Selective Social learning Flashcards
Perspectives on children’s learning:
Focus on autonomous learning
Who saw the child as an “autodidact” ?
Piaget: 20th century
(teaching the self about the world)
Children learn primarily from their own exploration and active interpretation of the data that they themselves gather
Learning from verbal input likely to be superficial
more likely to eco back what they have heard without taking it on board
Perspective on children’s learning:
Social constructivism
Vygotsky: 20th century
Children are curious explorers
But important ‘discoveries’ occur in context of collaborative dialogues between child and more knowledgeable members of society
Scaffolding – adults offer carefully tailored support by modeling activities and providing verbal instructions
Piaget dismissed that form of learning
Pigets view doesn’t take into account the learning through…
Pigets view doesn’t take into account the learning through the testimony of others
History, Religion
how to categorise an animal (whale is a fish even though its huge)
cannot be acquired just through experience
We rely on the testimony of others all the time:
Claims people make in contrast to information we gain by sense experience.
Name the 4 types for why?
For general knowledge (science, history, politics)
For specific information (train times, weather outlook)
For cultural norms & rules (keep clothes on in public)
For personal information (our date of birth)
This is particularly true for children for learning the basics:
Who & What to approach/avoid, What things are called, What things are for, How to categorise correctly. Learning this from parents/ others if it is okay to do specific behaviour. Children are dependant on other peoples testimony.
What is information communicated by others via assertions (claims people make in contrast to information we gain by sense experience)?
Testimony
3 Types of Learning from others:
When actively trying to gain info from others
Formal: Explicit teaching
Informal: Everyday dialogue with adults, siblings and peers, asking questions, imitation, overhearing
Indirectly: Through books, TV and the internet
Just because they cant see them in real life they still learn
However,
Testimony is not always reliable!
Some sources are more credible than others
due to being dishonest
goal in mind of being decietful, sales trying to decieve in order to buy the product
pretend to know more than they do know
children should shift through and believe reliable sources
filer out miss informational sources
wiki
research
What is Epistemic vigilance?
“Epistemic vigilance” (Sperber et al., 2010)
– to evaluate the credibility of the information source and the plausibility of claims, and calibrate trust in testimony accordingly.
Wary knowledge of other people
Although trust is beneficial, blind trust is not.
Needed to achieve a ballance in order to be effective social learning, remain open to having info from other people, but limit the amount of miss info that they learn.
Search up good intellectual traits: competence and relevance
Social view of how we evaluate people on the 2 continuums of socialness
good intentions vs bad intentions
helpful vs dishonest
Whether someone has the good intentions of providing us with the right information, children try and evaluate this
most empirical evidence has been done on intellectual dimension (if people are more competent) rather than the social dimension A03: limitation
children may look for an alternative motive
past accuracy (if someone has lied in the past)
if info is consistent with what you already know
consistent with other sources of other info online
Do children trust everything others tell them?
philosphical bckground
Historical perspective:
“..a disposition to confide in the veracity of others and to believe what they tell us…It is unlimited in children” (Reid, 1764)
Bertrand Russell claimed that: “Doubt, suspense of judgment and disbelief all seem later and more complex than a wholly unreflecting assent” (Russell, 1921).
agree with other people completely without thinking about it
first learn facts, later they learn people of different in terms of reliability
Do children trust everything others tell them?
philosphical bckground
More recent perspective:
“Children are especially credulous, especially gullible, especially prone toward acceptance and belief – as if they accepted as effortlessly as they comprehended but had yet to master the intricacies of doubt.” (Gilbert, 1991)
children dont know how to dought others yet (vulnerable)
According to Dawkins, credulity is adaptive: “It is easy to see why natural selection – the survival of the fittest – might penalize an experimental and skeptical turn of mind and favour simple credulity in children.” (Dawkins, 1995)
credulity - believing everyone
children learn lots more info if they accept everything#
beening suceptable slows information processing down
it is addaptive as they grow though
The empirical evidence:
In the last 20 yrs evidence has gathered showing instances of:
Early scepticism
A bias to believe -find it hard to stop believing someone
Selective trust
Much more complex picture than absolute guluble or credulity!
depends on age and methodology used
The empirical evidence:
Early scepticism:
Rejecting blatantly false claims
From 16 months infants reject false labels (Koenig & Echols, 2003; Pea, 1980)
will intervene and say no
show familiar items labeled incorrectly shoe=book
3-4 year-olds reject claims that are inconsistent with their own perceptual judgement (Clement et al., 2004)
children shown box of blue pompom adult said it was red pompom in box
when asked what colour was the pompom they said their own knowledge
stick to their own perceptual judgement
-but this was info coming from strangers, not a mothers testimony
social referencing:
look to the emotions of the caregiver on how to act in ambiguous situations
not prohibiting but encouraging then the baby will cross over and drop to her
the role of non verbal communication in determining child’s behaviour in the form of social context
by 11-12 months
Risky slopes: perceptual or social information?
Background:
From 12m babies look to the emotional reaction of caregiver to figure out how to act in an ambiguous situation
REF: Sorce, Emde, Campos & Klinnert (1985)
The empirical evidence:
Risky slopes: perceptual or social information?
