1 / 20

Children’s use of conversational cues to infer reality status

Children’s use of conversational cues to infer reality status. Jacqueline Woolley Lili Ma University of Texas. The Problem. Children encounter novel entities frequently. For all such entities, children must make reality status judgments.

lalaine
Download Presentation

Children’s use of conversational cues to infer reality status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Children’s use of conversational cues to infer reality status Jacqueline Woolley Lili Ma University of Texas

  2. The Problem • Children encounter novel entities frequently. • For all such entities, children must make reality status judgments. • For many of these entities, reality status is immediately apparent (e.g., the family dog). • However for many others, it is not; children very often hear about novel entities from other people and do not have the opportunity to interact with these entities.

  3. How do children determine reality status? • They use the context in which the novel entity is encountered. • Woolley & Van Reet, 2006 • Cox & Woolley, 2009 • They weigh evidence for and against its existence. • Woolley, Boerger, & Markman, 2004 • Tullos & Woolley, 2009 • They ask questions. • Baxter & Sabbagh, 2003

  4. Another potential cue: Talk • What might children pick up from listening to direct statements and/or conversations?

  5. Similarities in how we talk about real and not-real entities • Real entities with sensory affordances: • Existence is assumed in conversation. • “Put your book down on the table.” • Real entities without sensory affordances: • Existence is also assumed in conversation. • “Wash your hands; they’re covered with germs!” • Not-real entities • Existence is also assumed in conversation. • “What did Santa Claus bring you this year?”

  6. Differences in talk about real and not-real entities (explicit statements of belief vs. disbelief) Not-real entities (or entities for which belief varies): • “She still believes in Santa Claus.” • “We believe in God.” • “Fairies are not in real life.” Real entities (belief does not vary): We do not say, “I believe in the garbage man” or “cows are in real life.”

  7. Research questions • Do children use these cues to figure out reality status? • To what extent can children learn about reality status simply from listening to talk? • When do children become aware that we imply reality status in the way we talk about things? • What is the relative effectiveness of explicit statements of belief (e.g., “civets are real; I believe in civets”) versus simple inclusions in everyday talk (e.g., “I almost ran over a civet today”) in conveying belief?

  8. Study 1: 4 types of statements • Explicit belief • Do you know about civets? They are real. I believe in civets.” • Explicit denial • Do you know about civets? They’re not real. I don’t believe in civets.” • Implicit belief: Property statement + knowledge claim • Do you know about civets? They can move really fast. I know a lot about civets.” • Implicit belief: Involvement in event • “Do you know what happened? I almost ran over a civet when I was driving home! I almost hit the civet !”

  9. Study 2 • Goals: • To make the situation more naturalistic and to increase input • Children can learn novel words through “overhearing”; can they also learn about novel entities this way? • To include a clear case in which we could demonstrate that children were willing to say that something was real • To explore decrease between 5 and 7 on explicit belief trials • Due to recognition of subjective nature of belief? • Due to skepticism regarding experimental procedure?

  10. 4 types of conversations • Known real (control) • Implicit belief: Involvement in event • Explicit belief • Explicit denial

  11. Known Real

  12. Implicit Belief

  13. Explicit Belief

  14. Explicit Denial

  15. Conclusions and future research • 3-year-olds not using talk, except for negative statements. • However exploratory follow-up analyses suggest competence • Development between 5 and 7 in use of both explicit and implicit statements • Explore changes between 5 and 7 • Are 5’s less competent in picking up conversational cues? • Are they more reluctant to accept testimony generally?

  16. Conclusions and future research (cont.) • No clear evidence that children recognize that explicit expressions of belief imply ambiguity about reality status • Include older age groups (9-year-olds…) • Validate intuitions with an adult sample

  17. P.S. Is (X) real or not real? Percent Real:

  18. Acknowledgements • National Institutes of Health (NICHD) Grant R01 HD 030300 • Graduate student extraordinaire: Ansley Tullos • Amazing honors student: Melissa McInnis • Superb graphic assistance: Maliki Ghossainy • Fabulous undergraduate research assistants: Jamie Barstein, Sara Dimas, Brittany Kinard, Carol Leung, Kaitlin McLaughlin, Rachel Myerson, Cristina Porras, Oshma Raj

More Related