Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Young children consider the expected utility of others’ learning to decide what to teach


Direct instruction facilitates learning without the costs of exploration, yet teachers must be selective because not everything can nor needs to be taught. How do we decide what to teach and what to leave for learners to discover? Here we investigate the cognitive underpinnings of the human ability to prioritize what to teach. We present a computational model that decides what to teach by maximizing the learner’s expected utility of learning from instruction and from exploration, and we show that children (aged 5–7 years) make decisions that are consistent with the model’s predictions (that is, minimizing the learner’s costs and maximizing the rewards). Children flexibly considered either the learner’s utility or their own, depending on the context, and even considered costs they had not personally experienced, to decide what to teach. These results suggest that utility-based reasoning may play an important role in curating cultural knowledge by supporting selective transmission of high-utility information.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Full model equation and table of model space.
Fig. 2: Experiment 1: stimuli, behavioural results and model predictions.
Fig. 3: Experiment 1: model comparison by noise parameter.
Fig. 4: Experiments 2–3: behavioural results.

Data availability

The data and analysis scripts that support the findings of this study are available at

Code availability

Model code and full predictions can be found at


  1. 1.

    Piaget, J. The Child’s Conception of the World (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1929).

  2. 2.

    Singer, D. G., Golinkoff, R. M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

  3. 3.

    Schulz, L. The origins of inquiry: inductive inference and exploration in early childhood. Trends Cogn. Sci.16, 382–389 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Stahl, A. E. & Feigenson, L. Observing the unexpected enhances infants’ learning and exploration. Science348, 91–94 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kline, M. A. How to learn about teaching: an evolutionary framework for the study of teaching behavior in humans and other animals. Behav. Brain Sci.38, e31 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Caro, T. & Hauser, M. Teaching in nonhuman animals. Q. Rev. Biol.67, 151–174 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Wellman, H. & Cross, D. Theory of mind and conceptual change. Child Dev.72, 702–707 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E. & Tenenbaum, J. B. The nave utility calculus: computational principles underlying commonsense psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci.20, 589–604 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Csibra, G. & Gergely, G. Natural pedagogy. Trends Cogn. Sci.13, 148–153 (2009).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D. & Griffiths, T. L. A rational account of pedagogical reasoning: teaching by, and learning from, examples. Cogn. Psychol.71, 55–89 (2014).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bonawitz, E. et al. The double-edged sword of pedagogy: instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition120, 322–330 (2011).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R. & Tenenbaum, J. B. Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nat. Hum. Behav.1, 0064 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lucas, C. G. et al. The child as econometrician: a rational model of preference understanding in children. PLoS One9, e92160 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jern, A., Lucas, C. G. & Kemp, C. People learn other people’s preferences through inverse decision-making. Cognition168, 46–64 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schulz, L. & Bonawitz, E. Serious fun: preschoolers engage in more exploratory play when evidence is confounded. Dev. Psychol.43, 1045–1050 (2007).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Shneidman, L., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E. & Woodward, A. L. Learning from others and spontaneous exploration: a cross-cultural investigation. Child Dev.87, 723–735 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Gweon, H. & Schulz, L. 16-month-olds rationally infer causes of failed actions. Science332, 1524 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Was, A. M. & Warneken, F. Proactive help-seeking: preschoolers know when they need help, but do not always ask for it. Cogn. Dev.43, 91–105 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sobel, D. M. & Kushnir, T. Knowledge matters: how children evaluate the reliability of testimony as a process of rational inference. Psychol. Rev.120, 779–797 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Koenig, M. A. & Harris, P. L. Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Dev.76, 1261–1277 (2005).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Gweon, H. & Asaba, M. Order matters: children’s evaluation of underinformative teachers depends on context. Child Dev.89, e278–e292 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Gweon, H., Shafto, P. & Schulz, L. Development of children’s sensitivity to over-informativeness in learning and teaching. Dev. Psychol.54, 2113–2125 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Sobel, D. M. & Letourneau, S. M. Children’s developing knowledge of and reflection about teaching. J. Exp. Child Psychol.143, 111–122 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Shatz, M. & Gelman, R. The development of communication skills: modifications in the speech of young children as a function of listener. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev.38, 1–38 (1973).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ziv, M., Solomon, A., Strauss, S. & Frye, D. Relations between the development of teaching and theory of mind in early childhood. J. Cogn. Dev.17, 264–284 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Baer, C. & Friedman, O. Fitting the message to the listener: children selectively mention general and specific facts. Child Dev.89, 461–475 (2018).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Rhodes, M., Gelman, S. & Brickman, D. Children’s attention to sample composition in learning, teaching and discovery. Dev. Sci.13, 421–429 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bass, I. et al. Children’s developing theory of mind and pedagogical evidence selection. Dev. Psychol.55, 286–302 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gweon, H. & Schulz, L. From exploration to instruction: children learn from exploration and tailor their demonstrations to observers’ goals and competence. Child Dev.90, e148–e164 (2019).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G. & Bró, S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition56, 165–193 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Schulz, L. E. Children’s understanding of the costs and rewards underlying rational action. Cognition140, 14–23 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Liu, S., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Spelke, E. S. Ten-month-old infants infer the value of goals from the costs of actions. Science358, 1038–1041 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Pesowski, M. L., Denison, S. & Friedman, O. Young children infer preferences from a single action, but not if it is constrained. Cognition155, 168–175 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Liu, S., Gonzalez, G. & Warneken, F. Worth the wait: children trade off delay and reward in self- and other-benefiting decisions. Dev. Sci.6, e12702–e12708 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ronfard, S., Was, A. M. & Harris, P. L. Children teach methods they could not discover for themselves. J. Exp. Child Psychol.142, 107–117 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Repacholi, B. & Gopnik, A. Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Dev. Psychol.33, 12–20 (1997).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Téglás, E. et al. Pure reasoning in 12-month-old infants as probabilistic inference. Science332, 1054–1059 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Lagattuta, K. H. Linking past, present, and future: children’s ability to connect mental states and emotions across time. Child Dev. Perspect.8, 90–95 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Atance, C. M. & O’Neill, D. K. Episodic future thinking. Trends Cogn. Sci.5, 533–539 (2001).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gweon, H., Asaba, M. & Bennett-Pierre, G. Reverse-engineering the process: adults and preschoolers’ ability to infer the difficulty of novel tasks. In Proc. 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 458–463 (Cognitive Science Society, 2017).

