Was it designed to do that? Children’s focus on intended function in their conceptualization of artifacts

Do young children who seek the conceptual kind of an artifact weigh the plausibility that a current function constitutes the function intended by the object designer? Three- and four-year-olds were encouraged to question adults about novel artifacts. After inquiring about what an object was, some children were shown a function that plausibly accounted for the structural features of the object; others were shown a possible, but implausible function. Children given implausible functions were less satisfied with these responses than those given plausible functions, as shown by their more persistent attempts to ask follow-up questions about function. Accordingly, preschoolers appear to take into account matters of intentional design when assigning artifacts to conceptual kinds.

[1]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo?: A study of early word meaning using artificial objects , 1978 .

[2]  Deborah Kelemen,et al.  The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children , 1999, Cognition.

[3]  D. K. Nelson,et al.  Young children's use of functional information to categorize artifacts: three factors that matter , 2000, Cognition.

[4]  L. Markson,et al.  Children's Reliance on Creator's Intent in Extending Names for Artifacts , 2003, Psychological science.

[5]  D. G. Kemler Nelson,et al.  When Children Ask, “What Is It?” What Do They Want to Know About Artifacts? , 2004, Psychological science.

[6]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object Shape, Object Function, and Object Name , 1998 .

[7]  Susan Carey,et al.  Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts , 2001, Cognition.

[8]  Nell K. Duke,et al.  Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. , 2000, Child development.

[9]  V. Jaswal,et al.  Preschoolers favor the creator's label when reasoning about an artifact's function , 2006, Cognition.

[10]  Tim P. German,et al.  Conditions Under Which Function Information Attenuates Name Extension via Shape , 2006, Psychological science.

[11]  D. G. Nelson,et al.  Two- and three-year-olds infer and reason about design intentions in order to categorize broken objects. , 2004, Developmental science.

[12]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism? , 1996, Cognition.

[13]  Susan C. Johnson,et al.  Function and the Origins of the Design Stance , 2002 .

[14]  Paul Bloom.  Intention, history, and artifact concepts , 1996, Cognition.

[15]  Eric Margolis,et al.  Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation , 2007 .

[16]  D. K. Nelson,et al.  Principle-Based Inferences in Young Children's Categorization: Revisiting the Impact of Function on the Naming of Artifacts. , 1995 .

[17]  D. G. Kemler Nelson,et al.  How Children and Adults Name Broken Objects: Inferences and Reasoning About Design Intentions in the Categorization of Artifacts , 2002 .

[18]  D. Dennett.  The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .

[19]  T. German,et al.  Immunity to functional fixedness in young children , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  Paul Bloom,et al.  Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding what to name it , 2000, Cognition.

[21]  Susan Carey,et al.  The essence of artifacts: Developing the design stance , 2007 .