Causal relations drive young children’s induction, naming, and categorization

A number of recent models and experiments have suggested that evidence of early category-based induction is an artifact of perceptual cues provided by experimenters. We tested these accounts against the prediction that different relations (causal versus non-causal) determine the types of perceptual similarity by which children generalize. Young children were asked to label, to infer novel properties, and to project future appearances of a novel animal that varied in two opposite respects: (1) how much it looked like another animal whose name and properties were known, and (2) how much its parents looked like parents of another animal whose name and properties were known. When exemplar origins were known, children generalized to exemplars with similar origins rather than with similar appearances; when origins were unknown, children generalized to exemplars with similar appearances. Results indicate even young children possess the cognitive control to choose the similarities that best predict accurate generalizations.

[1]  Gün R. Semin,et al.  Language, interaction and social cognition , 1992 .

[2]  Vladimir M Sloutsky,et al.  Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. , 2004, Child development.

[3]  Lisa M. Oakes,et al.  Early Category and Concept Development: Making Sense of the Blooming, Buzzing Confusion , 2008 .

[4]  K. Springer,et al.  Children's awareness of the biological implications of kinship. , 1992, Child development.

[5]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[6]  K. Springer,et al.  Perceptual boundedness and perceptual support in conceptual development. , 2001, Psychological review.

[7]  M. Rothbart,et al.  Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? , 1992 .

[8]  W. Hamilton The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[9]  D. Rakison,et al.  The mechanisms of early categorization and induction: smart or dumb infants? , 2004, Advances in child development and behavior.

[10]  D. Rakison When a Rose Is Just a Rose: The Illusion of Taxonomies in Infant Categorization. , 2000, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[11]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. , 2003, Child development.

[12]  John Tooby,et al.  Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[13]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  How much does a shared name make things similar? Linguistic labels, similarity, and the development of inductive inference. , 2001, Child development.

[14]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[15]  J. Mitani,et al.  Infanticide and cannibalism by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda , 2000, Primates.

[16]  Christopher W. Robinson,et al.  Auditory dominance and its change in the course of development. , 2004, Child development.

[17]  T. Bilde,et al.  Kin recognition and cannibalism in a subsocial spider , 2001 .

[18]  E. Markman,et al.  Categories and induction in young children , 1986, Cognition.

[19]  H. Wellman,et al.  Insides and essences: Early understan non-obvious* , 1991 .

[20]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Preschool children can learn to transfer: Learning to learn and learning from example , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  U. Goswami Analogical Reasoning: What Develops? A Review of Research and Theory. , 1991 .

[22]  S. Gelman,et al.  The Essential Child : Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought , 2003 .

[23]  J. Piaget,et al.  The Growth of Logical Thinking , 1959 .

[24]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  Induction and categorization in young children: a similarity-based model. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  G. Halford Analogical Reasoning and Conceptual Complexity in Cognitive Development , 1992 .

[26]  Usha Goswami,et al.  Transitive Relational Mappings in Three‐ and Four‐Year‐Olds: The Analogy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears , 1995 .

[27]  F. Gil-White,et al.  Are Ethnic Groups Biological “Species” to the Human Brain? , 2001, Current Anthropology.

[28]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

[29]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[30]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  How much does a shared name make things similar? Part 1. Linguistic labels and the development of similarity judgment. , 1999, Developmental psychology.

[31]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  The place of perception in children's concepts ☆ , 1993 .

[32]  A. Agrawal Kin recognition and the evolution of altruism , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[33]  Robert S. Siegler,et al.  Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  W. Ahn,et al.  Causal status effect in children's categorization , 2000, Cognition.

[35]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Systematicity and Surface Similarity in the Development of Analogy , 1986, Cogn. Sci..