↓ Skip to main content

Learning Who Knows What: Children Adjust Their Inquiry to Gather Information from Others

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning Who Knows What: Children Adjust Their Inquiry to Gather Information from Others
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00951
Pubmed ID
Authors

Candice M. Mills, Asheley R. Landrum

Abstract

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 set of boxes. Before beginning the task, children learned about the knowledge status of the two informants in one of three learning conditions: (a) by witnessing how the informants answered sample questions (i.e., show condition), (b) by being told what informants knew (i.e., tell condition), or (c) by both (i.e., show & tell condition). Five-year-olds outperformed 4-year-olds on most parts of the inquiry process. Overall, children were less certain about which informant had been most helpful when they found out that information solely via observation as compared to when they had some third-party information about the informant knowledge. However, children adjusted their questioning strategies appropriately, more frequently asking questions that served to double check the answers they were receiving in the observation only condition. In sum, children were highly resilient, adjusting their questioning strategies based on the information provided, leading to no overall differences in their accuracy of determining the contents of the boxes between the three learning conditions. Implications for learning from others are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 16%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 51%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,990,874
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,861
of 35,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,898
of 370,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#284
of 399 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 370,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 399 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.