Domain differences in the weights of perceptual and conceptual information in children's categorization

Developmental Psychology

Volumn 49, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2383-2395

  Diesendruck, Gil ^a   Peretz, Shimon ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

categorization; Conceptual information; Domain specific; Labels

Indexed keywords

AGE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CONCEPT FORMATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; VISION;

AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CONCEPT FORMATION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84890027469     PISSN: 00121649     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0032049     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Asher, Y. M., & Kemler Nelson, D. G. (2008). Was it designed to do that? Children's focus on intended function in their conceptualization of artifacts. Cognition, 106, 474-483. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.007
2. Atran, S. (1990). Cognitive foundations of natural history. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60, 1-29. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0
4. Booth, A. E., & Waxman, S. R. (2002). Word learning is smart: Evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers' extension of novel words. Cognition, 84, B11-B22. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00015-X
5. Brandone, A. C., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). Differences in preschoolers' and adults' use of generics about novel animals and artifacts: A window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition, 110, 1-22. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008 .08.005
6. Carey, S. (1995). On the origin of causal understanding. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multi-disciplinary debate (pp. 268-308). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
7. Cimpian, A., Gelman, S. A., & Brandone, A. C. (2010). Theory-based considerations influence the interpretation of generic sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 261-276. doi:10.1080/ 01690960903025227
8. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 1149-1157. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0319
9. Davidson, N. S., & Gelman, S. A. (1990). Inductions from novel categories: The role of language and conceptual structure. Cognitive Development, 5, 151-176. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(90)90024-N
10. Deng, W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2012). Carrot eaters or moving heads: Inductive inference is better supported by salient features than by category labels. Psychological Science, 23, 178 -186. doi:10.1177/ 0956797611429133
11. Diesendruck, G. (2003). Categories for names or names for categories: The interplay between domain-specific conceptual structure and language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 759 -787. doi:10.1080/ 01690960344000116
12. Diesendruck, G., & Gelman, S. A. (1999). Domain differences in absolute judgments of category membership: Evidence for an essentialist account of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 338-346. doi: 10.3758/BF03212339
13. Diesendruck, G., Gelman, S. A., & Lebowitz, K. (1998). Conceptual and linguistic biases in children's word learning. Developmental Psychology, 34, 823-839. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.823
14. Diesendruck, G., & Markson, L. (2011). Children's assumption of the conventionality of culture. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 189- 195. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00156.x
15. Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children's reliance on creator's intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14, 164-168. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01436
16. Estes, Z. (2003). Domain differences in the structure of artifactual and natural categories. Memory & Cognition, 31, 199-214. doi:10.3758/ BF03194379
17. Evans, E. M. (2000). Beyond scopes: Why creationism is here to stay. In K. Rosengren, C. Johnson, & P. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children (pp. 305-333). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511571381.012
18. Gelman, S. A. (1988). The development of induction within natural kind and artifact categories. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 65-95. http://dx.doi .org/doi:10.1016/0010-0285(88)90025-4
19. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195154061.001.0001
20. Gelman, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding on what to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00071-8
21. Gelman, S. A., & Gottfried, G. M. (1996). Children's causal explanations of animate and inanimate motion. Child Development, 67, 1970-1987. doi:10.2307/1131604
22. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183-209. doi:10.1016/0010- 0277(86)90034-X
23. Gelman, S. A., & O'Reilly, A. W. (1988). Children's inductive inferences within superordinate categories: The role of language and category structure. Child Development, 59, 876-887. doi:10.2307/1130255
24. Gelman, S. A., & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Looking beyond looks: Comments on Sloutsky, Kloos, and Fisher (2007). Psychological Science, 18, 554-555. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01937.x
25. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition, 38, 213-244. http://dx .doi.org/doi:10.1016/0010-0277(91)90007-Q
26. Gopnik, A., & Sobel, D. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71, 1205-1222. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00224
27. Gottfried, G. M., & Gelman S. A. (2005). Developing domain-specific causal-explanatory frameworks: The role of insides and immanence. Cognitive Development, 20, 137-158. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.07 .003
28. Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (Eds.). (1994). Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Jaswal, V. K. (2006). Preschoolers favor the creator's label when reasoning about an artifact's function. Cognition, 99, B83-B92. doi:10.1016/j .cognition.2005.07.006
