as a students. who do we trust? lecturers? a portrait of psychology students vulnerability of error
TRANSCRIPT
What Is Truth?
Knowing = Believing?
We learn by Trusting!?
1Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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”
2Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
3Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
4Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
• 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
5Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
• 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?
6Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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)
7Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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)
9Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
• 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..
10Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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.
11Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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?”)
12Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
“We are adults now. Who do we trust?”
Coherence• Theories are true if they are consistent with the rest of our knowledge
“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
16Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
17Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
18Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
19Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
“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]
20Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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.
21Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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)
22Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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)
23Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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”)
24Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
25Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
26Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
28Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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”
29Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
30Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
The Symbol of Our Trust(N=103)
65%
35%
[Saya sering meninjau kembali klaimatau statement yang diberikan dosen
melalui sumber lain]
TIDAK SETUJU
SETUJU
31Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
32Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
33Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
36Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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.
37Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
38Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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)
39Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
41Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
• 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
Pearson Correlation .046 .437**
.216*
.377** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .641 .000 .029 .000
N 103 103 103 103 103
Pearson Correlation .116 .424**
.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
43Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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]
44Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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
dengan dosen tersebut]
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 ]
[Meski saya mendeteksi
kesalahan pada informasi
yang diberikan dosen, saya
lebih baik tidak berdebat
dengan dosen tersebut]
45
Ouch!
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]
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
46Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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.
49Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -
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.
50Haykal Hafizul - A Prankster -