

2011 14 3.33 0.193

2012 20 3.15 0.236

2013 27 3.36 0.236

2014 20 3.42 0.212

TOTAL 103 3.29 0.253

Gender N Mean IPK St. Deviation

Male 31 3.15 0.278

Female 72 3.36 0.217


[email protected]

These are Portrait of Our Trust (N=103)

27%

73%

[Kontribusi dosen sangat besar terhadap pengetahuan yang saya miliki]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

40%

60%

[Saya memiliki kadar kepercayaan yang tinggi dengan perkataan dosen]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

Our Trust (N=103)

30%

70%

[Seringkali saya hanya belajar dengan PPT dosen saat menghadapi Ujian ]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

24%

76%

[Saya patuh dengan dosen demikeberlangsungan perkuliahan saya]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

30%

70%

[Rata-rata dosen psikologi UI memilikipemahaman penuh dengan materi yang

diajarkannya]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

50%50%

[Mematuhi perkataan dosen dapat membuat saya mendapatkan nilai

yang saya harapkan]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

Our Trust (N=103)

33%

67%

[Saya percaya dosen-dosen fakultaspsikologi UI memberikan

pengetahuan yang akurat]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

41%

59%

[Semakin tinggi pendidikandosen, semakin saya yakin dengan

informasi yang diberikan]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

7%

93%

[Saya diajarkan untuk berargumentasi logis selama belajar

di fakultas psikologi ]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

49%51%

[Dalam berargumen, saya seringmerujuk pada perkataan dosen saya]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

“We really need you to help us learn!”

“We really need you to continously developing yourself”

We really want to trust you more!

0 20 40 60 80

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

33

72

[Saya mengisi EDOM (Evaluasi Dosen Oleh Mahasiswa) dengan serius]


[email protected]

BUT! Information may NOT always be Accurate

• “Other people” sometimes convey misleading information due to ignorance, mistaken belief, or even willful deception.

• Blind trust could consequently result in students constructing erroneous, and potentially even harmful, theories and concepts– (Pinkham et al, 2014)

• Lecturers are human, human are prone from biases.


[email protected]

We Trust Inaccurate yet CONFIDENT one!

• One possibility is that students moderate their trust according to perceived certainty

• Student who hear confident, complete assertions may believe that the information is correspondingly certain and complete.

• By contrast, student who hear tentative fragmentary assertions may believe that the information is similarly uncertain and incomplete.

– (Harris, 2007)


[email protected]

Can we trust the UNCONFIDENT one?

• To avoid unintentionally providing students with erroneous information, one possible strategy would be to modulate all content-related materials with uncertainty.

• The results suggest that such hedges may not always be beneficial; accurate information stated with uncertainty were also associated with poorer performance outcomes.– (Harris, 2007)

• If student privilege confidence, it is possible that they may discount or even disregard statements expressed with uncertainty. In cases where such statements convey accurate information, student could miss important opportunities for building their knowledge base.– (Malone & Jaswal, 2007)


[email protected]

Projected Confidence

• Recent research supports the proposal that young children will privilege sources that project confidence. – (Graham, Stock , & Chambers, 2009)

– (Malone & Jaswal, 2007)

– (Tversky & Griffin, 1992)

• For instance, children are more likely to trust an informant who expresses certainty about his/her testimony (e.g., “This is a spoon”) than an informant who expresses uncertainty (e.g., “I think this is a spoon”)


[email protected]

So we need to assume 2 things

• Under circumstances in which we are considerably or entirely dependent on testimony, we may be particularly vulnerable to error.

1. We must assume that the informant is trustworthy (e.g., “This person wants to give me correct information”), often through evidence of the lecturer’s familiarity and past reliability.

2. The information itself must be assumed to be trustworthy (e.g., “This information is correct”), which could be biased by the lecturer’s projected confidence


[email protected]

Are these the effect of your projected confidence? Or not?

(N=103)

7%

93%

[Saya ragu dengan kebenaraninformasi yang diberikan dosen jikadia menerangkannya dengan ragu-

ragu/terkesan tidak yakin]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU

14%

86%

[Saya percaya dengan dosen yang yakin ketika menyampaikan suatu

informasi]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

Given those, what happens if our trusted lecturer confidently provides incorrect information?

