Poster #37 - Tensions between science and intuition in school-aged children

• In Event: 3-003 - Poster Session 09
  In Poster Session: PS 09 Section - Cognitive Processes

Integrative Statement

Learning science requires revising and restructuring earlier-acquired, intuitive theories that typically contradict scientific theories of the same phenomena. Recent research with adults suggests that intuitive theories are not replaced by scientific theories but coexist with them, interfering with the retrieval of scientific theories by providing an alternative explanation for phenomena that must first be inhibited. For example, adults are less accurate and slower to verify statements for which intuition is inconsistent with science (e.g., “mushrooms reproduce”) than statements for which intuition and science are consistent (e.g., “zebras reproduce”; Shtulman & Valcarcel, 2012; Young et al., 2018a). Although adults demonstrate this explanatory coexistence many years after acquiring intuitive and scientific theories, little is known about explanatory coexistence during childhood, when learners are first encountering formal scientific theories. Thus, the present research investigates explanatory coexistence in school-aged children before and after instruction in the domains of life and matter.

Fifty-one children (M = 8.4 years; SD = 2.1 years) verified, as quickly as possible, statements about life and matter before and after a tutorial on the scientific properties of life or matter. Half the statements were consistent with intuitive theories of the domain (e.g., “bricks have weight) and half were inconsistent (e.g., “air has weight”). Children received a 7-8 minute tutorial in one of the two domains. The tutorial on life addressed the intuition that life is synonymous with self-directed motion and emphasized all living things need nutrients, grow and develop, and reproduce. The tutorial on matter addressed the intuition that matter is synonymous with visibility/tangibility and emphasized all matter occupies space, has weight, and is made of atoms. Children also completed a developmental version of the cognitive reflection test (Young et al., 2018b) to explore the role of cognitive reflection in learning about counterintuitive science concepts.

As seen in Figure 1, children were more accurate for intuition-consistent statements than intuition-inconsistent statements at pretest and posttest, F(1, 49) = 221.7, p < .001. However, this effect was qualified by a three-way interaction between statement-type, test, and instruction, F(1, 178.1) = 6.52, p = .012, such that children’s accuracy for intuition-inconsistent statements improved in response to instruction, β = .11, 95% CI[.07, .16]. Notably, children with higher cognitive reflection scores learned more from instruction than children with lower cognitive reflection scores, F(1, 39.7) = 5.26, p = .027. As seen in Figure 2, children responded correctly faster to than intuition-consistent statements than intuition-inconsistent statements, F(1, 157.4) = 29.1, p < .001.

These findings suggest children, who are newly encountering scientific theories, exhibit explanatory coexistence in a manner similar to adults. Brief instruction in a given domain that targeted misconceptions did increase accuracy for intuition-inconsistent statements (particularly for reflective children), but changes in accuracy were not accompanied by changes in speed. These results suggest the conflict between science and intuition cannot be eliminated altogether. Ongoing work examines how cognitive reflection and response-time conflict moderate effects of instruction.

Authors

• Andrew G Young, Occidental College
  Presenting Author

• Isabel Geddes, Occidental College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Claire Weider, Occidental College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Andrew Shtulman, Occidental College
  Non-Presenting Author