Was The Main Question Identified Correctly Article Reviews Examples

Psychology

Article Summary

The main question was identified correctly, it was regarding whether or not a child would trust a reliable, or and unreliable speaker more with the words that they were learning. Children were tested in an experiment with words that were given to them from both a reliable and an unreliable speaker. With the unreliable speaker, an incorrect word was used to describe a certain object, while the reliable speaker used the correct word to describe that same object. It was found that the children, even though they were young, distrusted the unreliable speaker and looked to the reliable one more for the words. They perceived that if they learned the word from the unreliable speaker, it would be incorrect and for them to avoid learning the incorrect word, they would either need to distrust the unknown speaker, or trust one that was unknown. They would then monitor the unknown one for signs of unreliability over time. It was found that it was highly unlikely for the children to distrust the unknown speaker from the beginning.

Was the hypothesis identified correctly (when applicable)

The hypothesis was identified correctly.
What type of research design was used
Three studies were conducted that were used to address the question of the reliable and unreliable speakers. The researcher’s main focus was on whether or not children would reverse their trust and revise word mapping when the speaker whom they trusted proved to be unreliable at a later date. The first study found that the children trusted the reliable speakers over the unreliable speakers, when it came to learning new words. The second study was designed to test whether or not children would in fact reverse their trust, or go over a word mapping. It examined whether children would reverse their trust or revise their word mapping when a particular speaker proved to be unreliable. The third study was used to show what knowledge the children would retain and who they should trust after a 24 hour period.

Who were the participants

In Study 1, twenty six children, aged three and twenty five, four year old children were used, who were recruited from pre-schools in the vicinity of the University of Alabama Campus and were members of middle class, white families.

Study 2 involved twenty, three year olds and twenty three, children aged 4 years old.

Study 3 had twenty two, 4 year olds who completed each sections of study three. The total did not involve 20 four olds who had completed the first session, but were unable to reverse their trust. They were therefore not eligible to complete the second session.

How did the researchers attempt to answer their research question

The results of the first study showed that when they responded to the new word, both sets of children were likely to choose an object that was labeled by the speaker who was reliable. This showed, therefore, that the findings of Koenig Et al, were replicated. Approximately seventy three percent of three year olds and eighty eight percent of four year olds trusted the speaker who was reliable. In the research that was conducted by Koenig, approximately sixty nine percent of three year olds and sixty five percent of four year olds, who could identify both the speakers who were reliable and those that were unreliable. The results, based on these studies, were perhaps the results of the differences in procedures. Children in study 1 were asked to point to the object as a response to the word, as well as they were shown videos with the reliable and the unreliable speakers guiding them.

What tasks or measures were used

Videos and objects that the children who were being studied were asked to point out. The children were shown objects that were named by a reliable and an unreliable speaker and shown objects in videos. One of the speakers would name them correctly, while the other named them incorrectly. The children were able to pick up that one was unreliable and so turned their trust to the one who correctly named the objects.

Was the hypothesis supported or rejected? Explain.

The hypothesis was supported, because in each test the outcome was somewhat similar, even though the tests differed.
What do the results add to the field
The results showed that many of the three and four year old children chose to trust the reliable speaker over one that was unreliable when they were mapping a particular word to an object. It also showed that the children were willing to trust a speaker who they did not know, as the person was not yet found to be unreliable. It showed that trust is an important component in any area and that children were able to recognize trust no matter how young.

How

The studies also showed that many four year olds were willing to reverse their trust and revise a word-mapping, in the instance that the previous speaker turned out to be unreliable, such as was evident in study 2. It showed that the children who reversed their trust and revise the word mapping kept the revision and trusted the reliable speaker. The two final results would need further discussions. After the process of word mapping, the word is added to the childrens’ vocabulary.
Did the investigators make any poor recruitment, methodological, or analytical decisions?

No, not that I am aware of.

Did they do anything incorrectly in your opinion?

No, not that I am aware of.

Explain and support your argument
The research said that there was room for further discussions.
What questions are still unanswered?
The unanswered questions pertain to the revision process and when it would be initiated and how it would be operated.