Explaining Constrains Causal Learning in Childhood

Abstract

Three experiments investigate how self-generated explanation influences children's causal learning. Five-yearolds (N = 114) observed data consistent with two hypotheses and were prompted to explain or to report each observation. In Study 1, when making novel generalizations, explainers were more likely to favor the hypothesis that accounted for more observations. In Study 2, explainers favored a hypothesis that was consistent with prior knowledge. Study 3 pitted a hypothesis that accounted for more observations against a hypothesis consistent with prior knowledge. Explainers were more likely to base generalizations on prior knowledge. Findings suggest that attempts to explain drive children to evaluate hypotheses using features of "good" explanations, or those supporting generalizations with broad scope, as informed by children's prior knowledge and observations.

The early emergence and puzzling decline of relational reasoning: Effects of knowledge and search on inferring abstract concepts

“…In particular, previous research has found that preschoolers who are prompted to explain often show a more sophisticated pattern of responses on later inferences, even when the content of their explanations falls short (Edwards, Williams, Lombrozo, & Gentner, 2016;Walker et al, , 2016Williams & Lombrozo, 2010). Wilkenfeld and Lombrozo (2015) argue that it is the process of explaining that carries epistemic value, regardless of whether it results in the ''correct" product.…”

“…Experiment 3 contrasted two conditions in which we asked 3-and 4-year-olds to either report whether the toy activated in each training trial or to explain why the toy did or did not activate in each case. Based on the previous literature reviewed above, we hypothesized that generating an explanation may lead children to consider different hypotheses and, in particular, to search for simpler and more general hypotheses (e.g., Lombrozo, 2012;Walker et al, , 2016Walker, Bonawitz, & Lombrozo, submitted for publication; Williams & Lombrozo, 2013; see also Bonawitz, van Schijndel, Friel, & Schulz, 2012). That might increase the chance that older children will accept the relational hypothesis, even though it has a lower prior probability than the individual hypothesis.…”

“…Asking for explanations encourages learners to go beyond simple probability considerations. Instead learners privilege those hypotheses that offer the best explanation relative to alternatives, even if those hypotheses don't necessarily have higher posterior probabilities (e.g., Lombrozo, 2007Lombrozo, , 2012Lombrozo & Vasilyeva, in press;Walker, Lombrozo, Legare, & Gopnik, 2014;Walker, Lombrozo, Williams, Rafferty, & Gopnik, 2016;Williams & Lombrozo, 2010. More specifically (e.g., Bonawitz & Lombrozo, 2012;Frazier, Gelman, & Wellman, 2009;Lombrozo, 2007), hypotheses that are formulated in the context of explaining are likely to have certain characteristics, or ''explanatory virtues."…”

“…In particular, learners who explain tend to privilege hypotheses that go beyond highly salient surface features to those that are more inductively rich and robust. Explanatory hypotheses are more likely to be abstract, broad in scope, and applicable to a wide range of contexts and situations (Lombrozo, 2010;Lombrozo & Vasilyeva, in press;Walker et al, , 2016Williams & Lombrozo, 2010.…”

Explanation, updating, and accuracy

“…But Douven and Schupbach (2015a) found that, at least in some contexts, Bayes' rule is systematically violated because people's belief updates are influenced by explanatory considerations. These results did not come as a complete surprise, given that previous research had already shown that explanation plays a variety of roles in belief formation and in cognition more generally (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, and LaVancher 1994;Legare and Lombrozo 2014;Lombrozo 2006Lombrozo , 2007Lombrozo , 2012Pennington and Hastie 1992; for more recent results, see Walker, Lombrozo, Williams, Rafferty, and Gopnik 2016).…”