Category: Child Psychology

Simple test of logic produces surprising win for 4 and 5-year-olds over college students.

Preschoolers can outsmart college students because they are less biased and more flexible than adults, a new study finds.

The conclusion comes from research published in the journal, Cognition, which put 170 college undergrads up against 106 four and five-year-olds in a test of learning and reasoning (Lucas et al., 2014).

Both groups had to try and figure out a game called ‘Blickets’, which was invented for the study.

The game was simple enough for the preschoolers to understand and only involved watching researchers put simple clay objects, like cylinders, pyramids and cubes, onto a box.

Then the box either lit up and played some music or didn’t.

From the object, or combination of objects, that were put on the box, participants had to work out which objects were ‘blickets’: in other words which objects or combinations had the power to make the box light up.

Open to new ideas

The difference between the young adults and the preschoolers was that young children were quicker to pick up on changing evidence.

Preschoolers were much more likely to notice that sometimes unusual combinations of objects would make the box light up.

One of the study’s authors, Alison Gopnik writes:

“The kids got it. They figured out that the machine might work in this unusual way and so that you should put both blocks on together. But the best and brightest students acted as if the machine would always follow the common and obvious rule, even when we showed them that it might work differently.”

Unlike preschoolers, even the smartest young adults were less likely to entertain new theories, even in the face of new evidence.

In contrast, the young children unconsciously followed a model of statistical reasoning called Bayesian logic, which is all about updating predictions on the basis of new data.

Flexible learners

The question now is: how come children are such flexible learners and how can we learn from how they learn?

The researchers conclude that:

“The very fact that children know less to begin with may, paradoxically, make them better, or at least more open-minded, learners. The plasticity of early beliefs may help to explain the bold exploration and breathtaking innovation that characterizes children’s learning.” (Lucas et al., 2014).

The following video from UC Berkeley shows the study in action and Alison Gopnik explaining the results:

Image credit: Monica H.

Study finds children play more intensely and vigorously with crates, pipes and buckets than with monkey bars and slides.

A new long-term study has found that traditional playgrounds may be stifling children’s play.

The researchers found that relatively cheap items such as buckets and crates were more effective at encouraging children’s play than expensive equipment.

The two-year study, published in BMC Public Health, followed 120 students at a newly built Australian primary school (Hyndman et al., 2014).

In their playground there were exercise mats, hay bales, pipes and buckets, along with other cheap, everyday items.

The behaviour of these children was compared with another local school which had a more traditional playground, containing slides and monkey bars.

The results of the study were striking: the cheaper items reduced sedentary behaviour by a half from 61.5% down to 30.5%.

Children played more vigorously and intensively with the everyday objects in comparison to the other school.

This was perhaps a result of them enjoying the everyday items more:

“Movable/recycled materials are suggested to stimulate creativity and diversity to children’s play and provide active play experiences by facilitating pushing, pulling and lifting and the construction of structures (e.g. cubby houses, rockets, ships) whilst engaging in social interaction and problem-solving.” (Hyndman et al., 2014).

The study’s lead author, Dr Brendon Hyndman, said:

“Conventional playgrounds are designed by adults — they don’t actually take into consideration how the children want to play. At a time when childhood obesity is growing and playgrounds are shrinking, we need a creative approach to stimulate physical activity among schoolchildren.”

The study’s authors continue:

“Unstructured, active play allows children to understand their world and develop skills, therefore school playground environments should be developed in a manner that enhances development and physical functioning of children.”  (Hyndman et al., 2014).

Image credit: Lars Ploughman

Study of 7,500 babies finds two parenting skills that are crucial to IQ boosts at four years of age.

Many studies over the years have shown that children who are breastfed score higher on IQ tests, but until now the exact cause has been a mystery.

Some scientists said it was something in the milk, others that it’s about the bonding between mother and baby and others still that these and other factors all contributed.

A new study, though, suggests that it’s the parenting behaviours that make the difference (Gibbs & Forste, 2014).

Researchers at Brigham Young University examined data from 7,500 mothers and children collected from birth to four years of age.

They found that two crucial parenting skills were responsible for the boost to cognition. Mothers who breastfed were more likely to:

• respond to children’s emotional cues,
• and read to children at 9 months of age.

Together these factors were enough to put children two or three months ahead when they reached four-years-old.

Lead author Ben Gibbs explained:

“Because these are four-year-olds, a month or two represents a non-trivial chunk of time. And if a child is on the edge of needing special education, even a small boost across some eligibility line could shape a child’s educational trajectory.”

The results came from a group of children followed from birth through to five-years-old.

Researchers included all kinds of data about the home environment including:

• how early and often parents read to children.
• how supportive and sensitive mothers were to their child’s emotional cues.

It was better educated mothers who were more likely to breastfeed and at the same time also more likely to read to their children and be emotionally responsive.

School readiness

None of this means that breastfeeding doesn’t confer other advantages, it does: for example, breast milk has considerable health benefits.

The suggestion is that breastfeeding doesn’t directly affect IQ, rather it is reading to their children and the high emotional responsiveness of mothers which boosts intellectual development.

The authors conclude:

“Although breastfeeding has important benefits in other settings, the encouragement of breastfeeding to promote school readiness does not appear to be a key intervention point. Promoting parenting behaviors that improve child cognitive development may be a more effective and direct strategy for practitioners to adopt, especially for disadvantaged children.”

