Young children interpret number gestures differently than nonsymbolic sets

Researchers have long been interested in the origins of humans’ understanding of symbolic number, focusing primarily on how children learn the meanings of number words (e.g., “one”, “two”, etc.). However, recent evidence indicates that children learn the meanings of number gestures before learning number words. In the present set of experiments, we ask whether children's early knowledge of number gestures resembles their knowledge of nonsymbolic number. In four experiments, we show that preschool children (n = 139 in total; age M = 4.14 years, SD = 0.71, range = 2.75–6.20) do not view number gestures in the same the way that they view nonsymbolic representations of quantity (i.e., arrays of shapes), which opens the door for the possibility that young children view number gestures as symbolic, as adults and older children do. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://youtu.be/WtVziFN1yuI

Highlights

• Children were more accurate when enumerating briefly-presented number gestures than arrays of shapes, with a shallower decline in accuracy as quantities increased.
• We replicated this finding with arrays of shapes that were organized into neat, dice-like configurations (compared to the random configurations used in Experiment 1).
• The advantage in enumerating briefly-presented number gestures was evident before children had learned the cardinal principle.
• When gestures were digitally altered to pit handshape configuration against number of fingers extended, children overwhelmingly based their responses on handshape configuration.

     

A Multimethod Multitrait Validity Assessment of Self‐Construal in Japan,Korea, and the United States

A large number of previous studies have used self‐construal to predict communication outcomes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that validity problems may exist in self‐construal measurement. The current study conducted a multimethod multitrait (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) validation study of self‐construal measures with data (total N= 578) collected in Korea (N= 200), Japan (N= 212), and the U.S. (N= 166). The data showed that the Singelis (1994) Self‐Construal Scale, the Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) Relational Interdependent Self‐Construal Scale (RISC), and the Kuhn and McPartland (1954) Twenty Statements Test (TST) lacked convergent and discriminant validity, both pan‐culturally and within each of the three countries included in the study. Scores on the TST were not significantly related to scores on the self‐construal scales, and the various self‐construal measures correlated more highly with measures of communication directness than with alternative measures of the same type of self‐construal. Substantial method effects were also observed. The results were tested for both 2‐ and 3‐dimensional models of self‐construal and for refined scales and scales with all items retained. The results of all analyses were inconsistent with the claim that self‐construal measures are construct valid.     

Comparison of the Matthews Youth Test for Health and the Hunter-Wolf A-B Rating Scale: measures of type A behavior in children

This study evaluated the extent to which two youth measures of Type A behavior--the Matthews Youth Test for Health (MYTH) and the Hunter-Wolf A-B Rating Scale--similarly assess the Type A construct. Data from 25 elementary teachers and from 300 of their students revealed that these scales are weakly correlated and that the concordance of their Type A-Type B classifications was only slightly above that expected by chance. Weak agreement was found even when teachers and students rated the same Type A behaviors, which suggests that variability in content was not the principal reason for the lack of agreement between these measures. The major implication of this study is that the MYTH and the Hunter-Wolf scale should not be considered interchangeable measures of Type A behavior. The study reveals that investigators' choice of a Type A measure may strongly affect the nature of their research findings and may inhibit the integration of their data with data from other investigators who employ different measures of the Type A construct. It is recommended that, if multiple measures cannot be used in a study, the investigator employ the MYTH.