“Why Does Rain Fall?”: Children Prefer to Learn From an Informant Who Uses Noncircular Explanations

Corriveau, Kathleen H.; Kurkul, Katelyn E.

doi:10.1111/cdev.12240

Cited by 107 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A larger set of explanations were piloted with adults and narrowed down to items that were seen to best fit the above explanation categories. Similar to previous research (e.g., Corriveau & Kurkul, ; Mills et al., ), circular and mechanistic explanations were matched for length and complexity, as measured by Flesch Reading Ease Scores (Flesch, ; M circular = 93.14, M noncircular = 89.73, t (22) = 0.76, p = .455). One female recorded the voice for the questions and a different female recorded the voice for the explanations.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 65%

“I Want to Know More!”: Children Are Sensitive to Explanation Quality When Exploring New Information

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When someone encounters an explanation perceived as weak, this may lead to a feeling of deprivation or tension that can be resolved by engaging in additional learning. This study examined to what extent children respond to weak explanations by seeking additional learning opportunities. Seven‐ to ten‐year‐olds (N = 81) explored questions and explanations (circular or mechanistic) about 12 animals using a novel Android tablet application. After rating the quality of an initial explanation, children could request and receive additional information or return to the main menu to choose a new animal to explore. Consistent with past research, there were both developmental and IQ‐related differences in how children evaluated explanation quality. But across development, children were more likely to request additional information in response to circular explanations than mechanistic explanations. Importantly, children were also more likely to request additional information in direct response to explanations that they themselves had assigned low ratings, regardless of explanation type. In addition, there was significant variability in both children's explanation evaluation and their exploration, suggesting important directions for future research. The findings support the deprivation theory of curiosity and offer implications for education.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 65%

“I Want to Know More!”: Children Are Sensitive to Explanation Quality When Exploring New Information

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They gave lower ratings to bad explanations that were circular than bad explanations that simply provided irrelevant information. The type of circularity used here may be a particularly salient indicator of poor explanation quality (Rips, 2002); even young children prefer noncircular explanations (Baum, Danovitch, & Keil, 2008;Corriveau & Kurkul, 2014;Mercier, Bernard, & Clément, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The seductive allure is a reductive allure: People prefer scientific explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive information

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To operationalize reasoning, we have relied on a contrast between a character who provides a circular argument and one who provides a strong, non‐circular argument. Preschoolers have been shown to favor the testimony supported by the strong, non‐circular argument (Mercier, Bernard & Clément, ; see also Corriveau & Kurkul, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony

Castelain

Bernard

Henst

et al. 2015

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two important parenting strategies are to impose one's power and to use reasoning. The effect of these strategies on children's evaluation of testimony has received very little attention. Using the epistemic vigilance framework, we predict that when the reasoning cue is strong enough it should overcome the power cue. We test this prediction in a population for which anthropological data suggest that power is the prominent strategy while reasoning is rarely relied on in the interactions with children. In Experiment 1, 4- to 6-year-old children from a traditional Maya population are shown to endorse the testimony supported by a strong argument over that supported by a weak argument. In Experiment 2, the same participants are shown to follow the testimony of a dominant over that of a subordinate. The participants are then shown to endorse the testimony of a subordinate who provides a strong argument over that of a dominant who provides either a weak argument (Experiment 3) or no argument (Experiment 4). Thus, when the power and reasoning cues conflict, reasoning completely trumps power.

show abstract

“Why Does Rain Fall?”: Children Prefer to Learn From an Informant Who Uses Noncircular Explanations

Cited by 107 publications

References 54 publications

“I Want to Know More!”: Children Are Sensitive to Explanation Quality When Exploring New Information

“I Want to Know More!”: Children Are Sensitive to Explanation Quality When Exploring New Information

The seductive allure is a reductive allure: People prefer scientific explanations that contain logically irrelevant reductive information

The influence of power and reason on young Maya children's endorsement of testimony

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About