Tamis-Lemonda et al. (2008)
climbing situation
encoraging children to cim down risky slopes and discoraged them to walk down safe slopes
Pitted perceptual vs. social cues
Mums encouraged children to walk down risky slopes and discouraged them to walk down safe slopes.
Found: 18 mo ignored mum’s advice and relied on perceptual information
Only relied on Mum’s advice when they could not assess risk when slopes were ambigoius not evidently safe or riskey
74% went down riskey 27% didnt
supporting evidence for relying of others in an ambiguous situation:
take each animal card and place it in the habitat it lives
Control: “Look at this one! Can you show me where this one lives?’’
Expt condt: “Look at this bird. Can you show me where this bird lives?” - recieving testimony
accepting plausable info or stick with their own knowledge that its a fish
Findings;
2 and 3 yr-olds accept labels conflicting with own perceptions
hybrid of fish with bird wings one animal was more dominant than the other (Jaswal & Markman, 2007)
4 yr-olds more likely to accept conflicting labels if given additional information suggesting it’s an unfamiliar subtype of that category: “This is a Moroccan bird” (Jaswal, 2004)
6 and 8 yr-olds more likely to accept conflicting labels when stimuli is ambiguous (Chan & Tardiff, 2013)
A03:
Compliance vs. actual belief? How could you find out if children
truly believe the implausible information?
May feel like they have to comply and not believing that they are learning
An experimental way in which you can test whether the children were truely learning (actual belief) and not compliance would be by:
form an implicit measure
without asking them
through eye tracking !
new experimenter came in and asked what these animals were, and the children passed on to the second experimenter the previous learnt knowledge of what they had said. did not revert back to what they thought were true
Role of prior knowledge in assessing unexpected testimony
Above studies demonstrate role of intuition/prior knowledge when children making trust judgements:
Children compare other people’s testimony to their existing knowledge
When own knowledge base is strong (in unambiguous situations) they are more likely to stick with own beliefs
When own knowledge base is weak (in ambiguous situations) they are more likely to accept implausible claims
Biased to believe
When children do have their own knowledge-based to judges, someone, due to not having their own reliability
Do children take into account an informant’s past reliability?
Jaswal et al. (2010)
Do children start to show distrust to person who was giving wrong information?
conclusion: children selectively find it hard to stop trusting what someone is telling them= default bias to trusting people
Findings:
3 yr-olds continued to believe the deceptive actor across 8 trials!
all wrong
arrow pointing to the cup was already incorrect
not a general inhibition issue of a response (executive functioning)
as the majority of children dismissed the arrow and kept the stickers (motivational value)
executive function needs to develop 3yrs - as u age u experience people not telling truth then you change brain
Why Children Are Not Always Epistemically Vigilant
Cognitive skills supporting development of scepticism:
Responding sceptically requires inhibiting the normally appropriate expectations that what people say is true
Mixed evidence for role of Executive Function
so it is still up for debate
Responding sceptically requires awareness that others may deceive
Mixed evidence for role of Theory of Mind
If you dont yet have an understanding of other peoples mental states you wont have the awarness of others being incorrect or trying to decieve you
Choosing between informants: Signs of Selective Trust
What are the 3 Underlying abilities?
Sensitivity to appropriate cues about individuals’ competence or honesty
E.g. Mistakes / past accuracy
Appreciate that prior competence/honesty is linked to future reliability
Keep track of person-specific information about reliability to guide selective learning from reliable informants
not to confuse previously accurate personn with disaccurate person
Choosing between informants: Signs of Selective Trust
Koenig, Clement & Harris (2004)
3-4 year-olds use informants’ past accuracy to assess the reliability of their current or future testimony
Prefer to:
seek help
accept new information
From previously accurate rather than inaccurate person
Finding replicated in many papers!
3-4 used systematic forming, and named it based on the person who got it right
set of novel objects that they do not kno what they are used for.
Child relies on testimony of reliable/ unreliable speakers on novel objects
However, this does not reflect everyday life, some can eb right and wrong about a topic low generalisability
limited to making very stong binary decisions on whether someone is alwasys right or wrong
Introducing novel objects & labels
In order to test children’s selective uptake of new knowledge, child is presented with information about novel objects:
E.g. Labels – non words that sound like real words
Blicket, fendle, modi, tark, rif, jop
Or functions: this is used for “cleaning a toaster” or “fixing a TV”
Accuracy Evaluation:
Is children’s ability to use past accuracy as a reliability cue limited to situations where a speaker is always right vs. always wrong?
Children are sensitive to graded differences in speakers’ accuracy 1
At 4 yrs children also sensitive to relative frequency of errors speakers make (Pasquini et al., 2007)
i.e. graded evaluation on basis of quantity of errors
At 3 yrs children only differentiated between speakers when one person was 100% right
Takes them to establish longer
Children are sensitive to graded differences in speakers’ accuracy 2
Growing ability to differentiate on basis of relative error size
i.e. graded evaluation on basis of error size by evaluating their semantic content (Einav & Robinson, 2010)
