儿童在寻求新的解释时,会考虑信息提供者的解释质量和他们的社会优势。

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Child development Pub Date : 2024-08-04 DOI:10.1111/cdev.14148
Shaocong Ma, Yixin K. Cui, Shan Wan, Eva E. Chen, Kathleen H. Corriveau
{"title":"儿童在寻求新的解释时,会考虑信息提供者的解释质量和他们的社会优势。","authors":"Shaocong Ma,&nbsp;Yixin K. Cui,&nbsp;Shan Wan,&nbsp;Eva E. Chen,&nbsp;Kathleen H. Corriveau","doi":"10.1111/cdev.14148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Identifying high-quality causal explanations is key to scientific understanding. This research (<i>N</i> = 202; 50% girls; <i>M</i>\n <sub>age</sub>: 5.82 years; 64% Asian, 33% White, and 3% multiracial; data collected from 2018 to 2024) examined how explanation circularity and informants' social dominance impact children's learning preferences for causal explanations. Raised in a culture valuing circular logic, Chinese children still preferred non-circular explanations and learning from informants providing non-circular explanations (<i>d</i> ≥ 0.50). When informants with non-circular explanations were subordinate to those with circular explanations, Chinese and American children preferred non-circular over circular explanations (<i>d</i> = 1.10), but did not prefer learning new information from either informant. Although children weigh explanation quality over informant dominance when seeking explanations for given questions, they consider both cues when evaluating informants' credibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":10109,"journal":{"name":"Child development","volume":"95 6","pages":"2119-2132"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cdev.14148","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Children consider informants' explanation quality with their social dominance in seeking novel explanations\",\"authors\":\"Shaocong Ma,&nbsp;Yixin K. Cui,&nbsp;Shan Wan,&nbsp;Eva E. Chen,&nbsp;Kathleen H. Corriveau\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cdev.14148\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Identifying high-quality causal explanations is key to scientific understanding. This research (<i>N</i> = 202; 50% girls; <i>M</i>\\n <sub>age</sub>: 5.82 years; 64% Asian, 33% White, and 3% multiracial; data collected from 2018 to 2024) examined how explanation circularity and informants' social dominance impact children's learning preferences for causal explanations. Raised in a culture valuing circular logic, Chinese children still preferred non-circular explanations and learning from informants providing non-circular explanations (<i>d</i> ≥ 0.50). When informants with non-circular explanations were subordinate to those with circular explanations, Chinese and American children preferred non-circular over circular explanations (<i>d</i> = 1.10), but did not prefer learning new information from either informant. Although children weigh explanation quality over informant dominance when seeking explanations for given questions, they consider both cues when evaluating informants' credibility.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child development\",\"volume\":\"95 6\",\"pages\":\"2119-2132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cdev.14148\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.14148\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.14148","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

识别高质量的因果解释是科学理解的关键。本研究(N = 202;50% 为女孩;年龄:5.82 岁;64% 为亚洲人,33% 为白人,3% 为多种族;数据收集时间为 2018 年至 2024 年)考察了解释的循环性和信息提供者的社会主导地位如何影响儿童对因果解释的学习偏好。在重视循环逻辑的文化中长大的中国儿童仍然偏好非循环解释,并从提供非循环解释的信息提供者那里学习(d≥0.50)。当提供非圆逻辑解释的信息提供者从属于提供圆逻辑解释的信息提供者时,中国和美国儿童更喜欢非圆逻辑解释而不是圆逻辑解释(d = 1.10),但不喜欢从这两种信息提供者那里学习新信息。虽然儿童在寻求问题的解释时会权衡解释的质量而不是信息提供者的优势,但他们在评价信息提供者的可信度时会同时考虑这两种线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Children consider informants' explanation quality with their social dominance in seeking novel explanations

Identifying high-quality causal explanations is key to scientific understanding. This research (N = 202; 50% girls; M age: 5.82 years; 64% Asian, 33% White, and 3% multiracial; data collected from 2018 to 2024) examined how explanation circularity and informants' social dominance impact children's learning preferences for causal explanations. Raised in a culture valuing circular logic, Chinese children still preferred non-circular explanations and learning from informants providing non-circular explanations (d ≥ 0.50). When informants with non-circular explanations were subordinate to those with circular explanations, Chinese and American children preferred non-circular over circular explanations (d = 1.10), but did not prefer learning new information from either informant. Although children weigh explanation quality over informant dominance when seeking explanations for given questions, they consider both cues when evaluating informants' credibility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Child development
Child development Multiple-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
149
期刊介绍: As the flagship journal of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Child Development has published articles, essays, reviews, and tutorials on various topics in the field of child development since 1930. Spanning many disciplines, the journal provides the latest research, not only for researchers and theoreticians, but also for child psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, psychiatric social workers, specialists in early childhood education, educational psychologists, special education teachers, and other researchers. In addition to six issues per year of Child Development, subscribers to the journal also receive a full subscription to Child Development Perspectives and Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
期刊最新文献
Neighborhood disorder and infant screen time: Buffering effects of the PlayReadVIP parent-child program. Situating developmental science in cultural context: Lessons from the study of Asian-heritage children. (When) is it okay to be angry? Children and adults' judgments in China and the United States. The role of mothers' speech for children's education beyond the early years. Non-parental care in the first 18 months in Singapore and its implications for child development.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1