Alexander H Bower, Nicole Han, Ansh Soni, Miguel P Eckstein, Mark Steyvers
{"title":"How experts and novices judge other people's knowledgeability from language use.","authors":"Alexander H Bower, Nicole Han, Ansh Soni, Miguel P Eckstein, Mark Steyvers","doi":"10.3758/s13423-023-02433-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How accurate are people in judging someone else's knowledge based on their language use, and do more knowledgeable people use different cues to make these judgments? We address this by recruiting a group of participants (\"informants\") to answer general knowledge questions and describe various images belonging to different categories (e.g., cartoons, basketball). A second group of participants (\"evaluators\") also answer general knowledge questions and decide who is more knowledgeable within pairs of informants, based on these descriptions. Evaluators perform above chance at identifying the most knowledgeable informants (65% with only one description available). The less knowledgeable evaluators base their decisions on the number of specific statements, regardless of whether the statements are true or false. The more knowledgeable evaluators treat true and false statements differently and penalize the knowledge they attribute to informants who produce specific yet false statements. Our findings demonstrate the power of a few words when assessing others' knowledge and have implications for how misinformation is processed differently between experts and novices.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358192/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02433-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How accurate are people in judging someone else's knowledge based on their language use, and do more knowledgeable people use different cues to make these judgments? We address this by recruiting a group of participants ("informants") to answer general knowledge questions and describe various images belonging to different categories (e.g., cartoons, basketball). A second group of participants ("evaluators") also answer general knowledge questions and decide who is more knowledgeable within pairs of informants, based on these descriptions. Evaluators perform above chance at identifying the most knowledgeable informants (65% with only one description available). The less knowledgeable evaluators base their decisions on the number of specific statements, regardless of whether the statements are true or false. The more knowledgeable evaluators treat true and false statements differently and penalize the knowledge they attribute to informants who produce specific yet false statements. Our findings demonstrate the power of a few words when assessing others' knowledge and have implications for how misinformation is processed differently between experts and novices.
期刊介绍:
The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.