Children's sensitivity to speaker accuracy and explanatory competence with biological concepts

223 Pages·2014·2.93 MB·English

Copyright and use of this thesis
This thesis must be used in accordance with the
provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Reproduction of material protected by copyright
may be an infringement of copyright and
copyright owners may be entitled to take
legal action against persons who infringe their
copyright.
Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits
an authorized officer of a university library or
archives to provide a copy (by communication
or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in
the library or archives, to a person who satisfies
the authorized officer that he or she requires
the reproduction for the purposes of research
or study.
The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work
a number of moral rights, specifically the right of
attribution, the right against false attribution and
the right of integrity.
You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you:
- fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if
you quote sections from the work
- attribute this thesis to another author
- subject this thesis to derogatory treatment
which may prejudice the author’s reputation
For further information contact the University’s
Director of Copyright Services
sydney.edu.au/copyright
i

Children’s sensitivity to speaker accuracy and explanatory competence
with biological concepts

Betty Luu

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Psychology
Faculty of Science
The University of Sydney
2015
ii

Abstract
This thesis investigated children’s selective trust in contexts that extend beyond a
direct comparison of a distinctly accurate labeller with a distinctly inaccurate labeller in the
domain of artifacts. In the existing selective trust literature, it has been well-established that
children from about the age of three consider informants who accurately label artifacts to be
more trustworthy than informants who inaccurately label artifacts. In order to expand on the
existing research and present children with situations that are more likely be more
representative of what they encounter in real life, there were three main aims in this thesis.
First, children were presented with informants who provided information about objects from
the human body to examine whether children’s evaluations of informant trustworthiness is
similar across the biological domain and the domain of artifacts. Second, an informant who
provided novel labels for body parts was introduced to investigate how children interpret
novel labellers when compared to accurate and inaccurate labellers. Finally, children were
presented with informants who provided functional or surface information for objects from
the human body to determine whether they could differentiate informants on qualitative
grounds, and prefer learning from informants who provided functional explanations.
Across five experiments, children aged between three and eight years of age (N =
379) were tested. The main findings of this thesis were as follows: (a) 4- and 5-year-olds
knew more about external body parts (e.g., hand) than internal organs, and some internal
organs (e.g., brain) were better known to them than others (e.g., pancreas); (b) five-year-olds
began to appreciate that speakers offering novel information were more trustworthy than
those offering inaccurate information; (c) four- to eight-year-olds had difficulty with
distinguishing between informants who provided either functional explanations or superficial
descriptions for highly unfamiliar organs (e.g., pancreas); (d) however, when presented with
informants who provided either functional or superficial information for highly familiar body
parts (e.g., eye), eight-year-olds (and to some extent, five-year-olds) showed better recall of
which informant provided a particular type of explanation, but they did not consider either
informant to be a more trustworthy source for learning labels for unfamiliar organs.
These findings indicate that children demonstrate selective trust in the biological
domain, as well as in contexts that go beyond comparing accurate and inaccurate labellers. It
is apparent that children are balanced in their evaluations of informants who provide new
information, as well as those provide information that varies in explanatory depth. However,
they are yet to fully consider functional explanations to be superior to superficial
iii

descriptions. Further research is required to examine the contexts in which children might
trust an informant who provides functional or surface information, and how they come to
decide that certain kinds of explanation should be privileged.
iv

Acknowledgements
There are many people who I wish to thank for their ongoing support and assistance
in the creation of this thesis. First, I extend my utmost gratitude to all the Principals,
Directors, teachers and staff for allowing me to conduct my studies in their schools and
daycare centres, as well as for helping with the recruitment of participants. I am also very
grateful to all the parents who gave consent for their child to participate in my studies;
without whom this research would not have been possible.
I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Dr Marc de Rosnay, for his unerring
guidance and support since supervising me in an undergraduate project over six years ago.
Not only has he taught me how to think and express myself more clearly, he has given me
valuable insights into what it takes to do good research. A big thank you to my Associate
Supervisor, Professor Paul Harris, for encouraging me to be “bolder” with my ideas, as well
as for reviewing and providing extensive feedback for all my written work. Thank you also to
my other Associate Supervisor, A/Professor Fiona White, for her support and feedback in the
early years as well as for offering me effective tips and tricks throughout my PhD.
Many thanks go to Bec Kuhnert, Elian Fink, Megan Feeney, Mike Kendig, and Tony
Tran for their assistance with preparing the testing materials, and to the various Honours
students (Liz Whittaker, Amelia Stojanovik, Katie Osborne-Crowley, Niesha Douglas) who
have joined me along the way as testing companions. In particular, I am very grateful to
Niesha for her assistance with data collection for the artifacts paradigm presented in Studies 4
and 5. I am also thankful to everyone in the Developmental Lab Group for cheering me on
during all stages of my candidature.
On a more personal note, I would like to thank my parents, as well as my family, for
their unconditional care and belief in me throughout my studies. In addition, there are many
friends and groups of friends who I appreciate for always keeping me grounded: Wendy,
Farrha, What to do, Nuggets, Tank Program, Operation Mow the Lawn (Minions), SB’s, and
SODDWalk. Finally, thank you to my fiancé, Duy, for his never-ending support and
encouragement from way before I even entertained the thought of completing a PhD.
v

