New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Three-Year-Olds Know Better

A study finds that three-year-old children know a lot more than we might give them credit for. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Next time a three-year-old tells you what to do you might want to listen. Because three-year-olds can recognize when we adults are doing something counterproductive and are keen to help us find a better way. That’s according to new research in the journal Developmental Psychology. [Alia Martin and Kristina R. Olson, When Kids Know Better: Paternalistic Helping in 3-Year-Old Children]

Scientists had 58 three-year-olds examine several functional and nonfunctional objects. Like a real phone and a toy phone, or a working marker and a dried-up marker.

Then the researcher would say something like, “I need to make a phone call, can you get me the phone.” Sometimes they’d point to the real phone and other times point to the toy phone. The children would consistently bring over the functional item, regardless of whether the researcher pointed to it or asked specifically for it. In contrast, when they were told the item would just be thrown out, they’d bring either the nonfunctional or functional object. And in the case when any object would do, such as something that could act as a paperweight, the children brought either the fake one or the real one.


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.


Ultimately the children focused on the end goal and deliberately choose the best item, as opposed to what was instructed of them. A good reminder for us adults.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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