One way children are remarkable learners is that they learn from others. Critically, children are selective when assessing from whom to learn, particularly in the domain of word learning. We conducted an analysis of children's selective word learning, reviewing 63 papers on 6,525 participants. Children's ability to engage in selective word learning appeared to be present in the youngest samples surveyed. Their more metacognitive understanding that epistemic competence indicates reliability or that others are good sources of knowledge has more of a developmental trajectory. We also found that various methodological factors used to assess children influence performance. We conclude with a synthesis of theoretical accounts of how children learn from others.

This study examined how inferences about epistemic competence and generalized labeling errors influence children’s selective word learning. Three‐ to 4‐year‐olds ( N = 128) learned words from informants who asked questions about objects, mentioning either correct or incorrect labels. Such questions do not convey stark differences in informants’ epistemic competence. Inaccurate labels, however, generate error signals that can lead to weaker encoding of novel information. Preschoolers retained novel labels from both informants but were slower to respond in the Inaccurate Labeler condition. When the test procedure was not sensitive to the strength of information encoding, children performed above chance in both conditions and their response times did not differ. These results suggest that epistemic‐level inferences and error generalizations influence preschoolers’ selective word learning concurrently.

Abstract Many studies have claimed to find that reading fiction leads to improvements in social cognition. But this work has left open the critical question of whether any type of narrative, fictional or nonfictional, might have similar effects. To address this question, as well as to test whether framing a narrative as fiction matters, the current studies presented participants ( N = 268 in Study 1; N = 362 in Study 2) with literary fiction texts, narrative nonfiction texts, expository nonfiction texts, or no texts. We tested their theory-of-mind abilities using the picture-based Reading the Mind in the Eyes task and a text-based test of higher-order social cognition. Reading anything was associated with higher scores compared to reading nothing, but the effects of framing and text type were inconsistent. These results suggest that prior claims regarding positive effects of reading fiction on mentalizing should be seen as tenuous; other mechanisms may be driving previously published effects.

We investigated how young children evaluate disagreements between two people and whether formal education affects this capacity. We compared 120 first graders tested during the 2014-2015 academic year, who received a direct instruction-based curriculum, with 112 first graders tested in the same school system during the 2016-2017 academic year, who received an inquiry-based curriculum. All children were given a belief reasoning task that tested their ability to evaluate disagreements about matters of fact, matters of interpretation, and matters of preference. Children's evaluations of disagreements about interpretations or preferences did not differ depending on curriculum. Children who received an inquiry-based curriculum were more likely to resolve disagreements concerning facts correctly than children who received a direct instruction-based curriculum. When asked to justify their responses to disagreements about facts, children who received the inquiry-based curriculum relied more on an examination of the state of the world. We suggest that an inquiry-based curriculum fosters a greater appreciation for how first-hand experiences can create knowledge.