Image credit: Harald Groven

Are exceptionally gifted children being failed by the education system?

The authors of the largest ever study of the profoundly gifted question whether the education system is providing enough support for highly talented young people.

The US study, published in the journal Psychological Science, identified gifted children by their SAT scores, which placed them in the top 0.01% of the population, either in maths or verbal scores (Hill et al., 2013).

The 320 children were tracked from the age of 13, until they were 38, to see how they did in their chosen professions.

Notable careers

As you might expect, the exceptionally gifted children were more likely to gain Master’s degrees and PhDs, compared with less gifted children.

Many also went on to have notable careers: they wrote books, composed music, started companies, conducted scientific research, became senior business leaders, and excelled in other worthy occupations.

Even at age 13 it was possible to see in which direction exceptionally children might head:

“…mathematically more able individuals tended to focus on achievement in inorganic fields [e.g. computer science, engineering], whereas verbally more able individuals tended to invest their talent in organic fields [e.g. the arts, social sciences, education]; incorporating motivational dimensions, such as interests in people versus things…” (Hill et al., 2013)

Nurturing talent

However, the thing which stood out for the authors, based on previous research, is the roadblocks which gifted students often face in the education system.

Instead of flourishing, they argue, extra skills are often wasted as educators automatically move their focus to other less talented pupils.

The study’s lead author, Harrison Kell, explained:

“There’s this idea that gifted students don’t really need any help. This study shows that’s not the case. These people with very high IQs–what some have called the ‘scary smart’–will do well in regular classrooms, but they still won’t meet their full potential unless they’re given access to accelerated coursework, AP classes and educational programs that place talented students with their intellectual peers…”

They argue that talented children need to be placed in environments that challenge them, so that they can fulfil their true potential:

“…adolescents with extraordinary talent in mathematical and verbal reasoning profit from learning environments that present abstract-symbolic material at a level and pace commensurate with the atypical rates at which these students learn.” (Hill et al., 2013).

These types of environments are much more likely to increase the psychological well-being of exceptional students and help them achieve more in the future.

If exceptional students are our future, why do many societies automatically provide extra help for those with learning difficulties, but not for those with exceptional learning facilities?

Image credit: Thomas Hawk

Youngest children appear three inches smaller to their mothers than they really are.

A new study published in Current Biology finds that mothers underestimate the height of their youngest child; no matter how many children they have (Kaufman et al., 2013).

The study found that mothers underestimated their youngest child’s height by an average of 3 inches (7.5cm). This finding held even for only children.

This is set against the fact that mothers were pretty accurate when asked to indicate the height of their other children, and of everyday objects.

The lead author Jordy Kaufman, explained:

“Contrary to what many may think, this isn’t happening just because the older child just looks so big compared to a baby. It actually happens because all along the parents were under an illusion that their first child was smaller than he or she really was. When the new baby is born, the spell is broken and parents now see their older child as he or she really is.”

To reach this conclusion, 70 mothers were asked to place a mark on the wall estimating the height of each child.  Across the mothers, the youngest child’s height was consistently underestimated.

The authors argue that this is an evolutionary adaptive mechanism that encourages mothers to nurture the youngest child.

Growth spurt

The researcher’s interest was piqued when they surveyed 747 mothers, asking if they had noticed a spurt in the height of their ‘erstwhile-youngest’ child, when their next was born.

More than 70% of mothers said they had noticed this growth spurt and many agreed that it seemed to happen overnight.

Whether or not an evolutionary explanation is valid, this study certainly shows the effect of our knowledge and feelings on our perceptions. Kaufman continued:

“The key implication is that we may treat our youngest children as if they are actually younger than they really are. In other words, our research potentially explains why the ‘baby of the family’ never outgrows that label. To the parents, the baby of the family may always be ‘the baby.'”

Image credit: Sergiu Bacioiu

90% of studies on spanking agree that it’s bad for children.

A new book which includes research on over 7,000 US families plus data from 32 different countries, has found that spanking is ultimately detrimental to children.

The book, by Professor Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire and colleagues, finds that four decades of research is heavily against the use of spanking for children (Straus et al., 2013; The primordial violence: spanking children, psychological development, violence, and crime).

While it may work to correct their behaviour, it doesn’t have any advantages over other methods, and also has significant disadvantages.

Professor Straus explained:

“Research shows that spanking corrects misbehavior. But it also shows that spanking does not work better than other modes of correction, such as time out, explaining, and depriving a child of privileges. Moreover, the research clearly shows that the gains from spanking come at a big cost.”

According to the research, more than 90% of the studies agree that spanking is not good for children.

The problem is that spanking children is associated with:

• Poorer mental development.
• Weaker emotional ties between parents and children.
• Increased risk the child will hit other children
• Increased risk the child will later hit their partner.

The authors of the book say there is probably no other area of childcare in which the research evidence is so clear.

Professor Straus added:

“More than 20 nations now prohibit spanking by parents. There is an emerging consensus that this is a fundamental human right for children. The United Nations is asking all nations to prohibit spanking. Never spanking will not only reduce the risk of delinquency and mental health problems, it also will bring to children the right to be free of physical attacks in the name of discipline, just as wives gained that human right a century and a quarter ago.”

→ Read on: 10 Current Psychology Studies Every Parent Should Know (you’ll recognise number 4)

Image credit: Lotus Carroll