[stractract]

I still don't see it. How on earth would a kid recognize unhelpful advice if it still resulted in finding the object? The kid does not know the game is rigged. I think it is more likely the article has not fully explained the experiment. It would make me sad to think this was actually published.

[bzbarsky]

Say the advice is "look behind the couch in the living room" and the object is later found on the kitchen counter. And the rigging consists of the experimenter asking the kid to get something unrelated from the kitchen, for example.

But yes, it's hard to determine whether this is how the experiment worked from the article. Unfortunately the actual paper at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516... is paywalled in the usual way.

[jonex]

I used my student super powers on that and now have the answer!

There was actually 4 similar studies described in the article. But the first one is the most important.

The setup was that the kid would watch a video where a toy was hidden in one of two cups. The helpful person would point out to the kid in which cup the toy was hidden. The unhelpful person would not give any hints at all but rather just explain which toy was hidden. The kid would of course follow the helpful persons advice, but would have to guess in void of any advice.

The kid would then get to guess in which cup the toy was hidden, whereafter the answer was revealed in the video. However, in the successful condition, the answer was modified so the kid would guess right no matter what.

This was repeated eight times, after which the kid got to choose which person would give them advice for four more trials.

It was in this situation it showed that the kids who had always been successful did not seem to value the better advice they would expect to get from the helpful person while the kids who had failed due to lack of advice chose the helpful person.

In the article they discuss this being due to the kid trusting their own ability to guess, not needing any help.

I'd say that the results are academically interesting as they increase our understanding of children's decision making. But I don't think they should be taken out of context and be applied as a some kind of answer on how to do parenting and teaching.

[throwaway729]

> Unfortunately the actual paper at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096516.... is paywalled in the usual way.

Searching for

    "title of article" PDF 

is usually pretty effective (and is in this case ;-) ). In CS you'll find a PDF hosted on the author's home page like 99% percent of the time. Other fields are more spotty, but this approach is still pretty effective.

[nercht12]

I'm with you. I think the whole "good" advice and "bad" advice is relative. It could be misconstrued and applied to the real world. Someone could say that "good" advice is stealing, ripping off people's accounts because if you do it right, you get to reap the rewards earlier than hard work and you don't have to suffer the consequences. In this case, it sounds to me like the researchers are painting "good" and "bad" by their own subjective opinion, and they end up getting the obvious "I didn't agree with your conclusion" result, but from children. When those children grow up and start calculating the extra time it takes based on poor advice, they will probably learn and come to different conclusions like we all have. But as it is, children are naturally trusting and don't expect some jerk is going to lie to them. Too bad the world is harsh.