Speaker reliability guides children's inductive inferences about novel properties

Prior work shows that children can make inductive inferences about objects based on their labels rather than their appearance (Gelman, 2003). A separate line of research shows that children's trust in a speaker's label is selective. Children accept labels from a reliable speaker over an unreliable speaker (e.g., Koenig & Harris, 2005). In the current paper, we tested whether 3- and 5-year-old children attend to speaker reliability when they make inductive inferences about a non-obvious property of a novel artifact based on its label. Children were more likely to use a reliable speaker's label than an unreliable speaker's label when making inductive inferences. Thus, children not only prefer to learn from reliable speakers, they are also more likely to use information from reliable speakers as the basis for future inferences. The findings are discussed in light of the debate between a similarity-driven and a label-driven approach to inductive inferences.     

Compliance, conversion, and category induction

When children hear an object referred to with a label that is moderately discrepant from its appearance, they frequently make inferences about that object consistent with the label rather than its appearance. We asked whether 3-year-olds actually believe these unexpected labels (i.e., conversion) or whether their inferences simply reflect a desire to comply with the considerable experimental demands of the induction task (i.e., compliance). Specifically, we asked how likely children would be to pass an unexpected label on to another person who had not been present during the labeling event. Results showed that children who used an unexpected label as the basis for inference passed that label on to another person about as often as they could remember it. This suggests that children’s label-based inferences do reflect conversion rather than mere compliance.     

Factors affecting children's graphic symbol use in the third year: Language,similarity, and iconicity

The question addressed in this study is whether the claim that children understand the symbolic status of pictures by the middle of their third year is an overestimate of their ability. Specifically, we asked whether children use language if possible to facilitate their performance in graphic symbolic tasks. Language (availability of verbal labels) was manipulated along with iconicity (degree of resemblance between symbol and referent) and perceptual similarity (between choice items) in a series of four experiments. Children 2.5 and 3 years old were presented with a graphic symbol for 4 s and immediately asked to choose the object depicted (referent) from two choice objects. In Study 1, degree of iconicity between picture and referent was varied and both choice objects had the same verbal label. The 2.5-year-olds failed to use any pictures or replicas as symbols. The 3-year-olds performed well with all types of symbols and better with highly iconic symbols. In Study 2, verbal label availability was manipulated by presenting choice objects having the same or different labels and by varying familiarity of labels. The 2.5-year-olds performed at chance when verbal labels were unavailable but above chance when they were available. The 3-year-olds were above chance in all conditions but performed less well when verbal labels were unavailable. Study 3 confirmed that young children use language to mediate picture symbol use. When 2.5-year-olds were provided with subordinate verbal labels in the matching task, subsequent performance was good even when choice objects had the same basic level verbal label. In Study 4, verbal label availability was contrasted with perceptual similarity between choice objects. When verbal labels could be used and choice objects were dissimilar, performance was best, and when verbal labels could not be used and choice objects were similar, it was worst. The results suggest that children's developing understanding of the symbolic function of pictures is tenuous in the third year, and is supported by their use of verbal labels.     

Preschool children's use of novel predicates to make inductive inferences about people

Preschool children's use of novel predicates to make inferences about people was examined in three studies. In a procedure adapted from Gelman and Markman [Cognition 23 (1986) 183.], participants (ages 3 years 5 months–4 years 11 months) saw line drawings of three different faces. In Study 1 (N=16), the drawings were described as depicting children, and participants were asked to predict whether one of the children would share properties with a child who has the same novel predicate (e.g., “is zav,” which is never defined for participants) but is dissimilar in appearance, or with a child who has a different novel predicate but is similar in appearance. Participants tended to use the novel predicates rather than superficial resemblance to guide their inferences about people. In Study 2 (N=16), in which the line drawings were described as depicting dolls rather than children, participants showed no such emphasis on the novel predicate information. Study 3 (N=38) replicated the results of the first two studies. The results suggest that children have a general assumption that unfamiliar words hold rich inductive potential when applied to people but not when applied to dolls.     

Inference using categories

How do people use category membership and similarity for making inductive inferences? The authors addressed this question by examining the impact of category labels and category features on inference and classification tasks that were designed to be comparable. In the inference task, participants predicted the value of a missing feature of an item given its category label and other feature values. In the classification task, participants predicted the category label of an item given its feature values. The results from 4 experiments suggest that category membership influences inference even when similarity information contradicts the category label. This tendency was stronger when the category label conveyed class inclusion information than when the label reflected a feature of the category. These findings suggest that category membership affects inference beyond similarity and that category labels and category features are 2 different things.     

儿童特质推理与情绪和效价线索理解的关系

本研究从情绪、效价两个角度探讨儿童特质理解与线索理解的关系。372名4、5、7岁儿童完成了贴标签和行为预测两类特质推理任务。实验一显示,所有年龄段儿童都能完成对情绪性特质害羞和胆小的推理,且特质和行为评定与情绪评定呈显著正相关;实验二显示,所有年龄段均能完成双重性质特质助人为乐和自私的推理,特质和行为评定与效价、情绪评定均呈显著正相关,回归分析则只有效价评定进入方程。结果说明,儿童完成情绪性特质推理任务时与情绪理解能力关系密切,而对双重性质特质推理时更多的与效价理解能力有关。     

特质标签对儿童错误信念理解的影响

该研究将错误信念任务中主人公加上"聪明"或"笨"的标签,以考察特质标签是否会影响儿童对错误信念的理解。360名5~8岁儿童参加实验,每个年龄组儿童随机分配到"聪明"标签组、无标签组和"笨"标签组。结果表明:(1)"聪明"标签会极大地阻碍67、岁儿童理解他人错误信念,对5、8岁儿童没有影响;(2)"笨"标签对所有年龄组儿童错误信念的理解都没有产生影响。     

Looks Aren't Everything: 24-Month-Olds' Willingness to Accept Unexpected Labels

A label can efficiently convey nonobvious information about category membership, but this information can sometimes conflict with one's own expectations. Two studies explored whether 24-month-olds (N = 56) would be willing to accept a category label indicating that an animal (Study 1) or artifact (Study 2) that looked like a member of one familiar category was actually a member of a different familiar category. Results showed that children were receptive to these unexpected labels and used them as the basis for inference. These findings indicate that linguistic information can lead even toddlers to “disbelieve their eyes.”     

Disclaimer labels on fashion magazine advertisements: Effects on social comparison and body dissatisfaction

Recent proposals across a number of Western countries have suggested that idealised media images should carry some sort of disclaimer informing readers when these images have been digitally enhanced. The present studies aimed to experimentally investigate the impact on women's body dissatisfaction of the addition of such warning labels to fashion magazine advertisements. Participants were 120 and 114 female undergraduate students in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 respectively. In both experiments, participants viewed fashion magazine advertisements with either no warning label, a generic warning label, or a specific more detailed warning label. In neither experiment was there a significant effect of type of label. However, state appearance comparison was found to predict change in body dissatisfaction irrespective of condition. Unexpectedly, trait appearance comparison moderated the effect of label on body dissatisfaction, such that for women high on trait appearance comparison, exposure to specific warning labels actually resulted in increased body dissatisfaction. In sum, the present results showed no benefit of warning labels in ameliorating the known negative effect of viewing thin-ideal media images, and even suggested that one form of warning (specific) might be harmful for some individuals. Accordingly, it was concluded that more extensive research is required to guide the most effective use of disclaimer labels.     

Clarifying the role of shape in children's taxonomic assumption.

When asked to find a new referent of a novel label children tend to ignore thematic relations (e.g., the relation between a spider and its web) and focus instead on taxonomic relations (e.g., the relation between a spider and a snake). The precise nature of children's taxonomic assumption has not been clear, however. One possibility is that the taxonomic assumption reduces to a "similar-shape rule": perhaps children tend to select objects of the same taxonomic kind when asked to extend new labels simply because these objects are more similar in shape than objects which are only thematically related. Sixty children between 3 and 5 years of age participated in three studies which examined children's attention to thematic relations, similarity of shape, and taxonomic relations when extending novel object labels. The findings indicated that shape has some primacy in children's expectations about object label reference, yet when shape is not available as a guide, children also take taxonomic kind into consideration when searching for new referents of novel labels. Thus children make use of a relatively rich and somewhat varied set of expectations to guide their inferences about object label reference.     

Children's avoidance of lexical overlap: a pragmatic account

Children tend to choose an unfamiliar object rather than a familiar one when asked to find the referent of a novel name. This response has been taken as evidence for the operation of certain lexical constraints in children's inferences of word meanings. The present studies test an alternative--pragmatic--explanation of this phenomenon among 3-year-olds. In Study 1 children responded to a request for the referent of a novel label in the same way that they responded to a request for the referent of a novel fact. Study 2 intimated that children assume that labels are common knowledge among members of the same language community. Study 3 demonstrated that shared knowledge between a speaker and listener plays a decisive role in how children interpret a speaker's request. The findings suggest that 3-year-olds' avoidance of lexical overlap is not unique to naming and may derive from children's sensitivity to speakers' communicative intentions.     

Carrot eaters or moving heads: inductive inference is better supported by salient features than by category labels

How do words affect generalization, and how do these effects change during development? One theory posits that even early in development, linguistic labels function as category markers and thus are different from the features of the stimuli they represent. Another theory holds that early in development, labels are akin to other features, but that they may become category markers in the course of development. We addressed this issue in two experiments with 4- to 5-year-olds and adults. In both experiments, participants performed a categorization task (in which they predicted a category label) and an induction task (in which they predicted a missing feature). In the latter task, the category label was pitted against a highly salient feature, such that reliance on the label and reliance on the salient feature would result in different patterns of responses. Results indicated that children relied on the salient feature when performing induction, whereas many adults relied on the category label. These results suggest that early in development, labels are no more than features, but that they may become category markers in the course of development.     

Young children's use of syntactic cues to learn proper names and count nouns

In 6 experiments, 144 toddlers were tested in groups ranging in mean age from 20 to 37 months. In all experiments, children learned a novel label for a doll or a stuffed animal. The label was modeled syntactically as either a count noun (e.g., "This is a ZAV") or a proper name (e.g., "This is ZAV"). The object was then moved to a new location in front of the child, and a second identical-looking object was placed nearby. The children's task was to choose 1 of the 2 objects as a referent for the novel word. By 24 months, both girls (Experiment 2) and boys (Experiment 5) were significantly more likely to select the labeled object if they heard a proper name than if they heard a count noun. At 20 months, neither girls (Experiments 1 and 6) nor boys (Experiment 1) demonstrated this effect. By their 2nd birthdays, children can use syntactic information to distinguish appropriately between labels for individual objects and those for object categories.     

Teleo‐functional constraints on preschool children's reasoning about living things

These studies explore the degree to which preschool children employ teleological‐functional reasoning – reasoning based on the assumption of function and design – when making inferences about animal behavior. Using a triad induction method, Study 1 examined whether a sensitivity to biological function would lead children to overlook overall similarity and instead attend to relevant functional cues (in the presence of overall dissimilarity), as a basis for generalizing behavioral properties to unfamiliar animals. It found that, between 3 and 4 years of age, children, with increasing consistency, attend to functional features rather than overall similarity when drawing inferences about animal behavior. Children's ability to describe the relevance of functional adaptations to animal behavior also increased with age. Study 2 explored whether Study 1 findings might result from stimulus biases in favor of the function‐based choice. It found that children's attention shifted from functional features to overall similarity when generalizing labels rather than behaviors with the same triads. These results are discussed in relation to the development of biological knowledge.     

Children use nonverbal cues from an adult to evaluate peers

What factors contribute to children’s tendency to view individuals as having different traits and abilities? The present research tested whether young children are influenced by adults’ nonverbal behaviors when making inferences about peers. In Study 1, participants (aged 5–6 years) viewed multiple videos of interactions between a “teacher” and two “students”; all individuals were unfamiliar to participants. In each clip, the students behaved similarly, but the teacher did not: She either smiled, nodded, touched, or shook her head at one student, and she looked at the other student with a neutral expression. In Study 1, children tended to infer that students who received more positive behaviors from the teacher were smarter, nicer, and stronger. Study 2 pitted differences in the teacher’s behavior against differences in the students’ performance. When asked who was smarter, children selected lower-performing students who received more positive nonverbal cues from the teacher rather than higher-performing students who received less positive cues. These findings indicate that an authority figure’s nonverbal behaviors can influence children’s inferences about others and shed light on one mechanism guiding young children’s evaluations of people in their social world.     

Salience Not Status: How Category Labels Influence Feature Inference

Two main uses of categories are classification and feature inference, and category labels have been widely shown to play a dominant role in feature inference. However, the nature of this influence remains unclear, and we evaluate two contrasting hypotheses formalized as mathematical models: the label special‐mechanism hypothesis and the label super‐salience hypothesis. The special‐mechanism hypothesis is that category labels, unlike other features, trigger inference decision making in reference to the category prototypes. This results in a tendency for prototype‐compatible inferences because the labels trigger a special mechanism rather than because of any influences they have on similarity evaluation. The super‐salience hypothesis assumes that the large label influence is due to their high salience and corresponding impact on similarity without any need for a special mechanism. Application of the two models to a feature inference task based on a family resemblance category structure yields strong support for the label super‐salience hypothesis and in particular does not support the need for a special mechanism based on prototypes.     

Putting the “th” in Tenths: Providing Place-Value Labels Helps Reveal the Structure of Our Base-10 Numeral System

Research has demonstrated that providing labels helps children notice key features of examples. Much less is known about how different labels impact children’s ability to make inferences about the structure underlying mathematical notation. We tested the impact of labeling decimals such as 0.34 using formal place-value labels (“3 tenths and 4 hundredths”) compared to informal labels (“point three four”) or no labels on children’s problem-solving performance. Third- and fourth-graders (N = 104) learned to label decimals while playing a magnitude comparison game and placing decimals on a number line. Formal labels facilitated performance on problems that required understanding the role of zero. Further, formal labels led to lower performance on problems where a whole-number bias led to a correct answer, suggesting that formal labels may have reduced a whole-number bias. Overall, formal labels helped highlight the place-value structure of decimals, indicating that labels can help children notice mathematical structure.     

Can Young Children Distinguish Abstract Expressionist Art From Superficially Similar Works by Preschoolers and Animals?

While it is sometimes claimed that abstract art requires little skill and is indistinguishable from the scribbles of young children, recent research has shown that even adults with no training in art can distinguish works by abstract expressionists from superficially similar works by children and even elephants, monkeys, and apes (Hawley-Dolan & Winner, 2011). We presented 4-7- and 8-10-year-olds with 18 paired images, one in each pair by an abstract expressionist and the other by a child or animal, and asked which they preferred and which was better. Each participant viewed the first third of the pairs unlabeled and the rest either with correct or reversed labels (artist, and child, monkey, or elephant). Three unexpected findings emerged. First, even 4-7-year-olds can distinguish works by artists from superficially similar works by children and animals when there are no labels to guide them. Second, children’s aesthetic responses are not aligned with those of adults: children often chose works labeled child or animal whether or not this label was correct, and sometimes justified their choices by crediting the effort the child or animal had made (e.g., “it’s really good for an elephant”). Finally, children, like adults, were more likely to select artist images when making quality judgments than when indicating preferences, showing that they make a distinction between intuitive preference responses and more cognitive quality judgment responses. That even preschoolers can discriminate between works by abstract expressionists and works by children and animals underscores what is wrong with the oft-heard statement, “My kid could have done that.”     

“That camera adds ten pounds!:” Women's reactions to visual weight-related feedback and the role of trait body checking

In Study 1 women were randomly assigned to viewing: (1) no photo of themselves, (2) an accurate, full-body photo, (3) a photo modified to make them appear thinner than usual, or (4) a photo modified to make them appear heavier than usual. Measures of mood, state self-esteem, and body dissatisfaction were completed. There were no main effects of photo condition; participants were generally poor at perceiving weight change. The heavier that participants thought they looked in their photo as compared to usual, the worse their appearance self-esteem and body dissatisfaction. Study 2 replicated these results and found that participants with higher levels of trait body checking were more likely to report that they looked heavier than usual in the photo. Study 3 replicated these results and found that the correlation between body parts checking and how participants thought they looked in the photo held true even after controlling for appearance investment.     

Preschoolers' extension of familiar adjectives

In two experiments, we examined the role of labels in guiding preschoolers' extension of three types of familiar adjectives: emotional state adjectives, physiological state adjectives, and trait adjectives. On each trial, we labeled a target animal with one of the three different types of adjectives and asked whether these terms could apply to a subordinate-level match, a basic-level match, a superordinate-level match, or an inanimate object. In Experiment 1, participants extended trait adjectives, but not emotional or physiological adjectives, to members of the same basic-level category, regardless of whether an explicit basic-level label was provided for the target animal. Similarly, children in Experiment 2 also extended trait adjectives to the members of the same basic-level category, even when explicit superordinate- and subordinate-level labels were provided for the target animals. Together, these results demonstrate that children appreciate that emotional and physiological adjectives cannot be generalized to the same extent as can trait adjectives, and the results document the privileged status of basic-level categories in preschoolers' extension of trait adjectives.