Comparative efficacy of exercise interventions for fall prevention in older adults with cognitive impairment: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Linguistic judgment is not made in a social vacuum. When individuals evaluate whether a sentence, expression, or translation segment is acceptable, they may respond not only to the linguistic material itself but also to contextual cues surrounding it. Among these cues, perceived source identity is especially important. A text attributed to an expert may be evaluated differently from the same text attributed to a peer or an anonymous source. This possibility is consistent with classic source credibility research, which shows that perceived expertise and credibility can shape message evaluation (; ), and with heuristic-processing accounts suggesting that source cues may guide judgment when decision makers face uncertainty (; ). From this perspective, authority cues are not external decorations attached to language; they may become social inputs to linguistic judgment. A second psychological issue concerns metacognitive confidence. In language-based decisions, individuals must not only decide whether a linguistic item is correct, but also estimate how reliable their own judgment is. Metacognitive theories treat confidence as a judgment about the reliability of one's own decision (; ). Ideally, confidence should be aligned with accuracy: people should be more confident when their judgments are correct and less confident when they are wrong. However, confidence can be distorted by non-diagnostic cues, leading to overconfidence, underconfidence, or broader confidence–accuracy miscalibration (; ; ; ). This raises a key question for the psychology of language: can social authority cues disrupt metacognitive calibration during linguistic judgment?