Scholarlink

<p>Children are increasingly exposed to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems during critical periods of cognitive development, yet the effects of such exposure on selective trust remain poorly understood. This study introduces a home-based event-boundary paradigm designed to test behavioral epistemic deference within a child–caregiver–AI-framed artificial informant triadic context. One child (aged 3&#xa0;years) and a caregiver viewed a 2:04-min clip from Bluey with four predefined pauses: two at event boundaries (high narrative uncertainty) and two at control moments (low uncertainty). At each pause, the child completed three tasks: event segmentation (“same/new”), narrative prediction, and deference choice under caregiver–AI disagreement. Informant accuracy was counterbalanced by design (AI correct at boundaries; caregiver correct at controls; both 2/4 overall), aiming to attenuate the influence of cumulative reliability learning on the condition contrast. As a proof-of-concept pilot (<i>N</i> = 1), the study targeted feasibility and mechanism-level hypothesis refinement rather than population-level effect estimation. The protocol was fully executable and produced complete trial-level data. Overall robot choice was 3/4; descriptively, robot choice was 1/2 at boundary trials and 2/2 at control trials. Because boundary and control trials were fixed in session order, this contrast is fully confounded with within-session position (novelty, recency, and fatigue) and should not be read as an isolated boundary effect. Segmentation and prediction accuracy dropped from perfect in the first half (1.00) to null in the second half (.00), suggesting attentional or fatigue contamination. The pilot does not confirm the original directional hypothesis; instead, it raises tentative, hypothesis-generating questions about whether epistemic deference reflects interactions among novelty bias, recency-weighted reliability tracking, and subjective boundary detection. These preliminary observations motivate progression to a preregistered, adequately powered confirmatory study.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Who does my child believe: Me or an AI-framed artificial informant? A home-based event-boundary paradigm for epistemic deference (trust) in early childhood

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月1日

查看全文
  • Aníbal M. Astobiza

摘要

Children are increasingly exposed to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems during critical periods of cognitive development, yet the effects of such exposure on selective trust remain poorly understood. This study introduces a home-based event-boundary paradigm designed to test behavioral epistemic deference within a child–caregiver–AI-framed artificial informant triadic context. One child (aged 3 years) and a caregiver viewed a 2:04-min clip from Bluey with four predefined pauses: two at event boundaries (high narrative uncertainty) and two at control moments (low uncertainty). At each pause, the child completed three tasks: event segmentation (“same/new”), narrative prediction, and deference choice under caregiver–AI disagreement. Informant accuracy was counterbalanced by design (AI correct at boundaries; caregiver correct at controls; both 2/4 overall), aiming to attenuate the influence of cumulative reliability learning on the condition contrast. As a proof-of-concept pilot (N = 1), the study targeted feasibility and mechanism-level hypothesis refinement rather than population-level effect estimation. The protocol was fully executable and produced complete trial-level data. Overall robot choice was 3/4; descriptively, robot choice was 1/2 at boundary trials and 2/2 at control trials. Because boundary and control trials were fixed in session order, this contrast is fully confounded with within-session position (novelty, recency, and fatigue) and should not be read as an isolated boundary effect. Segmentation and prediction accuracy dropped from perfect in the first half (1.00) to null in the second half (.00), suggesting attentional or fatigue contamination. The pilot does not confirm the original directional hypothesis; instead, it raises tentative, hypothesis-generating questions about whether epistemic deference reflects interactions among novelty bias, recency-weighted reliability tracking, and subjective boundary detection. These preliminary observations motivate progression to a preregistered, adequately powered confirmatory study.