Illusory truth effect

• Pinkham et al (2014) stated that a confident but unreliable informant is a poor source of information, particularly if her lack of knowledge remains unknown to the listener.

• Dunning & Kruger (1999) stated that adults tend to “grossly overestimate” their knowledge, resulting in poor calibration of what is and is not known

• Arkes, Hackett, and Boehm (1989) demonstrated that expertise increased susceptibility to the illusion. Illusory truth occurred for statements from high-expertise domains, but not for statements from low-expertise domains


[email protected]

Wait! Is He talking about us??

“ Similar conclusions were drawn from a study where psychology majors and non-majors rated statements about psychology (Boehm, 1994). Psychology majors exhibited a larger illusory truth effect than non-majors”


[email protected]

Well, we perceive you as an Expert. Is it true? (N=103)

91%

9%

[Dosen adalah fasilitas]

29%

71%

[Dosen adalah pakar]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

The Symbol of Our Trust(N=103)

65%

35%

[Saya sering meninjau kembali klaimatau statement yang diberikan dosen

melalui sumber lain]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

The Symbol of Our Trust?Or Not?

• Though people can recall and evaluate source information when judging recently acquired information (represented by Unkelbach & Stahl’s (2009) recollection parameter), people rarely engage in source monitoring when evaluating information stored in their knowledge bases.

• Gilbert (1991) argued that people automatically assume that a statement is true because “unbelieving” comprises a second, resource-demanding step. Even when people devote resources to evaluating a claim, they only require a “partial match” between the contents of the statement and what is stored in memory


[email protected]

N=47 Study1 = 36%

N=103 Study2? 45%

55%

45%

[Meski saya mendeteksi kesalahan pada informasiyang diberikan dosen, saya lebih baik tidak berdebat

dengan dosen tersebut]

TIDAK SETUJU

SETUJU


[email protected]

Boring Things about Numbers

Random & Baseless Curiosity Time!!

I hate feedback & cynics, but I need those

The Phenomenon You can judge me, I am sentimentalist. I truly am

• I observe we became less critical• I sense no research climate and informal “academic discussion routines” in recent

years on faculty• I sense low epistemic curiosity• I count “asking & questioning” frequencies in my various classroom lecturing

activity. So low• I observed unprepared lecturer giving unprepared lecture in classroom• I observed we were “disuapin” instead of “belajar mandiri”• I sense we were “pressed” by authority in respect of lecturers• I observed our common view of truth and knowledge was shifted to pragmatism• I hate the fact that I can’t evaluate my learning process because SIAK-NG just gave

me the test-scores, not the information where did I fail on the tests. At least give me my percentiles! I need to learn.

• I hate the fact that we need 75% attendance as an absolute condition to pass. Why faculty need to force their students to attend?

• I observe students argued with each others; At saturation point, one of them fill her gap of knowledge with lecturer statement, and she perceived as the winner


[email protected]

So I create a/an (Intuitive) test..Or you may say a survey-based research

• I conduct Study 1 N=47– Alpha Coefficient .62, N of Items 14– Do some Pies and Descriptive Analysis

• I conduct Study 2 N=103– Alpha Coefficient .72, N of Items 19– With PCA, I reduce 19 items to 7 Factors– Giving some explanation of phenomenon through their factor loadings

and content-related inferences of mapped items.

• I conduct Study 3 N = 103– I’m trying to use a single composite score for this tool– I’m trying to explain the dynamic of construct by relating it to

IPK, Gender, and Cohort– I do some Regression Analysis to re-check and predict total score of

this construct with its own factors. Investigate some Betas.


[email protected]

Don’t question my Authority or put me in the box, cause I’m not!-Radiohead

I notice that Lecturing from Lecturer is one of primary activity for students to gain insights and knowledge

I notice that lecturers had competence to teach, but we can’t assume they are always telling the truth

It’s really dangerous to construct our knowledge recklessly. We can’t took every information from our lecturer for granted.