30. Jaswal, V. K., & Markman, E. M. (2007). Looks aren't everything: 24- month-olds' willingness to accept unexpected labels. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 93-111. doi:10.1080/15248370709336995
31. Jipson, J. L., & Gelman, S. A. (2007). Robots and rodents: Children's inferences about living and nonliving kinds. Child Development, 78, 1675-1688. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01095.x
32. Kalish, C. (1998). Natural and artifactual kinds: Are children realists or relativists about categories?. Developmental Psychology, 34, 376-391. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.376
33. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Keil, F. C. (1995). The growth of causal understanding of natural kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multi-disciplinary debate (pp. 234-262). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35. Kelemen, D. (2003). British and American children's preferences for teleofunctional explanations of the natural world. Cognition, 88, 201- 221. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00024-6
36. Kelemen, D., Seston, R., & Saint Georges, L. (2012). The designing mind: Children's reasoning about intended function and artifact structure. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13, 439-453. doi:10.1080/ 15248372.2011.608200
37. Kemler Nelson, D. G., Russell, R., Duke, N., & Jones, K. (2000). Two year olds will name artifacts by their function. Child Development, 71, 1271-1288. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00228
38. Locke, J. (1961). An essay concerning human understanding (5th ed., Vol. II). New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. (Original work published 1707)
39. Malt, B. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 85-148. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1013
40. Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: The origins of the conceptual system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41. Matan, A., & Carey, S. (2001). Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts. Cognition, 78, 1-26. doi:10.1016/S0010- 0277(00)00094-9
42. Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization? Cognition, 80, B11-B20. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010- 0277(01)00112-3
43. Noles, N. S., & Gelman, S. A. (2012). Effects of categorical labels on similarity judgments: A critical analysis of similarity-based approaches. Developmental Psychology, 48, 890-896. doi:10.1037/a0026075
44. Quinn, P. C. (2011). Born to categorize. In U. Goswani (Ed.), The Wiley- Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 129-152). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
45. Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S. A. (2009). A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 244-274. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.05.001
46. Sabbagh, M. A., & Baldwin, D. A. (2001). Learning words from knowledgeable versus ignorant speakers: Links between preschoolers' theory of mind and semantic development. Child Development, 72, 1054-1070. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00334
47. Schwartz, S. P. (1978). Putnam on artifacts. Philosophical Review, 87, 566-574. doi:10.2307/2184460
48. Siegel, D. R., & Callanan, M. A. (2007). Artifacts as conventional objects. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 183-203. doi:10.1080/ 15248370701202414
49. Simons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: The insides story. Cognition, 56, 129-163. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)00660-D
50. Sloman, S. A., Lombrozo, T., & Malt, B. C. (2007). Ontological commitments and domain specific categorisation. In M. J. Roberts (Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general versus domain specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 105-130). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
51. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 166-188. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.166
52. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2011). The development of categorization. In B. H. Rosss (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 141-166). New York, NY: Academic Press.
53. Sloutsky, V. M., Kloos, H., & Fisher, A. V. (2007). When looks are everything: Appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction. Psychological Science, 18, 179-185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280 .2007.01869.x
54. Sloutsky, V. M., Lo, Y.-F., & Fisher, A. V. (2001). How much does a shared name make things similar: Linguistic labels and the development of inductive inference. Child Development, 72, 1695-1709. doi:10.1111/ 1467-8624.00373
55. Smith, L. B. (2005). Emerging ideas about categories. In L. Gershkoff- Stowe & D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 159-173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., & Landau, B. (1996). Naming in young children: A dumb attentional mechanism?. Cognition, 60, 143-171. doi:10.1016/ 0010-0277(96)00709-3
57. Sobel, D. M., & Corriveau, K. H. (2010). Children monitor individuals' expertise for word learning. Child Development, 81, 669-679. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01422.x
58. Sobel, D. M., Yoachim, C. M., Gopnik, A., Melzoff, A. N., & Blumenthal, E. J. (2007). The blicket within: Preschoolers' inferences about insides and causes. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 159-182. doi: 10.1080/15248370701202356
59. Waxman, S. R., & Braun, I. (2005). Consistent (but not variable) names as invitations to form object categories: New evidence from 12-month-old infants. Cognition, 95, B59-B68. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.003
60. Waxman, S. R., & Gelman, S. A. (2010). Different kinds of concepts and different kinds of words: What words do for human cognition. In D. Mareschal, P. C. Quinn, & S. E. G. Lea (Eds.), The making of human concepts (pp. 99-130). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199549221.003.06
61. Xu, F. (2002). The role of language in acquiring object kind concepts in infancy. Cognition, 85, 223-250. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00109-9