Article Review
Reference
Schulz, L.E., & Bonawitz, E.B. (2007). Serious Fun: Preschoolers Engage in More Exploratory Play When Evidence Is Confounded. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1045–1050.
Objectives
The main study hypothesis is that exploration play by children is influenced by the quality of evidence they have. In particular, it is explored how preschoolers distinguish between unconfounded and confounded evidence. The authors also predict that children receiving confounded evidence tend to play with familiar toys, while those who see unconfounded evidence show novelty preference, playing with toy that is unfamiliar to them.
Method
The main question that is investigated within the framework of this study is the way children treat one and the same toy when evidence is confounded and when it is unconfounded. To answer this question, 64 preschoolers were recruited by the authors in one of the local museums. They were split into four groups, 16 children in each, and were exposed to different conditions. All of them were offered to play two toys, while the working principle of one of them was shown to them (in all groups except for the first one), and thus it was familiar to them, and the second being a novelty to all of them.
In the first group children were in confounded condition. The principle of work of the first toy wasn’t directly shown to them. In the other four groups conditions were unconfounded, but the principle of toy’s work was revealed at different stages of the game and in different ways. After experimenter completed his role, he left the child to play by himself with the toys and on the basis of the kids’ actions in this phase conclusions were drawn. In particular, the average playing time by the two toys was recorded, as well as playtime preference and the toy, to which the first reach was performed.
Results
In the first group average playing time was greater for the old toy. Playtime preference was considerably longer for the old toy, while the first reach was equal for both toys. In the second and third groups the results were very similar. In both groups average playing time was greater for the new toy, and playtime preference and first reach were much greater for the new toy. In the last group the average time of playing was almost the same for the two toys, but the indicators of playtime preference and first reach were in favor of the new toy.
Thus, the findings of the study show that spontaneous exploratory play by preschoolers is considerably influenced by the formal properties of evidence, in particular, by its confounding. By all the measures of the study (average playing time, playtime preference and first reach), children from the groups in confounded conditions showed preference for the familiar toy. Thus, authors conclude that children are eager to explore stimuli when they have to disambiguate the particular causal structure in the course of a game.
Contributions
I believe that the study makes a significant contribution into the field of understanding how exploratory play supports accurate causal inferences. Before this study experimental research in this area was rare and most studies were descriptive by nature. Systematic patterns in kids’ exploratory behavior were also poorly researched. This study is a good start for the experimental research of the problems related to the children’s exploratory play. It has also shown the significance and potential of such research, as eventually it can result in new and effective methodologies for early child development. The more we know in the ways and mechanisms of child development, the better we can apply our knowledge in this important field.
Unanswered Questions
Among the questions that still remain unanswered there is the extent, to which preschoolers recognize confounded evidence. In this study the research sample was rather limited and chosen from a specific group of children – who come to the museum. Thus, it is possible to assume that other children have less exploratory desire. In future the question should be clarified as to generalization to other settings and age groups of children. Larger and more diverse sample can also be taken to make sure that the result is true for the whole population. In particular, it is possible to research the way children’s background and conditions, in which they are brought up influence these factors.
The question of whether children really learn causal relationships based on the evidence of their interventions also remains unanswered. In future it is also necessary to explore the extent, to which free play of children generates exploratory evidence. The extent to which kids learns from the evidence of their interventions should also be clarified. Such number of unanswered questions can be explained both by the study limitations, such as small number of respondents, and by the fact that it was one of the few experimental studies in its field.
General Critique
In my point of view, the study is performed and presented in appropriate way, owing to which it makes its important contribution into the field of understanding the principles of preschoolers’ exploratory behavior. The authors performed proper prior research, which is presented in the introduction section of the paper. It is also shown in this part of the article what gaps there are in the research that had been conducted before. Thus, from the first lines of the research description it becomes clear that the study is important and is worthy of the reader’s attention.
The approach and methods chosen for the study are also appropriate, as due to the creative approach in the materials preparation (handmade toys allowing researchers to perfectly create confounded and unconfounded conditions for the games) it was possible to investigate the given problems from different sides, drawing conclusions on the basis of analysis of various aspects. Due to the detailed description of the experiment procedure it will also be convenient for the other researchers to repeat the experiment in other age groups and conditions, owing to which it will be possible to generalize the results to larger population.
Upon analyzing the study, I can say that I am confident in the results described by the authors, as they explained the whole procedure and provided extensive description of the results that is based on proper foundation of the previous studies. As for the novelty of ideas expressed by the authors, I don’t think that they are absolutely original. But I think that they weren’t expected to be such, as first of all the study was aimed at the experimental research of the hypotheses that had previously existed in the descriptive articles. Everything that is promised to be investigated in the paper’s introduction is indeed described and presented in the body of the article with proper summary and analysis in the conclusion.
I believe that the main limitation of the study was its small sample and the way, in which it was selected. To be more precise, the conditions of selection – the museum environment – cannot be spread to the general population, in my point of view, as preschoolers who go to the museums can have other interests and exploration potential, than those who don’t. Still, this limitation can be avoided in the future studies that can also broaden the sample by including children from various backgrounds and of different ages. The other toys can also be used, as the influence of the toy’s design can also potentially influence the result.
To sum up, I want to say that the job done by the authors is performed well and consistently and is presented in the right and detailed way. They justified their results adequately and provided a perfect foundation for the further studies in this field. I was able to understand practically everything that the authors tried to say, which can be explained by detailed description of all the stages of the experiment and by the proper background presented in the introduction section.