Table of Contents

Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Chapter 1 1
Children Rely on the Testimony of Others 3
Children Accept Information They Hear at an Early Age, But Not Everything. 8
Children need to be able to Evaluate who is a Trustworthy Source of Information 12
Summary 15
Chapter 2 16
Key Findings 16
Children’s Strategies for Selective Trust 19
The Problem with Inaccurate Labelling 23
Moving Beyond the Accurate and Inaccurate Labelling of Objects: Novel Labels 26
Summary 28
Chapter 3 30
Children’s Use of Cues, Other than Accuracy, to Evaluate Informants’ Trustworthiness 31
Children’s Production and Evaluation of Different Types of Explanation 32
Children’s questions 33
Sensitivity to different types of explanations 36
Children’s differentiation of visible and non-visible properties 41
Summary 44
Chapter 4 47
Children’s Understanding of the Biological Domain Burgeons at Fours Years of Age 47
Summary 51
Chapter 5 52
Study 1 52
Methods 52
Results 56
Discussion 64
vi

Chapter 6 67
Study 2 67
Methods 75
Results 79
Discussion 83
Chapter 7 88
Study 3A 88
Methods 91
Results 96
Discussion 99
Study 3B 103
Methods 104
Results 106
Discussion 112
General Discussion 114
Chapter 8 116
Study 4 116
Methods 119
Results 126
Discussion 140
Chapter 9 149
Study 5A 149
Methods 150
Results 151
Discussion 157
Study 5B 160
Methods 160
Results 160
Discussion 165
General Discussion 166
vii

Chapter 10 170
General Discussion 170
Limitations of this Work and Future Directions 178
Conclusions 180
References 181
Appendices 190
Appendix A – Ethics Approval 190
A.1 Ethics Approval 190
Appendix B – Parent Information Package 192
B.2 Parent Invitation Letter 192
B.2 Parent Information Statement 193
B.3 Parent Consent Form 195
Appendix C - Overview of Body Parts and Organs 197
Appendix D – Children’s Responses to What Body Parts/Organs are “For” in Study 1 199
Appendix E – Theory of Mind (ToM) tasks 205
E.1 Script 205
E.2 Pictures for False Belief: Unexpected Contents 209
E.3 Pictures for False Belief: Unexpected Transfer 210
E.4 Pictures for Second order false belief – Task 1 211
E.5 Pictures for Second order false belief – Task 2 212
viii

List of Tables

Chapter 5
Table 5.1 Body Parts and Organs Presented and Respective Two-choice Alternatives 56
Table 5.2 Examples of Children’s Core Function, Peripheral Function and 61
Characteristic Responses for each Body Part/Organ
Table 5.3 Numbers of Children’s Forms of Explanation for External Body Parts 63
Table 5.4 Numbers of Children’s Forms of Explanation for Internal Organs 63

Chapter 6
Table 6.1 Familiarization Trials According to Informants’ Accuracy Role 77
Table 6.2 Test Trials (Unfamiliar Organs): Novel Labels 78
Table 6.3 Mean Numbers (and Standard Deviations) of Appropriate Responses 80
(Maximum = 4) to Question Types as a Function of Age and Condition

Chapter 7
Table 7.1 Test Trials in the Processes-Oriented Condition 93
Table 7.2 Test Trials in the Teleology-Oriented Condition 94
Table 7.3 Mean Number (and SD) of Appropriate Responses to Question Types, and 97
Total Scores, as a Function of Age and Condition
Table 7.4 Correlations Between Children’s Selective Trust, ToM and Verbal Ability 98
Table 7.5 Mean Number (and SD) of Appropriate Responses to Question Types, and 98
Total Scores, as a Function of Age and ToM performance
Table 7.6 Mean Number (and SD) of Appropriate Responses to Question Types, and 107
Total Scores for Eight-Year-Olds
Table 7.7 Mean Number (and SD) of Appropriate Responses to Knowledge and 109
Memory Questions for Eight-Year-Olds
Table 7.8 Correlations Between Children’s Selective Trust, ToM and Verbal Ability 110
(n = 32)
Table 7.9 Mean Number (and SD) of Appropriate Responses to Question Types, and 111
Total Scores, as a Function of ToM performance
ix

Chapter 8
Table 8.1 Familiarisation Trials in the Body Parts Paradigm 122
Table 8.2 Familiarisation Trials in the Artifacts Paradigm 123
Table 8.3 Test Trials in the Body Parts Paradigm 125
Table 8.4 Test Trials in the Artifacts Paradigm 125
Table 8.5 Mean Number (and SD) of Selection of Functional Informant as a 128
Function of Task and Paradigm Order for Question Types and Overall
Scores
Table 8.6 Mean Number (and SD) of Selection of Functional Informant as a 135
Function of Paradigm Order and Task for Follow-up Questions

Chapter 9
Table 9.1 Familiarisation Trials in the Body Parts Paradigm 150
Table 9.2 Familiarisation Trials in the Artifacts Paradigm 151
Table 9.3 Mean Number (and SD) of Choices Directed at the Functional Informant 152
by Paradigm
Table 9.4 Mean Performance (and SD) on Follow-up Questions by Paradigm 154
Table 9.5 Correlations Between Children’s Selective Trust and Follow-up Questions 156
Table 9.6 Mean Number (and SD) of Preference for Functional Informant 161
Table 9.7 Mean Performance (and SD) on Follow-up Questions 162
Table 9.8 Correlations Between Children’s Selective Trust and Follow-up Questions 163