New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Preschool Determinists

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Kids do not need school to learn about cause and effect; they believe in causal laws well before kindergarten.

When cognitive scientists Laura E. Schulz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Jessica Sommerville of the University of Washington tested preschoolers, they discovered that the kids were thoroughgoing “causal determinists.” The children assumed that everything happens for a reason. Schulz and Sommerville showed the kids toy lights and switches that either worked all the time or only some of the time. The children then were asked to make them light up — or to prevent them from lighting. “The children consistently behaved as if the lights and switches operated sensibly — that effects happened for reasons,” Schulz says. When the contraptions were rigged to shine only occasionally, “children looked for hidden switches that might have blocked the toys, rather than accepting that the toys might operate at random.”

The children’s fundamental assumptions both “enabled” and “constrained” their search for causes for the lights’ behavior, Schulz adds. For example, children proposed ideas about hidden switches to explain why a toy might not always work. The insights are important, Schulz explains, because children’s theoretical frameworks affect their learning processes. Sommerville says that knowing that children hunt for and observe causes can help teachers find more effective ways to transfer knowledge.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In future research Schulz wants to look at how children deal with “psychological indeterminacy” — when people do not always return a smile, for example. “They may use a different set of assumptions when they analyze human behavior,” she says. —Jonathan Beard

FLASH

  • Goth teens say they are simply “different,” yet researchers at the University of Glasgow in Scotland have substantiated a severe dark side. They surveyed 1,258 young people at age 11 and again at 13, 15 and 19. Self-identification as a Goth was more strongly associated with selfharm (53 percent) and attempted suicide (47 percent) than any other youth subculture, including Punk and Mosher— and it was a stronger factor than social class, parental separation, smoking, alcohol use or previous depression.

  • Overweight people in their 40s have yet another reason to shed pounds: obesity elevates their risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Researchers at the Kaiser Permanente Foundation Research Institute in Oakland, Calif., charted nearly 9,000 people for up to 30 years beyond their 40s. The heavier people were, the more likely they were to develop dementia. Future studies are needed to examine the molecular mechanisms linking obesity and Alzheimer's.

  • Depressed white girls are more likely to grow out of their funk than black girls are, according to a Northeastern University study of 2,221 females age 16 to 23. White teens become less depressed as they reach early adulthood, whereas the depression rate among blacks holds steady. Professors blame poorer health care, lack of insurance and stronger social stigma as main factors sustaining the malady for black women.

 

JOHN V. GUTTAG is head of the department of electrical engineering and computer science at M.I.T., where he has been a faculty member since 1979. He also leads the software devices and systems group at the M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science. Guttag earned his Ph.D. in computer science at the University of Toronto in 1975.

More by John V. Guttag
SA Mind Vol 17 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Preschool Determinists” in SA Mind Vol. 17 No. 3 (), p. 9
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0606-9b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe