Lecture 9 - Selective Social Learning: Who to Trust? Flashcards
Outline Jean-Jacques Roseau 1712-1778 historical perspective
Focus autonomous learning
Children shouldn’t learn from others
They reason not copy
Outline Piagets view on children’s learning
Child “autodidact” = teach themselves
Learn primarily from their own exploration and active interpretation that they gather
Learning from verbal input likely be superficial = herbalism
Children parrot back but do not deeply understand
Learning through themselves = deeper understanding
Outline social constructivism by Vygotsky
Children curious explorers
Important discoveries occur in context collaborative dialogues between child and more knowledgeable members society
Scaffolding - adults offer carefully tailored support by modelling activities, providing verbal instructions
Gradually taken away. Internalised
What is Paul Harris 2012 view on experience
Isn’t there a limit to role first-hand experience play cognitive development
Certain areas knowledge have learn from others e.g. past events, religion
Outline Baldwin and Moses 1996 learning from others
Testimony: Info communicated others via assertions (contrast info gained sense experience)
Rely testimony others all time:
- General knowledge - science, politics
- Specific information - train times, weather
- Cultural norms and rules
- Personal info - date of birth
What occurs when learning from others
Who and what to approach/avoid
What things are called
What things are for
How to categorise
What are the types of teaching
Formal: explicit
Informal: everyday dialogue
adults, siblings, peers, imitation
Indirect: books, internet
Testimony not always reliable. Some sources more credible, some may be biased intent
What are the 2 things that make a source reliable
Competence
Benevolence = wish share info
Outline Epistemic Vigilance
Although trust beneficial, blind trust is not
Relating to knowledge, watchful and careful
Sperber et al 2010 - evaluate credibility info course and plausibility claims and calibrate trust in testimony accordingly
Needed achieve effective social learning
Historical perspective on whether children trust everything others tell of if they are selective
Disposition confide in truth of others and believe what they tell us
Unlimited in children - Reid 1764. Children believe everything
Doubt, suspense judgement, disbelief all later and more complex unreflective assent
Child learns there are reliable and unreliable informants much later than it learns facts which are told it
Recent perspective on whether children trust everything others tell of if they are selective
Echoes same message
Children credulous, gullible, prone towards acceptance and belief. Yet master intricacies doubt - Gilbert 1991
Credulity adaptive. Natural selection (survival fittest) might penalise experimental and sceptical turn of mind, favour simple credulity
Learning seems more efficient take on everything you are told, rather than doubt everything you are told and verify everything
Outline early scepticism
Rejecting blatantly false claims
16 months infants reject false labels
3-4 years reject claims inconsistent with own perceptual judgement
Outline Clement et al 2004 early scepticism experiment
Shown pompon blue colour.
Then puppet told them it was green.
When asked what colour pompon was they stuck with own judgement
Outline Sorce, Emde, Campos and Klinnert 1985 study on early scepticism
12 months babies look to emotional reaction caregiver to figure out how to act in ambiguous situation
E.g. When wanting collect toy from over clear glass appears drop a baby. Mother smiling more likely go over glass than if showed fearful face
Outline risky slopes: perceptual or social information Tamis-Lemonda et al 2008 to experiment on early scepticism
Different slopes varying gradient
Moms encouraged children walk down risky slopes, discouraged them walk down safe slopes
Outline risky slopes: perceptual or social information Tamis-Lemonda et al 2008 to experiment on early scepticism RESULTS
18 months ignored their moms advice relying instead on perceptual info
Only relief moms advice when could not assess risk = ambiguous
Walked 74% trials mom said come down
Only 27% mom said don’t come down
Outline Jaswal and Markman 2004 experiment on being Biased to Believe
Categorisation of objects.
Showed children hybrid animals, always more dominant towards 1 animal.
Then showed 2 habitats each associated to 2 animals it is made up of.
Asked match hybrid animal with habitat
Researcher try and influence infants decision by calling hybrid of name of less dominant counterpart
Outline RESULTS of Jaswal and Markman 2004 experiment on being Biased to Believe
2-3years accept labels conflicting own perceptions
4 years likely accept conflicting labels if given additional info suggesting it’s an unfamiliar subtype - Jaswal 2004
6-8years more likely accept conflicting labels when stimuli ambiguous - Chan and Tradiff 2013
Evaluation of Jaswal and Markman 2004 experiment on being Biased to Believe
Compliance vs Actual belief
How can you find out if children truly believe implausible info?
