Learn More
To obtain reliable information, it is important to identify and effectively question knowledgeable informants. Two experiments examined how age and the ease of distinguishing between reliable and unreliable sources influence children's ability to effectively question those sources to solve problems. A sample of 3- to 5-year-olds was introduced to a(More)
How do children use informant niceness, meanness, and expertise when choosing between informant claims and crediting informants with knowledge? In Experiment 1, preschoolers met two experts providing conflicting claims for which only one had relevant expertise. Five-year-olds endorsed the relevant expert's claim and credited him with knowledge more often(More)
Learning from other people requires integrating reasoning about an informant's psychological properties, such as knowledge and intent, with reasoning about the implications of the data the informant chooses to present. Here, we argue for an approach that considers these two reasoning paths as interrelated, reciprocal processes that develop over experience(More)
Two studies examined developmental differences in how children weigh capability and objectivity when evaluating potential judges. In Study 1, 84 6- to 12-year-olds and adults were told stories about pairs of judges that varied in capability (i.e., perceptual capacity) and objectivity (i.e., the relationship to a contestant) and were asked to predict which(More)
In the current study, we present the methods for creating and validating a science curiosity scale. We find that the scale presented here is unidimensional and highly reliable. Moreover, it predicts engagement with a science documentary clip more accurately than do measures of science intelligence or education. Although more steps are needed, this provides(More)
In three experiments, we investigate how 187 3- to 5-year-olds weigh competence and benevolence when deciding whom to trust. Children were presented with two informants who provided conflicting labels for novel objects--one informant was competent, but mean, the other incompetent, but nice. Across experiments, we manipulated the order in which competence(More)
When learning from others, it is important to take a critical stance—evaluating both the informants themselves as well as the content of their claims. In addition to accuracy, one can evaluate claims based on quality. The current study investigates developmental change in learners' evaluations of evidence that varies in quality—inductive strength based on(More)
As science communication scholars, we encourage interdisciplinary efforts such as those by Blancke, Grunewald, and De Jaeger to engage with the public on GMOs and genetic engineering broadly. We extend the advice given by these scholars with tips based on what we know from the science of science communication.
Research Journal is a student edited and published multidisciplinary journal of undergraduate research. The Cabinet of College Councils is a registered student organization at the University of Texas at Austin and its views do not necessarily reflect the views of the university. They also thank George H. Mitchell and the University Coop for their generous(More)
The current research focuses on how children's inquiry may be affected by how they learn about which sources are likely to provide accurate, helpful information. Four- and 5-year-olds (N = 188) were tasked with asking two different puppet informants - one knowledgeable and one not knowledgeable - questions to determine which of four pictures was inside of a(More)