Close
Field Notes Story Time today i learned (til)

Children Response to Conflicting Information

April 17, 2026

<Featuring image is drawn by the author>

Ghost Tour Observation

Recently, the STEMComm VIP team took part in the Atlanta Science Festival in March 2026. We presented the Ghost Tour, featuring scientists who have died because of their inventions, passion, or major founding respective to their science field. I was part of the Zenith hot air balloon tragedy team as a NPC ghost actor. If you are interested, you can look up the three main characters: engineer Joseph Crocé-Spinelli, navy officer Théodore Sivel, and Gaston Tissandier. Two of them died on their flight into the death zone (high altitude), while Gaston survived to tell the story with the price of being deaf. 

Our team was assigned a big room. As guests come in from the door, they will be blocked by a big board sign of “death zone”, suggesting the death zone is ahead. The guide of the tour – Einstein, will lead them to the sign and leave them there. In the meantime, the NPC ghost will sneak in between the tour group, surprise the guests, and walk them past the sign, closer to the actual scene featuring the actors.

<Picture is taken by the author>

However, a small issue arised.There was a mix of reactions when the NPC ghost took the lead to walk over the Death Zone sign. Most people stayed still behind the sign, some hesitated to walk over, and very few actually followed the ghost.

 

Mixed Behaviors to Conflicting Information

Apparently, at first, the guide – Einstein, told the guests to not cross over the death zone. Then, the ghost NPC told them “follow me” as the ghost moved past the sign. Even with the actual dead scientists signaling and inviting the guests to come closer, it takes some time for them to actually move.

  • First information: Do not cross the death zone – Guide Einstein said
  • Second information: Follow me (crossing death zone) – NPC ghost moved
  • Third information: Come closer – Dead scientists in the death zone, with obvious hand signals to come closer

There were different tour groups. The reactions are also mixed between these groups. Groups with more children tend to follow the NPC ghost at first, with young children being the first to move. In groups with more adults, the hesitation is very obvious. Even when children start walking over, they are stopped by the guardians. It takes the three actors’ effort to invite them over.

 

How Children Reaction to Conflicting Sources

Lili Ma and Patricia Ganea (2009) suggest that children often learn about the world through direct observation, but their knowledge can also be acquired through others’ testimony. This is validated as children often trust what they see, but they also recognize adults as trustworthy sources. Furthermore, some experiments suggest that children might accept false testimony that contradict their first-hand observation. This aligns with the classic Asch study where adults’ judgement was influenced by the social pressure and testimony of others, even though their visual perception suggests otherwise (Ma & Ganea, 2009). This explains why young children who were ready to walk over stopped along with their guardians. Parents are the more trustworthy source of information.

In addition, the three studies done by Ma and Ganea (2009) confirms that children can outweigh one source of information more than another. This aligns with another study by Baer and others (2025), suggesting that children endorse confident informants over hesitant ones when faced with conflicting testimony. The intention of one ghost to walk over might not have been as clear compared to a group of familiar adults staying in place. On a side note, in the age of the Internet, even if the confident informants previously gave false testimony, it is unlikely they will lose credibility. This is true for both children and adults as they still follow Einstein the guide after the hot air balloon room (Guerrero et al., 2020). 

 Interestingly, studies also show that young children can accept both sources, even if there is a contradiction (Ma & Ganea, 2009). Over time, children learn to distinguish reliable sources over misleading testimony. This is crucial to their development of selective trust and skepticism. At one point, children can conclude new understanding of the situations based on contradiction sources. This might happen around the age of 8 (Baer et al., 2025). With the second piece of information contradicting the first (and their trustworthy informants), then the last information supporting the second, the young guests were able to resolve the tricky situation and take the lead to start the scene.

 

Afterthought

Adults tend to apply the situation in their thought process. Given it was a Ghost Tour, they might assume to not just listen to the wandering ghosts. In addition, did Einstein’s credibility as the guide play in his favor? Einstein was the original source of information for the guests.  Guests might assume the ghosts are just acting out the script. What would you do in their shoes?

 

References:

Baer, C., Engelmann, J. M., & Kidd, C. (2025). Children use the relative confidence of people with conflicting perspectives to form their own beliefs. Developmental Science, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.70027

Guerrero, S., Sebastián-Enesco, C., Morales, I., Varea, E., & Enesco, I. (2020). (in)sensitivity to accuracy? children’s and adults’ decisions about who to trust: The teacher or the internet. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.551131

Ma, L., & Ganea, P. A. (2009). Dealing with conflicting information: Young Children’s reliance on what they see versus what they are told. Developmental Science, 13(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00878.x 

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
AI and VR: A New Reality
today i learned (til)
That’s The Tea
today i learned (til)
What if humans weren’t meant to be here… like at all
today i learned (til)
Crunchy Memes for Charged Fiends

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.