May feel pressured or social desire please experiment
How to overcome the criticism of Jaswal and Markman 2004 experiment on being Biased to Believe
Taking experimenter out of scenario by later study getting experimenter 1 to leave room and experimenter 2 coming in and asking them to tell them about what they have been learning
Stuck with experimenters labels = internalised. Actual belief.
What is the role of prior knowledge in assessing unexpected testimony
Hybrid study demonstrates role intuition/prior knowledge making trust judgements
Compare other people’s testimony to their existing knowledge
Own knowledge base strong (unambiguous) more like stick own beliefs
Own knowledge base weak (ambiguous) more likely accept implausible claims
Outline Jaswal et al 2010 later study on Biased to Believe
Children video actress with stickers, hid them in 1 of 2 containers.
The girl will tell them where she hid them, but are also told they may lie.
Find sticker had to mistrust informer
Over course 8 trials 3years old continued to follow testimony. Found hard resist trusting her.
Why are children not always epistemically vigilant due to inhibiting appropriate expectations
- Responding sceptically requires inhibiting normally appropriate expectations what people say is true
Executive Function - children default bias to trust. In order stop trusting have learn inhibit cues.
Early years learn everything from parents who only tell them truth building up default truth
Why are children not always epistemically vigilant due to requiring awareness others may deceive
Responding sceptically requires awareness others may deceive
Require ToM understand someone have FB
Only correlations NO causation
Outline Biased to Believe, children with ASD - Yi et al 2014
5-10years ASD learn distrust deceptive informant repeatedly misinformation
4-6 years typically developing
Typically developing children more likely distrust
ToM did not correlate trust responses
EF negatively correlated trust responses
Supports possible role inhibitory control in distrust
Choosing between informants: Signs if Selective Trust
Sensitivity to appropriate cues individuals competences e.g. mistakes/past accuracy
Appreciate prior competence linked future reliability
Keep person-specific info about reliability guide selective learning from reliable informants
Outline Koenig, Clement and Harris 2994 study on informants past accuracy
3-4 years use informant past accuracy assess reliability current/future testimony
Prefer seek help, accept new info from previously accurate 100% rather than inaccurate person
Accuracy evaluation of Koenig, Clement and Harris 2994 study on informants past accuracy
Children differentiate between people always right or always wrong
But this does not reflect everyday life
We are not always right or always wrong
Outline Pasquini et al 2007 children are sensitive to grades differences in speakers accuracy
4years sensitive relative frequency of errors
1 person right 75% time. Other person right 25% time
3 years only differentiated speakers 100%, rejected someone soon as 1 error was made
Growing ability differentiate basis on relative error size between 4-7years
Outline children are sensitive to grades difference in speakers accuracy in 4-5years
4-5years able differentiate from extreme differentiated error size with quantifiable measure
Paying attention to different dimensions and criteria of competence
Do children consider the reasons for speakers accuracy and inaccuracy?
4 years - track not only whether or not informants have been accurate in past but also:
How accuracy achieved (Einav and Robinson). More likely trust someone knew answers on their own.
Why informant was wrong (Nurmsoo and Robinson). More likely trust someone excuse for error.
Outline Vanderbilt et al 2014 study on Object Labelling Task
3-4years accept claim accurate speaker learning novel info
Willing trust testimony single informant, regardless if previously been reliable
Children require conflicting testimony to demonstrate selective trust
How do young children evaluate claims on strengths their evidence
Age 3: children evaluate better:
Claim supported by good reason - Koenig 2012
A claim that has been verified - Butler et al 2017
Outline Mills 2013 informant variables been found to influence children’s trust
Age Confidence Group membership Gender Attire Expertise Benevolence Familiarity Attractiveness Accent
When does Mills 2013 place more trust in novel information provided by:
Informant expressing confidence Adult More attractive Informant with native rather non-native Same gender Said be nice rather mean
What are the underlying motivations of selective trust
Epistemic considerations based perceived competence and honesty
Me never social in group
General positivity towards that person “halo effect”
Does primary motivation change as child develops
Does past accuracy out weight other cues?
4 years show greater trust informants on basis of:
- Age
- Familiarity
- Accent
- Gender
Relinquish trust when past accuracy conflicts
Heuristics our aside when direct evidence accuracy available
Less likely among 3 years (more driven social goals?)
