Introduction
Rakoczy, Ehrling, Harris, and Schultze 's experiments wanted to evaluate how young children accept advice on topics they have no knowledge in; while how adults make judgements has been well-studied, the way children make judgements has not (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.71-73). Through these experiments, Rakoczy et al. (2015) wanted to determine whether children actively sought advice from better informed, as adults would; additionally, they wanted to see whether or not children were willing to change their judgement based on another 's advice (p.71-72). This goal being motivated by the bias of adults to favor their original judgements despite hearing advice from others (Soll & Larrick, 2009).
Methods
There were two similar experiments conducted on the topic. To prepare the subjects, the children, age 3-6, were shown two simulated advisors on a computer. The advisors then demonstrated their expertise by presenting pictures of animals, that the children would know about, and naming them (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.74). One of the advisors, the knowledgeable Mr. Red, then named an Axolotl, an animal the children had likely never heard about, while the other advisor, the ignorant Mr. Blue, stated that he knew nothing about that animal (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.74). During the actual experiment, the children were asked to play a computer game assigning appropriate amounts of food to unfamiliar animals (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.74). …show more content…
After they made their initial choice, one of the advisors would appear on the screen to give them advice on how much food to give .(Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75) There was no correct answer, instead advisors always gave numbers different from what was chosen (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75). When Mr. Red appeared, he would also refer to the animal by its correct name, but when Mr. Blue appeared, he referred to the animal only as, "this animal" (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75). The children were then allowed to make their final choice (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75). The second experiment was designed in a similar fashion except instead there were three advisors (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). …show more content…
During the preparation phase, the advisors demonstrated their expertise again; the third advisor had a "basic level" expertise in addition to the knowledgeable and the ignorant advisors (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). To show the varying degree of expertise, the knowledgeable advisor would give the correct name for an animal, the basic-level advisor would give an approximate answer (e.g. calling a "whale" a "fish"), and the ignorant advisor would give a blatantly wrong answer (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79).
The second experiment was then carried out in the same manner as the first, using the animal feeding game in two variations (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). The first variation had the knowledgable advisor and the basic level advisor give advice and the second variation had the basic level advisor and the ignorant advisor give advice (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). Results For the experiments, they measured three dependent variables: competence rating, advisor preference, and advice taking (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75-76). Not surprisingly, the children rated the knowledgable advisor as more competent than the ignorant one and showed a strong preference for the knowledgeable advisor (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.76). Curiously however, was that the children mostly changed their answer according to the advisor,
Rakoczy, Ehrling, Harris, and Schultze 's experiments wanted to evaluate how young children accept advice on topics they have no knowledge in; while how adults make judgements has been well-studied, the way children make judgements has not (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.71-73). Through these experiments, Rakoczy et al. (2015) wanted to determine whether children actively sought advice from better informed, as adults would; additionally, they wanted to see whether or not children were willing to change their judgement based on another 's advice (p.71-72). This goal being motivated by the bias of adults to favor their original judgements despite hearing advice from others (Soll & Larrick, 2009).
Methods
There were two similar experiments conducted on the topic. To prepare the subjects, the children, age 3-6, were shown two simulated advisors on a computer. The advisors then demonstrated their expertise by presenting pictures of animals, that the children would know about, and naming them (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.74). One of the advisors, the knowledgeable Mr. Red, then named an Axolotl, an animal the children had likely never heard about, while the other advisor, the ignorant Mr. Blue, stated that he knew nothing about that animal (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.74). During the actual experiment, the children were asked to play a computer game assigning appropriate amounts of food to unfamiliar animals (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.74). …show more content…
After they made their initial choice, one of the advisors would appear on the screen to give them advice on how much food to give .(Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75) There was no correct answer, instead advisors always gave numbers different from what was chosen (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75). When Mr. Red appeared, he would also refer to the animal by its correct name, but when Mr. Blue appeared, he referred to the animal only as, "this animal" (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75). The children were then allowed to make their final choice (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75). The second experiment was designed in a similar fashion except instead there were three advisors (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). …show more content…
During the preparation phase, the advisors demonstrated their expertise again; the third advisor had a "basic level" expertise in addition to the knowledgeable and the ignorant advisors (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). To show the varying degree of expertise, the knowledgeable advisor would give the correct name for an animal, the basic-level advisor would give an approximate answer (e.g. calling a "whale" a "fish"), and the ignorant advisor would give a blatantly wrong answer (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79).
The second experiment was then carried out in the same manner as the first, using the animal feeding game in two variations (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). The first variation had the knowledgable advisor and the basic level advisor give advice and the second variation had the basic level advisor and the ignorant advisor give advice (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.79). Results For the experiments, they measured three dependent variables: competence rating, advisor preference, and advice taking (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.75-76). Not surprisingly, the children rated the knowledgable advisor as more competent than the ignorant one and showed a strong preference for the knowledgeable advisor (Rakoczy et al., 2015, p.76). Curiously however, was that the children mostly changed their answer according to the advisor,