Angkatan : Jenis Kelamin : Pria/Wanita IPK : Usia :

No Pernyataan STS TS S SS

1 Seringkali saya hanya belajar dengan PPT dosen sebelum menghadapi Ujian

2 Saya memiliki kadar kepercayaan yang tinggi dengan perkataan dosen

3 Dosen adalah pakar

4 Saya sering meninjau kembali klaim atau statement yang diberikan dosen melalui sumber lain

5 Saya patuh dengan dosen demi keberlangsungan perkuliahan saya

6 Saya percaya dosen-dosen fakultas psikologi UI memberikan pengetahuan yang akurat

7 Dosen adalah sumber kebenaran

8 Semakin tinggi pendidikan dosen, semakin saya yakin dengan informasi yang diberikan

9 Dalam berargumen, saya sering merujuk pada perkataan dosen saya

10 Dosen adalah fasilitas

11 Dosen adalah orangtua saya yang sebaiknya saya patuhi

12 Saya diajarkan untuk berargumentasi logis selama belajar di fakultas psikologi

13 Kebenaran itu relatif

14 Saya mengisi EDOM (Evaluasi Dosen Oleh Mahasiswa) dengan serius

15 Rata-rata dosen psikologi UI memiliki pemahaman penuh dengan materi yang diajarkannya

16 Mematuhi perkataan dosen dapat membuat saya mendapatkan nilai yang saya harapkan

17 Saya percaya dengan dosen yang yakin ketika menyampaikan informasi

18 Kontribusi dosen sangat besar terhadap pengetahuan yang saya miliki

19 Meski saya mendeteksi kesalahan pada informasi yang diberikan dosen, saya lebih baik tidak berdebat dengan dosen tersebut

20 Saya ragu dengan kebenaran informasi yang diberikan dosen jika dia menerangkannya dengan ragu-ragu/terkesan tidak yakin


[email protected]

PCA (>0.3) = Meaningful Factor

• The “TSVulnerable” Factors– F1 : Item2 (0.629), Item6 (0.749), Item17(0.645)

– F2 : Item4 (-0.482), item7 (-0.341), Item8 (-0.472)

– F3 : Item1 (0.475) , Item18 (0.778), Item19 (0.470)

– F4 : Item9 (-0.431) Item10(0.727), Item13 (-0.343)

– F5 : Item3 (0.355), Item5 (-0.316)

– F6 : Item11 (0.469), Item15(-0.312), Item16 (-0.385)

– F7 : Item12 (-0.471), Item19 (0.618)


[email protected]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Questionable Authority [Seringkali saya hanya belajar dengan PPT dosen sebelum

menghadapi Ujian ]

.334 -.221 .475 -.173 .259 .229 .030

Questionable Authority [Saya memiliki kadar kepercayaan yang tinggi dengan

perkataan dosen]

.629 .020 .007 .292 -.048 .268 -.263

Questionable Authority [Dosen adalah pakar] .533 -.093 -.335 .038 .355 .268 -.128

Questionable Authority [Saya sering meninjau kembali klaim atau statement yang

diberikan dosen melalui sumber lain]

.154 -.482 .252 .388 -.196 .170 .172

Questionable Authority [Saya patuh dengan dosen demi keberlangsungan

perkuliahan saya]

.340 .431 .297 .341 -.316 -.031 -.085

Questionable Authority [Saya percaya dosen-dosen fakultas psikologi UI

memberikan pengetahuan yang akurat]

.749 -.109 -.111 .026 .095 -.054 .226

Questionable Authority [Dosen adalah sumber kebenaran] .586 -.341 -.015 .056 -.216 .166 .057

Questionable Authority [Semakin tinggi pendidikan dosen, semakin saya yakin

dengan informasi yang diberikan]

.323 -.472 .225 .043 .100 -.278 -.256

Questionable Authority [Dalam berargumen, saya sering merujuk pada perkataan

dosen saya]

.546 -.215 -.027 -.431 -.291 -.138 -.016

Questionable Authority [Dosen adalah fasilitas] .023 .219 .196 .727 .052 -.032 .032

Questionable Authority [Dosen adalah orangtua saya yang sebaiknya saya patuhi] .408 .228 .105 -.065 -.195 .469 .091

Questionable Authority [Saya diajarkan untuk berargumentasi logis selama belajar

di fakultas psikologi ]

