4.5 Article

Development of Children's Sensitivity to Overinformativeness in Learning and Teaching

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 11, Pages 2113-2125

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/dev0000580

Keywords

social learning; theory of mind; communication; pragmatics; common ground

Funding

  1. Varieties of Understanding Project at Fordham University
  2. John Templeton Foundation
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DRL-1149116]
  4. Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines - NSF STC [CCF-1231216]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effective communication requires knowing the right amount of information to provide; what is necessary for a naive learner to arrive at a target hypothesis may be superfluous and inefficient for a knowledgeable learner. The current study examines 4- to 7-year-olds' developing sensitivity to overinformative communication and their ability to decide how much information is appropriate depending on the learner's prior knowledge. In Experiment 1 (N = 184, age = 4.09-7.98 years), 5- to 7-year-old children preferred teachers who gave costly, exhaustive demonstrations when learners were naive, but preferred teachers who gave efficient, selective demonstrations when learners were already knowledgeable given their prior experience (i.e., common ground). However, 4-year-olds did not show a clear preference. In Experiment 2 (N = 80, age = 4.05-6.99 years), we asked whether children flexibly modulated their own teaching based on learners' knowledge. Five and 6-year-olds, but not 4-year-olds, were more likely to provide exhaustive demonstrations to naive learners than to knowledgeable learners. These results suggest that by 5 years of age, children are sensitive to overinformativeness and understand the trade-off between informativeness and efficiency; they reason about what others know based on the presence or absence of common ground and flexibly decide how much information is appropriate both as learners and as teachers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available