TY - JOUR
T1 - Young children’s learning and generalization of teleological and mechanistic explanations
AU - Lombrozo, Tania
AU - Bonawitz, Elizabeth Baraff
AU - Scalise, Nicole R.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was partially funded by National Science Foundation Grant BCS-0819231 to T. Lombrozo and a Jacobs Foundation Fellowship to L. Bonawitz [2016 121702]. N. Scalise is currently supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship [DGE 1322106].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Taylor & Francis.
PY - 2018/3/15
Y1 - 2018/3/15
N2 - Young children often endorse explanations of the natural world that appeal to functions or purpose—for example, that rocks are pointy so animals can scratch on them. By contrast, most Western-educated adults reject such explanations. What accounts for this change? We investigated 4- to 5-year-old children’s ability to generalize the form of an explanation from examples by presenting them with novel teleological explanations, novel mechanistic explanations, or no explanations for 5 nonliving natural objects. We then asked children to explain novel instances of the same objects and novel kinds of objects. We found that children were able to learn and generalize explanations of both types, suggesting an ability to draw generalizations over the form of an explanation. We also found that teleological and mechanistic explanations were learned and generalized equally well, suggesting that if a domain-general teleological bias exists, it does not manifest as a bias in learning or generalization.
AB - Young children often endorse explanations of the natural world that appeal to functions or purpose—for example, that rocks are pointy so animals can scratch on them. By contrast, most Western-educated adults reject such explanations. What accounts for this change? We investigated 4- to 5-year-old children’s ability to generalize the form of an explanation from examples by presenting them with novel teleological explanations, novel mechanistic explanations, or no explanations for 5 nonliving natural objects. We then asked children to explain novel instances of the same objects and novel kinds of objects. We found that children were able to learn and generalize explanations of both types, suggesting an ability to draw generalizations over the form of an explanation. We also found that teleological and mechanistic explanations were learned and generalized equally well, suggesting that if a domain-general teleological bias exists, it does not manifest as a bias in learning or generalization.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041635331&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041635331&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/15248372.2018.1427099
DO - 10.1080/15248372.2018.1427099
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85041635331
SN - 1524-8372
VL - 19
SP - 220
EP - 232
JO - Journal of Cognition and Development
JF - Journal of Cognition and Development
IS - 2
ER -