.391 .425 -.100 -.262 -.183 -.095 -.471

Questionable Authority [Kebenaran itu relatif] .423 .298 .300 -.343 .067 .230 -.165

Questionable Authority [Saya mengisi EDOM (Evaluasi Dosen Oleh Mahasiswa)

dengan serius]

-.020 .561 -.094 .169 .322 .250 .227

Questionable Authority [Rata-rata dosen psikologi UI memiliki pemahaman penuh

dengan materi yang diajarkannya]

.593 -.038 -.403 .144 .146 -.312 .061

Questionable Authority [Mematuhi perkataan dosen dapat membuat saya

mendapatkan nilai yang saya harapkan]

.271 .515 .169 .137 -.258 -.385 -.008

Questionable Authority [Saya percaya dengan dosen yang yakin dengan

pengetahuannya]

.645 -.092 -.027 .188 .211 -.317 .140

Questionable Authority [Kontribusi dosen sangat besar terhadap pengetahuan

yang saya miliki]

.369 .323 -.191 -.319 -.079 -.060 .618

Questionable Authority [Meski saya mendeteksi kesalahan pada informasi yang

diberikan dosen, saya lebih baik tidak berdebat dengan dosen tersebut]

-.012 -.086 .778 -.155 -.080 -.114 .273

Questionable Authority [Saya ragu dengan kebenaran informasi yang diberikan

dosen jika dia menerangkannya dengan ragu-ragu/terkesan tidak yakin]

.135 .242 .470 -.143 .584 -.189 -.100

Component Matrixa

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 7 components extracted.

40

Y = 11 + 1.3(F1) + 0.27(F2) + 0.5(F3) + 0.62(F4) + 1.07(F5) + 1.06(F6) + 1.1(F7)

7 factors explain 84% common variances of Total Score

R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error

of the

Estimate

1 .918a .843 .832 2.02220

Model Summary

Model

a. Predictors: (Constant), OverShadowing, Expertise,

Misjudgment, ArgueAuthority, Obedience, Miscalibration,

Accuracy


[email protected]

• There’s no significant mean differences of TS Vulnerability between Cohort

• There is no significant correlation between IPKand TS Vulnerability

Mean NStd.

Deviation

2010 49.7 24 7.3

2011 51.2 14 5.3

2012 51.7 20 3.7

2013 51.6 27 4.1

2014 50.4 20 3.6

Total 50.9 105 5.0

Report

TSVulnerability

Angkatan

Curiosity Time!!

42

Curiosity Time!!

• There are no significant correlation between Vulnerability Dimensions and IPK

IPK Accuracy Expertise Miscalibration Argue AuthorityMisjudgment of

One's RoleObedience

Over

Shadowing

Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

N 103

Pearson Correlation -.105 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .291

N 103 103

Pearson Correlation -.066 .299** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .505 .002

N 103 103 103

Pearson Correlation .054 .344**

.238* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .588 .000 .016

N 103 103 103 103


.216*

.377** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .641 .000 .029 .000

N 103 103 103 103 103


.222* .187 .280

** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .242 .000 .025 .059 .004

N 103 103 103 103 103 103

Pearson Correlation -.032 .455** .170 .261

**.403

**.361

** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .746 .000 .086 .008 .000 .000

N 103 103 103 103 103 103 103

Pearson Correlation .017 .180 -.065 .436**

.274**

.241*

.301** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .862 .069 .516 .000 .005 .014 .002

N 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 103

Obedience

Over Shadowing

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

IPK

Accuracy

Expertise

Miscalibration

ArgueAuthority

Misjudgment

Correlations


[email protected]

Curiosity Time!!

IPK

[Kontribusi dosen sangat

besar terhadap

pengetahuan yang saya

miliki]

Pearson

Correlation

1 -.174

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.078

N 103 103

Pearson

Correlation

-.174 1

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.078

N 103 103

Correlations

IPK

[Kontribusi dosen sangat

besar terhadap

pengetahuan yang saya

miliki]


[email protected]

Wait A Minute… Can’t you see the Irony?

