排序方式： 共有7条查询结果，搜索用时 88 毫秒
1
1.
Two studies investigated 3- to 5-year-olds' trust in a reliable informant when judging novel labels and novel plural and past tense forms. In Study 1, children ( N = 24) endorsed the names of new objects given by an informant who had earlier labeled familiar objects correctly over the names given by an informant who had labeled the same objects incorrectly. In Study 2, children ( N = 24) endorsed novel names given by an informant who had earlier expressed the plural of familiar nouns correctly over one who had expressed the plural incorrectly. But children overwhelmingly endorsed the regular plural and past tense forms of new words provided by the formerly unreliable labeler (Study 1) or morphologist (Study 2) rather than irregular forms of those words provided by the formerly reliable informant. 相似文献
2.
Research on the development of metamemory has focused primarily on children's understanding of the variables that influence how likely a person is to remember something. But metamemory also involves an understanding of why people occasionally misremember things. In this study, 5- and 6-year-olds ( N = 38) were asked to decide whether another child's mistakes in a memory game were due to false memories or guesses. Some of the fictitious child's mistakes were similar to material he had seen earlier and some were not. Six-year-olds, but not 5-year-olds, consistently attributed more similar than dissimilar mistakes to false memories. Understanding the link between similarity and false memories improves significantly between 5 and 6 years of age. 相似文献
3.
Can young children visualize the solution to a difficult spatial problem? Forty‐eight 3‐year‐olds were tested in a spatial reasoning paradigm in which they were asked to predict the path of a ball moving through 1 of 3 intertwined tubes. One group of children was asked to visualize the ball rolling down the tube before they made their predictions, a second group was given identical instructions without being asked to use visual imagery, and a third group was given no instructions. Children in the visualization condition performed significantly better than those in the other conditions, suggesting that encouraging young children to use visual imagery may help them to reason through difficult problems. 相似文献
4.
Don't believe everything you hear: preschoolers' sensitivity to speaker intent in category induction 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Jaswal VK 《Child development》2004,75(6):1871-1885
A label can convey nonobvious information about category membership. Three studies show that preschoolers (N=144) sometimes ignore or reject labels that conflict with appearance, particularly when they are uncertain that the speaker meant to use those labels. In Study 1, 4-year-olds were more reluctant than 3-year-olds to accept that, for example, a cat-like animal was a dog just on the basis of hearing it called a dog. In Studies 2 and 3, this reluctance was overcome when the speaker explicitly or implicitly indicated that use of the unexpected labels was intentional. These studies demonstrate that preschoolers do not treat labels as atheoretical features of objects; rather, they interpret them in light of their understanding of the labeler's communicative intent. 相似文献
5.
A single, indirect exposure to a novel word provides information that could be used to make a fast mapping between the word and its referent, but it is not known how well this initial mapping specifies the function of the new word. The four studies reported here compare preschoolers' (N = 64) fast mapping of new proper and common names following an indirect exposure requiring inference with their learning of new names following ostension. In Study 1, 3-year-olds were shown an animate-inanimate pair of objects and asked to select, for example, Dax, a dax, or one. Children spontaneously selected an animate over an inanimate object as the referent for a novel proper name, but had no animacy preference in common name or baseline conditions. Next, the children were asked to perform actions on, for example, Dax or a dax, when presented with an array of three objects: the one they had just selected, another member of like kind, and a distracter. An indirectly learned proper name was treated as a marker for the originally selected object only, whereas a new common name was generalized to include the other category member. Study 2 showed that mappings made by inference were as robust as those made by ostension. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that even 2-year-olds can learn as much about the function of a new word from an indirect exposure as from ostension. 相似文献
6.
Do children expect an expert in one domain to also be an expert in an unrelated domain? In Study 1, 32 three‐ and four‐year‐olds learned that one informant was an expert about dogs relative to another informant. When presented with pictures of new dogs or of artifacts, children who could remember which informant was the dog expert preferred her over the novice as an informant about the names of dogs, but they had no preference when the informants presented artifact labels. In Study 2, 32 children learned that one informant was incompetent about dogs whereas another was neutral. In this case, children preferred the neutral speaker over the incompetent one about both dogs and artifacts. Taken together, these results suggest that for children, expertise is not subject to a “halo effect,” but incompetence may be subject to a “pitchfork effect.” 相似文献
7.
Pigeons were trained to recall an arbitrary sequence on a delayed matching-to-successive-samples (DMTSS) task. Sample items were presented successively and then displayed simultaneously. Subjects were required to respond to them in the order in which they appeared. In Experiment 1, pigeons responded correctly on 75% of the trials on a two-item DMTSS task but at a chance level of accuracy on a three-item task. In Experiment 2, pigeons who learned to produce a three-item sequence prior to DMTSS training mastered a three-item DMTSS task at a 75% level of accuracy. Control groups, trained initially with the same items on nonserial tasks, performed as poorly on a three-item DMTSS task as the naive subjects of Experiment 1. It was hypothesized that pigeons that first learned to produce a three-item list were able to recall three-item samples in DMTSS because they had learned to represent three-item sequences. 相似文献
1