Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T23:32:40.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The selective social learner as an agent of cultural group selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Sarah Suárez
Affiliation:
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55436. suare062@umn.edumkoenig@umn.eduhttp://www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/people/faculty/cpsy/koenig.html
Melissa Koenig
Affiliation:
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55436. suare062@umn.edumkoenig@umn.eduhttp://www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/people/faculty/cpsy/koenig.html

Abstract

Developmental research characterizes even the youngest learners as critical and selective, capable of preserving or culling cultural information on the bases of informant accuracy, reasoning, or coherence. We suggest that Richerson et al. adjust their account of social learning in cultural group selection (CGS) by taking into consideration the role of the selective learner in the cultural inheritance system.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Richerson et al.'s discussion rightly characterizes social learning as one of the key facilitators of cultural group selection (CGS). While we agree with the idea that social learning is essential for cultural inheritance, and serves as a source of cultural variation and selection, we believe that the authors' discussion has underspecified the significant role of the rational, critical, and selective social learner in these evolutionary processes.

We would first like to note that behavioral imitation, which the authors focus on, is not the only form of social learning that could reduce intergroup cultural variation. Cultural variation between groups is a starting point not only for the spread of group-beneficial behaviors but also for group-beneficial beliefs, ideas, or concepts. Contact with out-group scientific knowledge, for example, could result in the adoption of this cultural information by less successful groups. In such cases, learning would not be primarily imitative in nature – one could not describe cross-cultural learning about microbes, for example, as primarily imitative in nature, and yet this has reduced between-group variation in cultural beliefs about the unseen causes of disease.

That said, the selective social learner is influenced by factors beyond those cited by Richerson et al. (those being a penchant for conformity, the sway of prestige, affinity for cultural norms, or group membership biases). A growing body of developmental research characterizes even the youngest social learners as active participants in the learning process, whose selectivity can act to preserve or cull testimonial information on the basis of its accuracy, support, and coherence with other beliefs (Stephens et al. Reference Stephens, Suárez and Koenig2015). These belief-formation processes are supported by children's rapid assessments of others' competence, expertise and trustworthiness. Monitoring the content and coherence of messages protects learners against misinformation, alerting them to conflicts between incoming messages and their already established knowledge and beliefs (Mercier & Sperber Reference Mercier and Sperber2011). For example, infants detect overt labeling errors and anomalous referential actions (Gliga & Csibra Reference Gliga and Csibra2009). They expect humans with appropriate information to speak truthfully, and actively correct inaccurate labelers (Koenig & Echols Reference Koenig and Echols2003). In imitation research, children have been found to give priority to the approach taken by a successful individual over an unsuccessful group, showing that in learning actions, successful outcomes often trump conventional means (Scofield et al. Reference Scofield, Gilpin, Pierucci and Morgan2013; Seston & Kelemen Reference Seston and Kelemen2014; Wilks et al. Reference Wilks, Collier-Baker and Nielsen2015). Further research suggests that the detection of inaccuracy might lead to enhanced memory for incompetent sources and poor memory for the information they present (Corriveau & Harris Reference Corriveau and Harris2009; Koenig & Woodward Reference Koenig and Woodward2010; Sabbagh & Shafman Reference Sabbagh and Shafman2009).

Even more relevant to CGS, research in this field suggests that children make rational learning decisions on the basis of whether or not the messages they receive from informants violate their existing understanding of the world (Sobel & Kushnir Reference Sobel and Kushnir2013). Preschoolers, for example, have been known to preferentially learn from more expert (Koenig & Harris Reference Koenig and Harris2005; Koenig & Jaswal Reference Koenig and Jaswal2011), more grammatically proficient (Corriveau et al. Reference Corriveau, Pickard and Harris2011; Sobel & Macris Reference Sobel and Macris2013), and logically consistent informants (Doebel et al. Reference Doebel, Koenig and Rowell2011). They also flexibly adjust their trust in informants' testimony based on their understanding of what is improbable and impossible (Corriveau et al. Reference Corriveau, Chen and Harris2014; Shtulman & Carey Reference Shtulman and Carey2007; Woolley & Ghossainy Reference Woolley and E Ghossainy2013). Young learners' reliance on their own understanding of what is correct, true, or possible should not be underestimated: Their preferences for native-accented speakers (Corriveau et al. Reference Corriveau, Kinzler and Harris2013), adults (Jaswal & Neely Reference Jaswal and Neely2006), and familiar speakers (Corriveau & Harris Reference Corriveau and Harris2009) are reversed if they learn that such sources have proven inaccurate. This is not to say that children are always critical in the face of message conflicts: Preschoolers have been found to trust a deceptive adult who provides inaccurate information about an object's location (Jaswal Reference Jaswal2010; Jaswal et al. Reference Jaswal, Croft, Setia and Cole2010). Interestingly, this may be because preschoolers are more sensitive to violations of commonly held cultural knowledge (Stephens & Koenig Reference Stephens and Koenig2015; Koenig & Stephens Reference Koenig, Stephens, Robinson and Einav2014).

As children develop, they incorporate their growing knowledge and experience about speakers and the world to evaluate new information. Considerations about message coherence and plausibility are taken into account along with other factors – including, as Richerson et al. mention, informant prestige, cultural conventions, conformity, normativity, group membership, and so on. We suspect that children appraise social learning situations based on their recognition of both cultural and epistemic norms, with priority afforded to each based on the situation (Hodges Reference Hodges2014), type of testimony or information being exchanged (Stephens & Koenig Reference Stephens and Koenig2015), and the values endorsed in their environment (Reifen Tagar et al. Reference Reifen Tagar, Federico, Lyons, Ludeke and Koenig2014).

