Abstract Evaluation of the informativeness of others’ testimony is a key aspect of children’s social learning. The present study investigates the developmental change in preschoolers’ evaluation of the testimony and choice of learning sources based on the informativeness of others’ explanations about conjunctive causal events. In two experiments, 3- to 5-year-olds (N = 224) were presented with causal events in which a machine was activated when Block A and Block B were placed on its top. Children then watched two informants providing explanations that vary in informativeness and accuracy (the inaccurate explanations contain non-causal causes). The informative explanations were the same in both experiments (i.e., A and B have to be on the box to make the machine light up). The under-informative explanations omit one of the causes in Experiment 1 (i.e., A has to be on the box to make the machine light up) or contain the logical term “or” in Experiment 2 (i.e., A or B has to be on the box to make the machine light up). Children were asked to rate the quality of the explanations and choose the trustworthy informant and testimony. In both experiments, children as young as 3 rated the informative explanations higher than the under-informative ones. However, only 4- and 5-year-olds rated the under-informative explanations higher than the inaccurate explanations and tended to choose the informative speaker as their learning source, whereas 3-year-olds cannot distinguish under-informative explanations from inaccurate explanations. These findings demonstrate a developmental trajectory in children’s appreciation of the informativeness of others’ testimony in evaluating the testimony and choosing learning sources.

中文翻译：

---

学龄前儿童对其他人关于联合因果事件解释的信息量的评价

摘要 评价他人证言的信息量是儿童社会学习的一个关键方面。本研究基于他人对联合因果事件的解释的信息量，调查了学龄前儿童对证词的评价和学习来源选择的发展变化。在两个实验中，3 到 5 岁的孩子（N = 224）接受了因果事件，其中当 Block A 和 Block B 被放置在机器的顶部时，机器被激活。然后孩子们观看两名线人提供的信息量和准确性各不相同的解释（不准确的解释包含非因果关系）。两个实验中的信息解释相同（即，A 和 B 必须在盒子上才能使机器点亮）。信息不足的解释忽略了实验 1 中的一个原因（即。例如，A 必须在盒子上才能使机器点亮）或在实验 2 中包含逻辑术语“或”（即，A 或 B 必须在盒子上才能使机器点亮）。要求儿童对解释的质量进行评分，并选择值得信赖的线人和证词。在这两个实验中，年仅 3 岁的儿童对信息性解释的评价高于信息不足的解释。然而，只有 4 岁和 5 岁的儿童对信息不足的解释的评价高于不准确的解释，并且倾向于选择信息丰富的说话者作为他们的学习来源，而 3 岁的儿童无法区分信息不足的解释和不准确的解释。