IPK

[Seringkali saya hanya

belajar dengan PPT dosen

sebelum menghadapi

Ujian ]

[Saya diajarkan untuk

berargumentasi logis

selama belajar di fakultas

psikologi ]

[Meski saya mendeteksi

kesalahan pada informasi

yang diberikan dosen, saya

lebih baik tidak berdebat


Pearson

Correlation

1 -.274** .026 .085

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .793 .391

N 103 103 103 103

Pearson

Correlation-.274

** 1 .002 .265**

Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .987 .007

N 103 103 103 103

Pearson

Correlation

.026 .002 1 -.151

Sig. (2-tailed) .793 .987 .128

N 103 103 103 103

Pearson

Correlation

.085 .265** -.151 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .391 .007 .128

N 103 103 103 103

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations

IPK

[Seringkali saya hanya

belajar dengan PPT dosen

sebelum menghadapi

Ujian ]

[Saya diajarkan untuk

berargumentasi logis

selama belajar di fakultas

psikologi ]






45

Ouch!

IPK

[Saya percaya dosen-

dosen fakultas

psikologi UI

memberikan

pengetahuan yang

akurat]






[Saya patuh dengan

dosen demi

keberlangsungan

perkuliahan saya]

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation -.048

Sig. (2-tailed) .627

N 103

Pearson Correlation .085 -.001

Sig. (2-tailed) .391 .991

N 103 103

Pearson Correlation .170 .170 .129

Sig. (2-tailed) .085 .086 .194

N 103 103 103

IPK

[Saya percaya dosen-dosen fakultas

psikologi UI memberikan pengetahuan

yang akurat]

[Meski saya mendeteksi kesalahan

pada informasi yang diberikan dosen,

saya lebih baik tidak berdebat dengan

dosen tersebut]

[Saya patuh dengan dosen demi

keberlangsungan perkuliahan saya]

Correlations


[email protected]

“Karma Police, Arrest This Man, He talks in math”Radiohead

I wanna be a great teacher

References

• Bem, S & Jong, L, H (2006). Theoretical Issues In Psychology. SAGE Publications, 2nd Ed. London.

• Boehm, L. E. (1994). The validity effect: A search for mediating variables. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 285–293.

• Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.

• Tobias, S., & Everson, H.T (2009). The importance of knowing what you know : A knowledge monitoring framework for studying metacognition in education. In D.J. Hacker, J.Dunlonsky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp.107-127). New York, NY:Routledge.

• K. Corriveau and P. L. Harris, “ Choosing your informant: Weighing familiarity and recent accuracy”, Developmental Science, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 426-437, 2009.

• V. K. Jaswal and L. S. Malone, “Turning believers into skeptics: 3-year-olds’ sensitivity to cues to speaker credibility,” Journal of C ognition and Development, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 263–283, 2007 .

• H. R. Stock, S. A. Graham, and C. G. Chambers, “Generic language and speaker confidence guide preschoolers’ inferences about novel animate kinds,” Developmental Psychology, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 884–888, 2009.

• Unkelbach, C., & Stahl, C. (2009). A multinomial modeling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 22–38.


[email protected]

References

• J. Kruger and D. Dunning, “Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 221–232, 1999.

• D. Griffin and A. Tversky, “The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence,” Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, no.3, pp. 411–435, 1992.

• P. L. Harris, “Trust,” Developmental Science, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 135–138, 2007.

• A. M. Pinkham and S. B.Neuman, “Early literacy development,” in Handbook on Family Literacy, B. H. Wasik and B. van Horn, Eds., vol. 2, pp. 23–37, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2012.

• A. M. Pinkham and V. K. Jaswal, “Watch and learn? Infants privilege efficiency over pedagogy during imitative learning,” Infancy, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 535–544, 2011.

• S. B. Neuman and D. C. Celano, Giving Our Children a Fighting Chance: Poverty, Literacy, and the Development of Information Capital, Teachers College Press, New York, NY, USA, 2012.

• M. Taylor, B. S. Cartwright, and T. Bowden, “Perspective taking and theory of mind: do children predict interpretive diversity as a function of differences in observers’ knowledge?” Child Development, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1334–1351, 1991.


[email protected]

As a Students. Who do we trust? Lecturers? A Portrait of Psychology Students Vulnerability of Error

Data & Analytics

Transcript of As a Students. Who do we trust? Lecturers? A Portrait of Psychology Students Vulnerability of Error