Children's reasoning about the credibility of positive and negative evaluations of academic performance was examined. Across 2 studies, 7- and 10-year-olds from the United States and China (N = 334) judged the credibility of academic evaluations that were directed toward an unfamiliar peer. In Study 1, participants from China responded that criticism should be accepted to a greater extent than did participants from the United States, and children from both countries demonstrated a selective skepticism effect by treating negative feedback more skeptically than positive feedback. Study 2 replicated the selective skepticism effect among children from both countries and ruled out the possibility that it can be explained as a rational analysis of perceived base rates. The results suggest that children are selective in their trust of evaluative feedback and that their credibility judgments may be influenced by the desirability of the information that is being conveyed or its anticipated consequences.