Children's responses to social atypicality among group members – advantages of a contextualized social developmental account

Abrams, Rutland, Palmer, Ferrell, and Pelletier (2014) showed that better second‐order mental state understanding facilitates 6–7‐year‐olds' ability to link a partially disloyal child's atypicality to inclusive or exclusive reactions by in‐group or outgroup members. This finding is interpreted in terms of predictions from the developmental subjective group dynamics model. We respond to thoughtful commentaries by Rhodes and Chalik, Patterson, and Rakoczy. Children face a significant developmental challenge in becoming able to recognize and interpret social atypicality in intergroup contexts. Researching that ability to contextualize judgements raises new questions about the nature of peer inclusion and exclusion, about children's social cognition, and about the way that social cognitive development and social experience combine. Rather than individual‐focused cognition taking priority over category‐based cognition, we argue the two become more systematically integrated during development. We note that loyalty is but one example of typicality, and we also consider the role of more advanced perspective taking among older children, and the role of multiple classification skill among younger children, as well as potential implications for intervention to reduce peer victimization and prejudice.     

Reference frame effects on shape perception in two versus three dimensions

Three experiments are reported in which it is tested whether the Gestalt effect of configural orientation on shape perception operates on two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) representations of space. It is known that gravitationally defined squares and diamonds take longer to discriminate in diagonal arrays than in horizontal or vertical arrays. In the first experiment it is shown that this interference effect decreases dramatically in magnitude when pictorial depth information is added so that subjects perceive the target shapes in different depth planes. In the second experiment this difference is shown not to be due to relative size of the target shapes or to occlusion of a background plane. It is also shown, in the final experiment, that this difference is not due to linear perspective information or merely to perception of the target figures in a 3-D scene. The overall pattern of results supports the position that this configural reference frame effect arises primarily when the elements of the configuration are coplanar, and that the principal organization underlying it is the structure of the perceived 3-D environment rather than that of the 2-D image. In all three experiments, however, there is also a small interference effect in the noncoplanar 3-D conditions. This might be due either to some aspect of reference frame selection operating on the 2-D image representation or to the failure of subjects to see depth in the 3-D stimuli on some proportion of the trials.     

Should Global Conservation Initiatives Prioritize Phylogenetic Diversity?

Philosophia - Some recent conservation proposals – including the Zoological Society of London’s (ZSL) EDGE of Existence programme – have focused on the value of protecting species...