Ng to the magnitude of the MM effect rather than its

Ng to the magnitude of the MM effect rather than its frequency, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MM effect between Known (M= -2.404, SD = 5.899) and Unknown (M = -3.057, SD = 5.649) items, p = .434. This is unexpected, given that our predictions about the initial estimates and provided differences were correct. Furthermore, when examining the initial estimates for just the twelve items used in the list task, there is no significant effect of item type, p > .5, so the result cannot be explained by the estimates for these twelve items following a different pattern from the overall estimates. 3.3. Discussion Adults commonly showed a clear Misplaced Meaning effect for the majority of items tested. The differences that participants provided often revealed how few N-hexanoic-Try-Ile-(6)-amino hexanoic amide dose distinctive features they actually possessed. In one typical example, one participant estimated that they could name three differences between a cucumber and a zucchini. However, in the list task, they only had one thing on their list: “they are different kinds of vegetables.” In addition, adults clearly distinguished Synonym items from Known and Unknown items in their initial estimates, but gave equal estimates for Known and Unknown items. This suggests that availability did not impact the initial estimates, but also that participants were not blindly overconfident, since they recognized that synonyms would have few or no differences between them. Participants also validated the Known ?Unknown distinction by providing fewer differences for Unknown items overall.ML390MedChemExpress ML390 NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 November 01.Kominsky and KeilPageThere was no effect of item type on the magnitude of the MM effect. While it is difficult to interpret a null result, the MM effect is calculated on the basis of the individual difference between a single participant’s estimate for a given item and the number of differences they are able to list for that item. As such, there is ample room for variation in the magnitude of the effect that is not captured by the independent averages of those two measures. This may indicate that, while on average participants do not distinguish between Known and Unknown pairs in their initial estimates, on an individual basis they may be well enough calibrated that the magnitude of the MM effect is no greater for Unknown items. However, that is not to say that they are well-calibrated, only that the degree to which adults are overconfident is consistent across item types.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript4. StudyIn our second study, we investigated the effects found in Study 1 with children in grades K, 2, and 4. This study was motivated by a simple prediction, as outlined in the introduction: The MM effect should be greater in magnitude and frequency for younger children. While this provides a prediction for the overall pattern of results, more specific predictions can be made about each measure. There are two means of increasing the magnitude of the MM effect: Young children could give even greater estimates of the number of differences they know, or they could provide fewer differences in the list task. These are not mutually contradictory, and in fact we predict that we should see both. As noted in the introduction, children are often overconfident about their knowledge, and at the same time, at the ages we are testing,.Ng to the magnitude of the MM effect rather than its frequency, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the MM effect between Known (M= -2.404, SD = 5.899) and Unknown (M = -3.057, SD = 5.649) items, p = .434. This is unexpected, given that our predictions about the initial estimates and provided differences were correct. Furthermore, when examining the initial estimates for just the twelve items used in the list task, there is no significant effect of item type, p > .5, so the result cannot be explained by the estimates for these twelve items following a different pattern from the overall estimates. 3.3. Discussion Adults commonly showed a clear Misplaced Meaning effect for the majority of items tested. The differences that participants provided often revealed how few distinctive features they actually possessed. In one typical example, one participant estimated that they could name three differences between a cucumber and a zucchini. However, in the list task, they only had one thing on their list: “they are different kinds of vegetables.” In addition, adults clearly distinguished Synonym items from Known and Unknown items in their initial estimates, but gave equal estimates for Known and Unknown items. This suggests that availability did not impact the initial estimates, but also that participants were not blindly overconfident, since they recognized that synonyms would have few or no differences between them. Participants also validated the Known ?Unknown distinction by providing fewer differences for Unknown items overall.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 November 01.Kominsky and KeilPageThere was no effect of item type on the magnitude of the MM effect. While it is difficult to interpret a null result, the MM effect is calculated on the basis of the individual difference between a single participant’s estimate for a given item and the number of differences they are able to list for that item. As such, there is ample room for variation in the magnitude of the effect that is not captured by the independent averages of those two measures. This may indicate that, while on average participants do not distinguish between Known and Unknown pairs in their initial estimates, on an individual basis they may be well enough calibrated that the magnitude of the MM effect is no greater for Unknown items. However, that is not to say that they are well-calibrated, only that the degree to which adults are overconfident is consistent across item types.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript4. StudyIn our second study, we investigated the effects found in Study 1 with children in grades K, 2, and 4. This study was motivated by a simple prediction, as outlined in the introduction: The MM effect should be greater in magnitude and frequency for younger children. While this provides a prediction for the overall pattern of results, more specific predictions can be made about each measure. There are two means of increasing the magnitude of the MM effect: Young children could give even greater estimates of the number of differences they know, or they could provide fewer differences in the list task. These are not mutually contradictory, and in fact we predict that we should see both. As noted in the introduction, children are often overconfident about their knowledge, and at the same time, at the ages we are testing,.