  41. 41.

    Marr, D. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (MIT Press, 1982).

  42. 42.

    Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. & Weber, M. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis. J. Polit. Econ.97, 1232–1254 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Birch, S. & Bloom, P. The curse of knowledge in reasoning about false beliefs. Psychol. Sci.18, 382–386 (2007).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Aboody, R., Velez-Ginorio, J., Santos, L. R. & Jara-Ettinger, J. When teaching breaks down: teachers rationally select what information to share, but misrepresent learners’ hypothesis spaces. In Proc. 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 70–75 (2018).

  45. 45.

    Gergely, G. & Csibra, G. Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naïve theory of rational action. Trends Cogn. Sci.7, 287–292 (2003).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Martin, A. & Olson, K. R. When kids know better: paternalistic helping in 3-year-old children. Dev. Psychol.49, 2071–2081 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Wellman, H., Cross, D. & Watson, J. Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Dev.72, 655–684 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Goodman, N. D. & Frank, M. C. Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends Cogn. Sci.20, 818–829 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Gureckis, T. M. & Markant, D. B. Self-directed learning: a cognitive and computational perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.7, 464–481 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A. & Olivola, C. Y. The effort paradox: effort is both costly and valued. Trends Cogn. Sci.22, 337–349 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Dweck, C. S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Random House, 2006).

  52. 52.

    Ahl, R. E. & Keil, F. C. Diverse effects, complex causes: children use information about machines’ functional diversity to infer internal complexity. Child Dev.88, 828–845 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Magid, R. W., Depascale, M. & Schulz, L. E. Four-and 5-year-olds infer differences in relative ability and appropriately allocate roles to achieve cooperative, competitive, and prosocial goals. Open Mind2, 72–85 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Benson, J. E., Sabbagh, M. A., Carlson, S. M. & Zelazo, P. D. Individual differences in executive functioning predict preschoolers’ improvement from theory-of-mind training. Behav. Brain Sci.49, 1615–1627 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Boyette, A. H. & Hewlett, B. S. Teaching in hunter-gatherers. Rev. Philos. Psychol.9, 771–797 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Legare, C. H. Cumulative cultural learning: development and diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA114, 7877–7883 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Tomasello, M. Born (and bred) to help. in Why We Cooperate 1–48 (MIT Press, 2009).

  58. 58.

    Bruner, J. S., Jolly, A. & Sylva, K. Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution (Basic Books, 1976).

  59. 59.

    Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Harvard Univ. Press, 1980).

  60. 60.

    Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. & Henrich, J. The cultural niche: why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA108, 10918–10925 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T. & Moll, H. Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav. Brain Sci.28, 691–735 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Legare, C. H. & Nielsen, M. Imitation and innovation: the dual engines of cultural learning. Trends Cogn. Sci.19, 688–699 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Heyes, C. Who knows? Metacognitive social learning strategies. Trends Cogn. Sci.20, 204–213 (2016).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Klahr, D. & Nigam, M. The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: effect of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychol. Sci.15, 661–667 (2004).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank C. Dweck, M. C. Frank, E. Markman, M. H. Tessler, M. Asaba, K. Weisman and N. Vélez for helpful conversations and insightful comments. We thank G. Bennett-Pierre, A. Singh, F. Kramer, A. Garron and N. Chandaria for help with data collection and coding. We are grateful to the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose and the children and families who participated in this research. This work was funded by a John Templeton Foundation Varieties of Understanding grant (to H.G.), a James S. McDonnell Scholar Award (to H.G.) and an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (to S.B.). In addition, this material is based upon work supported by the Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines (CBMM), funded by NSF-STC award CCF-1231216. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information




S.B. and H.G. conceived of and designed the experiments. S.B. collected and analysed the data. J.J.-E. designed, implemented and conducted the formal model comparisons, with assistance from S.B. and H.G. S.B., H.G. and J.J.-E. interpreted the results and wrote and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sophie Bridgers or Hyowon Gweon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods 1 and 2, Supplementary Results 1 and 2, Supplementary Figs. 1–7, Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bridgers, S., Jara-Ettinger, J. & Gweon, H. Young children consider the expected utility of others’ learning to decide what to teach. Nat Hum Behav 4, 144–152 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing