Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T10:37:25.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can bifocal stance theory explain children's selectivity in active information transmission?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Marina Bazhydai
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK m.bazhydai@lancaster.ac.ukd.karadag@lancaster.ac.uk
Didar Karadağ
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK m.bazhydai@lancaster.ac.ukd.karadag@lancaster.ac.uk

Abstract

To shed light on the key premise of the bifocal stance theory (BST) that social learners flexibly take instrumental and ritual stances, we focus on developmental origins of child-led information transmission, or teaching, as a core social learning strategy. We highlight children's emerging selectivity in information transmission influenced by epistemic and social factors and call for systematic investigation of proposed stance-taking.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

In light of the bifocal stance theory's (BST) main premise that social learners flexibly take instrumental and ritual stances, we review emerging literature on child-initiated information transmission as a crucial component of active social learning toolkit. We argue that to fully understand the developmental origins of the proposed stances, we need to consider child-led teaching which is currently overlooked in the target article's focus on imitation.

Active teaching – or pedagogical information transmission – is a complex social learning strategy enabling knowledge exchange as an essential element of human cumulative culture (Burdett, Dean, & Ronfard, Reference Burdett, Dean and Ronfard2017; Kline, Reference Kline2015; Strauss & Ziv, Reference Strauss and Ziv2012). It allows to effectively convey acquired information or practical skills to less knowledgeable others, without the need for independent learning through trial and error. The presence of teaching behaviors early in human ontogeny supports the premise that children are not merely passive recipients of knowledge, but also actively seek and further propagate knowledge to others (Bazhydai & Harris, Reference Bazhydai and Harris2021; Gweon, Reference Gweon2022). Therefore, focusing on children as active teachers in complex social learning contexts can help uncover the underlying cognitive mechanism and the emergence of the proposed stances. Can we observe the indices of instrumental and ritual stance-taking in children's own information transmission?

Developmental research suggests that children start to actively share information with others from infancy (Gweon, Reference Gweon2022; Ronfard & Harris, Reference Ronfard and Harris2018). Behavioral strategies used to propagate knowledge increase in sophistication with development (Strauss & Ziv, Reference Strauss and Ziv2012). In the first 2 years of life, children use gestures, such as pointing to the location of objects for a naïve observer, and action demonstrations; at 3 years of age, they inform others by using elaborate demonstrations (e.g., how a game is played); demonstrations are accompanied by explanations when they are 5-year-old; and at around 7, they tailor information for learners' specific needs, such as by correcting mistakes and providing individual feedback.

The crucial question arising here is whether children are selective when they propagate information to others, and if so, how early in ontogeny such selectivity emerges? While the target article evidences stance switching from infancy by focusing on imitation behavior, more direct evidence to assess this key premise of the BST would come from child-initiated teaching behaviors. The expectation that children will be selective in their teaching, rather than exhibit a “teach all” pattern, arises, first, from evidence of children's selective trust in others' testimony based on informant's epistemic or social characteristics (Tong, Wang, & Danovitch, Reference Tong, Wang and Danovitch2020). Second, already by preschool years, children hold explicit ideas about what constitutes good teaching (Sobel & Letourneau, Reference Sobel and Letourneau2016, Reference Sobel and Letourneau2018) and view providing relevant information as key to good teaching (Gweon, Reference Gweon2022). The relevance of information depends both on the nature of information itself and on the characteristics of the learners who vary in their goals, abilities, prior knowledge levels, and social affiliations, among other factors. A natural outcome of this relationship would lead to employing tailored approaches when teaching others.

Emerging findings support the notion that children flexibly make selective decisions on what kind of information to transmit, to whom and when. They consider learners' goals and abilities (Gweon & Schulz, Reference Gweon and Schulz2019), social group affiliation (Karadağ & Soley, Reference Karadağ and Soley2022; Schmidt, Rakoczy, & Tomasello, Reference Schmidt, Rakoczy and Tomasello2012), and occupations (Danovitch, Reference Danovitch2020). Further, children do not transmit all learned information indiscriminately, but variably prioritize generalizable (Baer & Friedman, Reference Baer and Friedman2018; Gelman, Ware, Manczak, & Graham, Reference Gelman, Ware, Manczak and Graham2013), cognitively opaque (Ronfard, Was, & Harris, Reference Ronfard, Was and Harris2016), simple (Bazhydai, Silverstein, Parise, & Westermann, Reference Bazhydai, Silverstein, Parise and Westermann2020), and information acquired through explicit pedagogy (Vredenburgh, Kushnir, & Casasola, Reference Vredenburgh, Kushnir and Casasola2015). Finally, children consider how much it would benefit the learner and how costly it would be for the learner to acquire information independently (Bridgers, Jara-Ettinger, & Gweon, Reference Bridgers, Jara-Ettinger and Gweon2020).

Can BST explain children's selectivity in active information transmission? Research to date, while limited, lends support to this idea. For example, instrumental stance-taking may explain the finding that children provided more comprehensive information to the learner who requested information to enable them to effectively complete an action, and also when the learner was introduced as being “silly” compared to exceptionally smart (Gweon & Schulz, Reference Gweon and Schulz2019). Ritual stance-taking might account for children's use of normative language and enforcement of conventional norms selectively with ingroup but not outgroup members (Karadağ & Soley, Reference Karadağ and Soley2022; Schmidt et al., Reference Schmidt, Rakoczy and Tomasello2012). To directly investigate whether observed selectivity in information transmission stems from flexible stance-taking, future studies should focus on systematically manipulating factors that may potentially trigger these stances during transmission – those regarding both the nature of information and the social attributes of the learner. Here, while the target article acknowledges the role of information opacity and resolvability when discussing selectivity in imitation behavior, other epistemic and social factors may provide insight into children's motivations and pave the way for more targeted research into underlying cognitive mechanisms of stance-taking across social learning strategies. Thus, future studies should focus on selectivity in information properties, such as complexity, efficiency, and relevance, in conjunction with epistemic and social attributes, such as knowledgeability or group membership of both informants and learners.

Finally, while most of research to date stems from children of preschool age and above, when representations of knowledge and explicit understanding of its transmission develop (Ziv & Frye, Reference Ziv and Frye2004), research on active information transmission in pre-mentalizing age is in its infancy (Bazhydai et al., Reference Bazhydai, Silverstein, Parise and Westermann2020; Flynn, Reference Flynn2008; Karadağ, Bazhydai, & Westermann, Reference Karadağ, Bazhydai and Westermann2022; Liszkowski, Carpenter, Striano, & Tomasello, Reference Liszkowski, Carpenter, Striano and Tomasello2006, Reference Liszkowski, Carpenter and Tomasello2008; O'Neill, Reference O'Neill1996). This limits our ability to draw generalizable conclusions with regard to the developmental trajectory of children's selectivity and stance-taking, domain specificity, or generality of the underlying cognitive mechanism and deliberateness or automaticity of these processes.

We conclude that BST has the potential to explain children's emerging selectivity in active information transmission and propose future directions for systematic investigation of instrumental and ritualistic stance-taking to further our understanding of the factors that affect the level of sophistication, diversity, and flexibility of the developing social learning toolkit.

Financial support

This work received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

Baer, C., & Friedman, O. (2018). Fitting the message to the listener: Children selectively mention general and specific facts. Child Development, 89(2), 461475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazhydai, M., & Harris, P. L. (2021). Infants actively seek and transmit knowledge via communication: Commentary on Phillips et al. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, e142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazhydai, M., Silverstein, P., Parise, E., & Westermann, G. (2020). Two-year old children preferentially transmit simple actions but not pedagogically demonstrated actions. Developmental Science, 23(5), e12941. doi: 10.1111/desc.12941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgers, S., Jara-Ettinger, J., & Gweon, H. (2020). Young children consider the expected utility of others’ learning to decide what to teach. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(2), 144152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burdett, E. R., Dean, L. G., & Ronfard, S. (2017). A diverse and flexible teaching toolkit facilitates the human capacity for cumulative culture. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9(4), 807818. doi: 10.1007/s13164-017-0345-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danovitch, J. H. (2020). Children's selective information sharing based on the recipient's role. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 181(2–3), 6877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, E. (2008). Investigating children as cultural magnets: Do young children transmit redundant information along diffusion chains? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1509), 35413551. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. A., Ware, E. A., Manczak, E. M., & Graham, S. A. (2013). Children's sensitivity to the knowledge expressed in pedagogical and nonpedagogical contexts. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 491504. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gweon, H. (2022). Inferential social learning: Cognitive foundations of human social learning and teaching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(10), 896910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gweon, H., & Schulz, L. (2019). From exploration to instruction: Children learn from exploration and tailor their demonstrations to observers’ goals and competence. Child Development, 90(1), e148e164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karadağ, D., Bazhydai, M., & Westermann, G. (2022). Do toddlers preferentially transmit generalizable information? (Stage 1 In-Principle Acceptance Registered Report). Preprint. https://psyarxiv.com/3cu27/Google Scholar
Karadağ, D., & Soley, G. (2022). Children intend to teach conventional norms but not moral norms selectively to ingroup members. Developmental Psychology. In press. doi: 10.1037/dev0001455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, M. A. (2015). How to learn about teaching: An evolutionary framework for the study of teaching behavior in humans and other animals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, E31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2006). 12- and 18-month-olds point to provide information for others. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 173187. doi: 10.1207/s15327647jcd0702_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Twelve-month-olds communicate helpfully and appropriately for knowledgeable and ignorant partners. Cognition, 108(3), 732739. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Neill, D. K. (1996). Two-year-old children's sensitivity to a parent's knowledge state when making requests. Child Development, 67(2), 659677. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01758.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronfard, S., & Harris, P. L. (2018). Children's decision to transmit information is guided by their evaluation of the nature of that information. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9(4), 849861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronfard, S., Was, A. M., & Harris, P. L. (2016). Children teach methods they could not discover for themselves. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 107117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.09.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. F., Rakoczy, H., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Young children enforce social norms selectively depending on the violator's group affiliation. Cognition, 124(3), 325333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobel, D. M., & Letourneau, S. M. (2016). Children's developing knowledge of and reflection about teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 143, 111122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobel, D. M., & Letourneau, S. M. (2018). Preschoolers’ understanding of how others learn through action and instruction. Child Development, 89(3), 961970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, S., & Ziv, M. (2012). Teaching is a natural cognitive ability for humans. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(4), 186196. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01156.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, Y., Wang, F., & Danovitch, J. (2020). The role of epistemic and social characteristics in children's selective trust: Three meta-analyses. Developmental Science, 23(2), e12895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vredenburgh, C., Kushnir, T., & Casasola, M. (2015). Pedagogical cues encourage toddlers’ transmission of recently demonstrated functions to unfamiliar adults. Developmental Science, 18(4), 645654. doi: 10.1111/desc.12233CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziv, M., & Frye, D. (2004). Children's understanding of teaching: The role of knowledge and belief. Cognitive Development, 19, 457477. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar