The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
- 1. Inductive reasoning
- a) category
- b) analogy
- 2. Deductive reasoning
- a) syllogism
- b) conditional syllogism (familiar vs non-familiar)
- c) importance of context --> pragmatic reasoning schemas
- a) class inclusion task
- b) conservation task
- c) transitive inference
- d) moral reasoning
Inductive reasoning, what is this?
- Categorisation behaviour
- Analogy - inductive reasoning that depends on structural/relational similarities
- Insight (diffiuclt to study - Gestalt psychology...)
Inductive reasoning. Main points.
- 1. Category - Gelman & Markman: children (3,4) shown target (cat) and told that it can 'see in the dark'. Then showed different pictures - same category, similar appearance (black+white cat); same category different appearance; differnt category similar appearance, differnt different.
- Consistenty assigned properties on basis of category membership rather than perceptual appearance
- sensitive to the deeper structural properties that specify membership2. Analogy
- a. Piaget: analogyy develops late, higher-order (as it is relations between relations - eg A:B is similar to C:D)
- b. Goswami and Brown: item analogy - even 3 yo can reason by analogy
- 6yo best, 4yo better than 3 yo
- show pictures --> different object same causal change; same object different causal change (choose a picture to fit A:B; C:?)
- simple relations like melting, cutting
Deductive reasoning. What 3 tasks are often used?
- Syllogisms - were conclusion needs to be drawn from 2 given premises
- Conditional syllogisms
- Linear syllogisms (transitive reasoning)
Deductive reasoning. Main points.
- Categorical syllogisms
- 1. Hawkins et al: 4-5yo good at fantasy premises (Pogs where boots, Tom is a pog, does Tom wear boots?)
- 2. Diaz and Harris (1998): premises that run counter to real-world knowledge (eg. all cats bark)
- Shown that 5/6yo was just as good at counter than non-counter
- Conditional Syllogisms
- 3. Wason and Johnson-Laird: showed in selection task - adults can have difficulties too
- When same task was done with familiar premises (with stamps on letters) adults became successful.
- Importance of familiarity4. Cross-cultural studies show even adults fail when premises are unfamiliar and when they are unschooled
- eg. Russian peasants - perhaps effect of schooling abstract thought
- Pragmatic reasoning schemas
- 5. Cheng & Holyoak (1985): imortance of familiarity of knowledge
- 6. Harris: pragmatic reasoning schemas describe permission scenarios
- Harris and Nunez: 3-4yo sensitive to Sally permission schema deduction for using coat outside (4 pics, conditional syllogism)
Important point about development of inductive and deductive reasoning.
- Remarkable continuity across lifespan
- Adults and children influenced by similar factors and heuristics and biases
- Elements for success:
- a. familiarity
- b. pragmatics
Implications of these methodological points on Piaget's theories. Main list of points.
- Class inclusion task
- Conservation task
- Transitive relations
What do these imortant pragmatics/familarity factors show about who's studies in the past?
- pragmatics of the situations he gave children becomes very important
- eg. Class inclusion task (between combined set and embedded set differentiation)
- Part-whole comparisons (Piaget argued children below 6 couldn't) "are there more red flowers or more flowers here?"
- Markman & Seibert (1976): this was because Piaget's question was pragmatically strange - no one usually asks to contrast a whole or part by asking "are there more red flowers or more flowers?" - we would usually attach a collection term ('bunch') or something to clarify it is a part-whole comparison.
- Performance with collection terms are much better (Markman & Sibert)
What other aspect of Piaget's theory is problematic given this evidence that children/adults' performance on reasoning tasks differ significantly depending on how the question is asked.
- Conservation task
- Piaget asked the children once about 2 quantities, then transformed one of them, and then ask the question again
- Liguistically, a question is usually repeated if the first answer was wrong
- Child was therefore answering the question they thought the tester planned to ask, rather than attending to wording of precise question
- McGarrigle & Donaldson (1974): 'naughty teddy' study
- This time, the repeat of the question is pracgmatic and makes sense because the 'naughty teddy' moves the counters and receives the scolding. This time, it is not the experimenter moving the counters --> the change is accidental
- 4-5yo (majority) gave conserving responses (much more than traditional way!)
Piaget' transitive theories. Implications.
- 1. Piaget & Inhelder: transitive inference problem in the form 'if Jane is bigger than Mary, and Mary is bigger than Sarah, who is bigger Jane or Sarah?'
- 2. Criticism: requires remembering a lot of verbal info
- 3. Pears & Bryant: elimiated memory load by using visible premises
- Using premise pairs of bricks, build a complete tower --> then before they made it, they were asked 'which will be higher in the tower? Blue or Red?'
- 4yo possess ability to make some transitive inferences, at least about continuum of space
Moral development. Main points.
- 1. Piaget: similar perspective to logic --> universal sequence of stages
- a. young children = heteronomous morality (rule/authority following)
- b. older children = autonomous morality (judge intentions, fairness)
- The distinction between understanding of rules vs morals
- 2. Recent: socio-moral norms that are innate and culturally universal in all ages
- a. fairness, harm, help hindering
- b. driven by family experiences and language
- 3. Norms: In-groups and out-groups
- a. Kinzler & Spelke (2011): American and French 10mo infants watch video of 2 women talking --> English and French. They give toy (toy comes out below screen). French infants take more from French woman and visa versa.
- No race difference (black v white) --> spech community confers ingroup status
- b. Pro-social obligation:
- 3yo: share sweet more with 'sibling' dolls
- 5yo: share more stickers with children with same colour shirt
Might be worth integrating what?
- Food sharing behaviour of huntergathers from BAN2 --> evolutionary purpose and the idea of group selection.
- PBS6 --> Empathy in Rats: Bartal et al; shows that pro-social behaviour may be biological foundation.