Children balance theories and evidence in exploration, explanation, and learning

We look at the effect of evidence and prior beliefs on exploration, explanation and learning. In Experiment 1, we tested children both with and without differential prior beliefs about balance relationships (Center Theorists, mean: 82 months; Mass Theorists, mean: 89 months; No Theory children, mean: 62 months). Center and Mass Theory children who observed identical evidence explored the block differently depending on their beliefs. When the block was balanced at its geometric center (belief-violating to a Mass Theorist, but belief-consistent to a Center Theorist), Mass Theory children explored the block more, and Center Theory children showed the standard novelty preference; when the block was balanced at the center of mass, the pattern of results reversed. The No Theory children showed a novelty preference regardless of evidence. In Experiments 2 and 3, we follow-up on these findings, showing that both Mass and Center Theorists selectively and differentially appeal to auxiliary variables (e.g., a magnet) to explain evidence only when their beliefs are violated. We also show that children use the data to revise their predictions in the absence of the explanatory auxiliary variable but not in its presence. Taken together, these results suggest that children’s learning is at once conservative and flexible; children integrate evidence, prior beliefs, and competing causal hypotheses in their exploration, explanation, and learning.American Psychological Foundation (Elizabeth Munsterberg Koppitz Fellowship)James S. McDonnell Foundation (Collaborative Interdisciplinary Grant on Causal Reasoning)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (NSF Faculty Early Career Development Award)Templeton Foundation (Award

Assessing The Factors Enabling Systematic Change

The goal of this research article is to examine the relationships between the research variables change-management actions, change readiness, and systematic change. Change management is defined by three factors: leadership, project management, and learning. Change readiness is defined by two factors: knowledge and resources. Systematic change is defined by one factor of carefully sequenced actions that align customers, products/services, processes/tools, structure, and skill mix. This framework is operationalized and applied using a survey of participants in a high-tech organization’s transformation. The results show that as change-management actions increases or decreases, there is an increase or decrease in change readiness, which supports systematic change. Managers can use the findings to assess the effectiveness of their change actions, change readiness in their organizations, and outcomes of their systematic change efforts. Managers can also use the findings to define their specific change-management actions. This is a limited case study, and the findings are based on a single case study in a large government agency. This article contributes a framework for defining and measuring change readiness. The framework defines change-management actions leading to change readiness leading to systematic change