This assessment evaluated children’s understanding of the boundaries of expertise and consisted of 17 questions, which served as a supplemental measure to examine whether children extended informant knowledge beyond knowledge of tamanduas; the valence of these facts was not manipulated, and items were randomized across subsets during presentation. There were three subsets of questions: four questions about topics most related to a zookeeper’s expertise (e.g., “Who knows more about why fish live in water?”), four questions about topics most related to a mother’s knowledge (e.g., “Who knows more about how to strap in a car seat?”), and nine questions about topics that reflect general knowledge (e.g., “Who knows more about why we tell the truth?”). In each set, there were three answer choices (zookeeper informant, maternal figure, or both informants would know about the topic) and participants received a score of 1 for each question where they indicated the expected choice (i.e., “zookeeper” for the zookeeper subset, “mom” for the mother’s knowledge subset, and “both” for the general knowledge items). All other answers received a score of 0. Previous studies regarding children’s inferences about knowledge related to biological and social psychology principles were consulted to inform the creation of these items (e.g., Danovitch and Keil, 2004, 2007). In addition, the research team members who created these items obtained informal feedback from other members of the laboratory regarding how reasonable it would be to expect most adults to know some of these items to justify the expected answer choice of “both” and informal feedback regarding knowledge that would be specific to mothers/parents. Participants’ responses were summed for each subset to produce three scores (out of 4 points, 4 points, and 9 points, respectively).