How exactly does this selective learner play a role in CGS? Richerson et al. describe three forms of social learning that help maintain or reduce group-level cultural variation: (1) accurate, rapid social learning; (2) conformist social learning, described as mechanisms that maintain intergroup variation of cultural norms and behaviors; and (3) selective imitation of cultural behaviors, described as a process by which intergroup variation is reduced. Along these lines, we would argue that the selective learner's ability to critically evaluate cultural information on the basis of its accuracy, support, and coherence contributes to CGS in two main ways. First, as previously described, the social learner can reduce intergroup cultural variation by rationally evaluating out-group cultural information and adopting that which is deemed to be not only useful, but reliable. Second, the selective social learner is able to ensure accurate cultural transmission not only through imitative or conformist strategies, but also by evaluating various forms of cultural information on the bases of accuracy, logic, and internal coherence. Thus, when a 16-month-old corrects an informant who labels a shoe as a ball, upholding culturally specific labels, what may appear to be an early tendency toward conformity may involve critical appraisals of messages, along with epistemic inferences about the informant.

In sum, we suggest that Richerson and colleagues take into further consideration the role of the rational and selective social learner, who can critically evaluate cultural information and adjust their own learning accordingly.

References

Corriveau, K. H., Chen, E. E. & Harris, P. L. (2014) Judgments about fact and fiction by children from religious and nonreligious backgrounds. Cognitive Science 39(2):353–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corriveau, K. H. & Harris, P. L. (2009) Preschoolers continue to trust a more accurate informant 1 week after exposure to accuracy information. Developmental Science 12(1):188–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corriveau, K. H., Kinzler, K. D. & Harris, P. L. (2013) Accuracy trumps accent in children's endorsement of object labels. Developmental psychology 49(3):470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corriveau, K. H., Pickard, K. & Harris, P. L. (2011) Preschoolers trust particular informants when learning new names and new morphological forms. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29(1):4663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doebel, S., Koenig, M. A. & Rowell, S. (2011) Young children detect logical inconsistency. Poster presented at the 2011 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, March 31–April 2, 2011.Google Scholar
Gliga, T. & Csibra, G. (2009) One-year-old infants appreciate the referential nature of deictic gestures and words. Psychological Science 20(3):347–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodges, B. H. (2014) Rethinking conformity and imitation: divergence, convergence, and social understanding. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognitive Science 5, Article No. 726. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaswal, V. K. (2010) Believing what you're told: Young children's trust in unexpected testimony about the physical world. Cognitive Psychology 61(3):248–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaswal, V. K., Croft, A. C., Setia, A. R. & Cole, C. A. (2010) Young children have a specific, highly robust bias to trust testimony. Psychological Science 21(10):1541–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaswal, V. K. & Neely, L. A. (2006) Adults don't always know best: Preschoolers use past reliability over age when learning new words. Psychological Science 17:757–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenig, M. A. & Echols, C. H. (2003) Infants' understanding of false labeling events: The referential roles of words and the speakers who use them. Cognition 87(3):179208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, M. A. & Harris, P. L. (2005) Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development 76(6):1261–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenig, M. A. & Jaswal, V. K. (2011) Characterizing children's expectations about expertise and incompetence: Halo or pitchfork effects? Child Development 82(5):1634–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenig, M. A. & Stephens, E., (2014) Characterizing children's responsiveness to cues of speaker trustworthiness: Two proposals. In: Trust and skepticism: Children's selective learning from testimony, ed. Robinson, E. & Einav, S., pp. 1327. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, M. A. & Woodward, A. L. (2010) Sensitivity of 24-month-olds to the prior inaccuracy of the source: Possible mechanisms. Developmental Psychology 46(4):815–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2):5774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reifen Tagar, M., Federico, C. M., Lyons, K. E., Ludeke, S. & Koenig, M. A. (2014) Heralding the authoritarian? Orientation toward authority in early childhood. Psychological Science 25(4):883–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabbagh, M. A. & Shafman, D. (2009) How children block learning from ignorant speakers. Cognition 112:415–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scofield, J., Gilpin, A. T., Pierucci, J. & Morgan, R. (2013) Matters of accuracy and conventionality: Prior accuracy guides children's evaluations of others' actions. Developmental psychology 49(3):432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seston, R. & Kelemen, D. (2014) Children's conformity when acquiring novel conventions: The case of artifacts. Journal of Cognition and Development 15(4):569–83.Google Scholar
Shtulman, A. & Carey, S. (2007) Improbable or impossible? How children reason about the possibility of extraordinary events. Child Development 78(3):1015–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobel, D. M. & Kushnir, T. (2013) Knowledge matters: How children evaluate the reliability of testimony as a process of rational inference. Psychological Review 120(4):779–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobel, D. M. & Macris, D. M. (2013) Children's understanding of speaker reliability between lexical and syntactic knowledge. Developmental Psychology 49(3):523–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, E. & Koenig, M. (2015) Varieties of testimony: Children's selective learning in semantic and episodic domains. Cognition 137:182–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, E., Suárez, S. & Koenig, M.A. (2015) Early testimonial learning: Monitoring speech acts and speakers. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 48:151–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilks, M., Collier-Baker, E. & Nielsen, M. (2015) Preschool children favor copying a successful individual over an unsuccessful group. Developmental Science 18(6):1014–24. doi: 10.1111/desc.12274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolley, J. D. & E Ghossainy, M. (2013) Revisiting the fantasy–reality distinction: Children as naïve skeptics. Child Development 84(5):1496–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed