ABSTRACT The development of uncertainty sensitivity, a critical cognitive ability, presents a challenging paradox: Some evidence points to its emergence in infancy, whereas other evidence indicates much later emergence and protracted development. To resolve this paradox, we propose that early uncertainty sensitivity relies on perceptual cues to ignorance (e.g., occluded information), whereas uncertainty monitoring in the absence of such cues develops later. We tested this hypothesis using a random dot kinematogram task that manipulated uncertainty through signal‐to‐noise ratios, without perceptual cues to ignorance or knowledge. Participants aged 4–6 years and adults ( N = 189) made perceptual judgments of the directionality of dot movement or opted out under varying uncertainty levels. While all groups demonstrated above‐chance accuracy in perceptual judgments, children and adults differed markedly in their responses to uncertainty. Unlike adults, most children's decisions were not affected by uncertainty. These results suggest that without perceptual cues to ignorance, children struggle to detect, monitor, and respond to uncertainty. We propose that early uncertainty sensitivity found in some studies relies on perceptual cues to ignorance (i.e., bottom‐up attentional mechanisms), with strategic uncertainty monitoring developing more gradually. Our findings help reconcile contradictory results in uncertainty sensitivity development and highlight the role of perceptual cues and metacognition in children's decision‐making under uncertainty. Summary Children's uncertainty sensitivity often relies on perceptual cues to ignorance, whereas autonomous uncertainty monitoring without such cues develops later. Without perceptual cues to ignorance, only a minority of 4‐ to 6‐year‐olds exhibit uncertainty‐driven behavior, despite above‐chance perceptual discrimination. Our findings reconcile contradictory evidence about the early versus late emergence of uncertainty sensitivity in the developmental literature.
Wan et al. (Wed,) studied this question.