DO YOUNG CHILDREN ALWAYS SAY YES TO YES-NO QUESTIONS'? A Metadevelopmsntal ...

80 Pages·2001·3.25 MB·English

DO YOUNG CHILDREN ALWAYS SAY YES TO YES-NO QUESTIONS'?
A Metadevelopmsntal Study of the Affirmation Bias
VICTORIA HEATHER FRITZLEY
.A thesis subrnitted to the Depanment of Psychology
in conformity with the rcquirernents for
the degree of Master of Arts
Quren's University
Kingston. Ontario. Canada
Srptember 6.2000
copyright O Victoria Heather Fritzlry. September 2000
I*I National Library Bibliothèque nationale
of Canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington
OttawaON K1AON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4
Canada Canada
Your fik Votre reference
Our fi& Notre referma
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of thts thesis in rnicrofonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du
copyright in ths thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
A bstract
The presrnt studies investigated whether a response bias evists in 2- to 5-year-olds when
they are asked yes/no questions. In Experiment 1. children were asked both
comprehensi ble and incomprehensible yesho questions concerning familiiir and
iinfiimiliar objects. Comprehensible questions cire questions that young children hnvr no
probleni understanding whilc incomprehensible questions are questions thüt contain
'nonsenseg words. In Experiment 2. children wrre asked both comprehensiblç iind
incomprehensible questions concrrning rxpected and unrxpectrd actions pcrfomird with
only kimiliar objects. Expscted actions are actions thiit iire commonly associiitrd with
ii
panicular object <cg.b ouncing a bail) whilr unexpected actions are actions thüt cire
riirely if ever perfomrd with ü panicular objecr k g . kicking a toothbnish ). With rcspect
to cornprehensible questions. Experiment I revealcd that 2-yenr-olds displayed an
aftïmation bias in response to questions conceming both familiar and unfümiliar objrcts
whilt: 3-year-olds only displayrd an affirmation bias in response to thosc concerning
unfamiliür objects. In response to questions concrming familiar objects. 3-year-olds did
not demonstrate any response bias at all. Four- and 5-year-olds did not demonstriitc any
response bias at al1 in response to comprehensible questions. With respect to the
incomprehensible questions. 7-year-olds drmonstrated an affirmation biüs in response to
questions conceming both familiar and unfamiliar objects. Three-yrar-olds did not
demonsrrate n bias at al\ when asked questions concernins unhmiliar objects. but showctd
a significant disconfirmation bias when asked questions concerning hmiliar objects.
Four- and 5-year-oids displayed a significant disconfirmation bias when answering
.
,
1 i
incomprehensible questions concerning both types of objects. Exprriment 2 revealed thiit
with respect to the comprehrnsible questions. 2-year-oids demonstratrd Lin iiffirmation
bias whilr the 3-. 4-. and 5-year-olds did not display any responsr bias at dl. With
respect to the incomprehensible questions. 2-ycar-olds demonstrated an affirmation bias
rvhile the 3-. 4-. and 5-year-olds drmonstrüted a disconfirmation bias. The findiriss from
the presrnt studies have implications for the development of a proprr methodology for
qwstioning children and nlso for obtaining children's testimony in the çounroom.
Acknowledgements
There are many people who want to thank for their involvement in this projcct.
First and foremost are Drs. Kang Lee and Rod Lindsay. without whom this project would
not have bern staned. let alone çornplrted. I would also like to thünk the mcmbers of my
cornmittee. Drs. Darwin Muir and Lee Fabrigar. for thrir valuable sugptions borh
during the conception phase of this project and üiso durins my rnany unplünned visits to
their offices. 1 would dso like to extend many thiinks to Dr. Lürry Symons and Jtinc
Leach who have always bern willing to answer my questions. no matter how trivial.
On a more personitl note. 1 would like to pive thanks to rny family for their nevrr-
endinz love and support. Without them. [ would never have haci the strength to
b
ücconiplish as much as 1 have. 1 would also like to thank niy Iüb-niates. Jiinst. Ale.
Victoria. and Mnyu for thrir many helpful suggestions and for their puttins up with rny
many strünge habits. Thanks also to my frirnds Kirstrn. Tony. and Angrla - withoiit y u .
1 would be lost in a statistical nightmare. To the parents. teachers. and rspecidly the
young children who took pan in my research: Thünk you so much for your participation
and for your rndless smiles.

Chapter 4: General Discussion .......................................................... 42
Re ferences ................................................................................. 54
Appendices ................................................................................ 29
Vitae ........................................................................................ 73
List of Tables
Table 1
Percent of "yes" and "no" responses to the Yrs and No questions and rneans
(standard deviations) of Rrsponse Bias Scores in Experiment 1 . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 16
Table 2.
Mrans (Standard Devilitions) of Replication Scores in Experinirnt 2 (müx. = 1
and min. = O}.. ... . .. .. . . . . . ... . . . ... ... ... . . . .. .. .. .. . ... .. ..... .. ..... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3 1
Table 3.
Percent of "yrs" and "no" responses to the Yes and No qiirstions and merins
t standard deviations ) of Response Bias Scores in Experimcnt 2.. .. . .. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . 11
List of Figures
Figure I
blran Response Biüs Scores in Experiment 1 ...... ............... ....... ..... 24
Figure 2.
Melin Response Bias Scores in Experiment 2 ...... ........ ... .... ... ... .. .. . . -39
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Parental Consent Forms.. ......................................................... 59
Appendis B
Source Tables for Experimrnt 1 ................................................. 62
hpprndix C
Questions askrd in Experiment I ................................................ 64
Appendix D
Source Tables for Experiment 2 ................................................. 67
hppendix E
Questions asked in Expcriment 2 ................................................ 69
Appcndix F
Ethics Approval F m I hçet.. ................................................... 7 1