Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1538–1547 | Cite as

Effects of explaining on children's preference for simpler hypotheses

  • Caren M. Walker
  • Elizabeth Bonawitz
  • Tania Lombrozo
Brief Report

Abstract

Research suggests that the process of explaining influences causal reasoning by prompting learners to favor hypotheses that offer “good” explanations. One feature of a good explanation is its simplicity. Here, we investigate whether prompting children to generate explanations for observed effects increases the extent to which they favor causal hypotheses that offer simpler explanations, and whether this changes over the course of development. Children aged 4, 5, and 6 years observed several outcomes that could be explained by appeal to a common cause (the simple hypothesis) or two independent causes (the complex hypothesis). We varied whether children were prompted to explain each observation or, in a control condition, to report it. Children were then asked to make additional inferences for which the competing hypotheses generated different predictions. The results revealed developmental differences in the extent to which children favored simpler hypotheses as a basis for further inference in this task: 4-year-olds did not favor the simpler hypothesis in either condition; 5-year-olds favored the simpler hypothesis only when prompted to explain; and 6-year-olds favored the simpler hypothesis whether or not they explained.

Keywords

Explanation Cognitive development Simplicity Causal inference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation (grant DRL-1056712) and a James S. McDonnell Foundation Scholar Award in Understanding Human Cognition to T. Lombrozo and the American Psychological Foundation (Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz) to C. Walker. The authors thank the parents and children who participated in this study, as well as the University of California, Berkeley Early Childhood Education Centers, the Lawrence Hall of Science, and The Childhood Creativity Center at the Bay Area Discovery Museum. We are grateful to Brian Edwards for his contribution in developing these methods. Finally, we thank Shin Er Teh, Avenee Nulkar, Christine Rickansrud, Sarah Tencher, and especially Rotem Aboody for their assistance with data collection.

References

  1. Amsterlaw, J., & Wellman, H. (2006). Theories of mind in transition: A microgenetic study of the development of false belief understanding. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 139–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. (1989). Young children's attribution of action to beliefs and desires. Child Development, 60, 946–964.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonawitz, E. B., & Lombrozo, T. (2012). Occam’s rattle: Children’s use of simplicity and probability to constrain inference. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1156–1164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers’ questions and parents’ explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  8. Christidou, V., & Hatzinikita, V. (2006). Preschool children’s explanations of plant growth and rain formation: A comparative analysis. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coley, J. D. (2003). On the importance of comparative research: The case of folkbiology. Child Development, 71(1), 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, B. J., Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2013). Effects of explanation and comparison on category learning In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 406–411). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  11. Fonseca, B., & Chi, M. T. H. (2010). The self-explanation effect: A constructive learning activity. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction. New York: Routledge Press. doi: 10.4324/9780203839089 Google Scholar
  12. Frazier, B. N., Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Preschoolers’ search for explanatory information within adult-child conversation. Child Development, 80, 1592–1611. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01356.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition, 38(3), 213–244. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-Q
  14. Gopnik, A. (1998). Explanation as Orgasm. Minds and Machines, 8(1), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1–31. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts and theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.5860/CHOICE.34-6547 Google Scholar
  17. Griffiths, T. L., Sobel, D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gopnik, A. (2011). Bayes and blickets: Effects of knowledge on causal induction in children and adults. Cognitive Science, 35, 1407–1455. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01203.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Harman, G. H. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review 74 (1):88–95.Google Scholar
  19. Hickling, A. K., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). How does your garden grow? Early conceptualization of seeds and their place in the plant growth cycle. Child Development, 66(3), 856–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hickling, A. K., & Wellman, H. M. (2001). The emergence of children's causal explanations and theories: Evidence from everyday conversation. Developmental Psychology, 37, 668–683. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.668 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1993). Young children’s understanding of the mind–body distinction. Child Development, 64, 1534–1549. doi: 10.2307/1131551 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 386–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kushnir, T., Xu, F., & Wellman, H. M. (2010). Young children use statistical sampling to infer the preferences of others. Psychological Science, 21, 1134–1140. doi: 10.1177/0956797610376652 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Lagnado, D. (1994). The psychology of explanation: A Bayesian approach. Masters Thesis. Schools of Psychology and Computer Science, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  25. Legare, C. H. (2012). Exploring explanation: Explaining inconsistent evidence informs exploratory hypothesis-testing behavior in young children. Child Development, 83, 173–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Legare, C. H., & Lombrozo, T. (2014). Selective effects of explanation on learning during early childhood. Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Legare, C. H., Wellman, H. M., & Gelman, S. (2009). Evidence for an explanation advantage in naïve biological reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 177–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lombrozo, T. (2007). Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 232–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lombrozo, T. (2012). Explanation and abductive inference. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 260–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lombrozo, T. (2016). Explanation. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to Experimental Philosophy (pp. 491–503). Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781118661666.ch34
  32. Lombrozo, T. & Vasilyeva, N. (2016). Causal explanation. In M. Waldmann (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Medin, D., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111(4), 960–983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Newport, E., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. Talking to children: Language input and acquisition, 109–149.Google Scholar
  35. Pacer, M. & Lombrozo, T. (2015). Occam’s razor cuts to the root: Simplicity in causal explanation. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  36. Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pine, K. J. & Siegler, R. S. (2003). The role of explanatory activity in increasing the generality of thinking. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Cognitive Development, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar
  38. Ross, N., Medin, D., Coley, J. D., & Atran, S. (2003). Cultural and experiential differences in the development of folkbiological induction. Cognitive Development, 18(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schulz, L. E., Bonawitz, E. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007). Can being scared make your tummy ache? Naive theories, ambiguous evidence and preschoolers' causal inferences. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1124–1139. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1124 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sobel, D. M., Yoachim, C. M., Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Blumenthal, E. J. (2007). The blicket within: Preschoolers’ inferences about insides and causes. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 159–182.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., Legare, C. H., & Gopnik, A. (2014). Explanation prompts children to privilege inductively rich properties. Cognition, 133(2), 343–357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Walker, C. M., Lombrozo, T., Williams, J. J., Rafferty, A., & Gopnik, A. (2016). Explaining constrains causal learning in childhood. Child Development. Google Scholar
  44. Wellman, H. M. (2011). Reinvigorating explanations for the study of early cognitive development. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wellman, H. M., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2004). Theory of mind for learning and teaching: The nature and role of explanation. Cognitive Development, 19, 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wellman, H. M. & Liu, D. (2007). Causal reasoning as informed by the early development of explanations. In L. Schulz, & A. Gopnik (Eds.), Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, & Computation (pp. 261–279). doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195176803.001.0001
  47. Wilkenfeld, D. A. & Lombrozo, T. (2015). Inference to the best explanation (IBE) versus explaining for the best inference (EBI). Science and Education, 1–19.Google Scholar
  48. Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 776–806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2013). Explanation and prior knowledge interact to guide learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66(1), 55–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, J. J., Lombrozo, T., & Rehder, B. (2013). The hazards of explanation: Overgeneralization in the face of exceptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030996

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caren M. Walker
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Bonawitz
    • 2
  • Tania Lombrozo
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyRutgers University – NewarkNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations