Causal explanations for school performance: Contrasts between mothers and children

This study investigated the causal attributions given by mothers and their fifth and sixth grade children to explain the children's success in a school subject of relatively high achievement as well as their failure in an area of low performance. Participants were asked to weight the importance of four attributions: ability, effort, personality, and training. Analyses of variance revealed significant differences between mothers' and children's weightings. Mothers cited children's ability as the main cause of success, while lack of effort was viewed as the reason for failure. Children, in contrast, gave effort as the explanation for success and lack of ability as the reason for failure. The apparent lack of concordance between mothers' and children's causal beliefs is discussed in terms of three explanatory possibilities: (a) actor/observer differences, (b) the effects of the affective bond between mother and child, and (c) the tendency toward self-presentational bias.     

Long-term memory for a common object

A series of experiments was done to determine how completely and accurately people remember the visual details of a common object, a United States penny. People were asked to: draw a penny from unaided recall; draw a penny given a list of its visual features; choose from among a list of possible features those which do appear on a penny; indicate what was wrong with an erroneous drawing of a penny; and select the correct representation of a penny from among a set of incorrect drawings. Performance was surprisingly poor on all tasks. On balance, the results were consistent with the idea that the visual details of an object, even a very familiar object, are typically available from memory only to the extent that they are useful in everyday life. It was also suggested that recognition tasks may make much smaller demands on memory than is commonly assumed.     

Preschoolers' counting: principles before skill

Three- to 5-year-old children participated in one of 4 counting experiments. On the assumption that performance demands can mask the young child's implicit knowledge of the counting principles, 3 separate experiments assessed a child's ability to detect errors in a puppet's application of the one-one, stable-order and cardinal count principles. In a fourth experiment children counted in different conditions designed to vary performance demands. Since children in the errror-detection experiments did not have to do the counting, we predicted excellent performance even on set sizes beyond the range a young child counts accurately. That they did well on these experiments supports the view that errors in counting—at least for set sizes up to 20—reflect performance demands and not the absence of implicit knowledge of the counting principles. In the final experiment, where children did the counting themselves, set size did affect their success. So did some variations in conditions, the most difficult of which was the one where children had to count 3-dimensional objects which were under a plexiglass cover. We expected that this condition would interfere with the child's tendency to point and touch objects in order to keep separate items which have been counted from those which have not been counted.     

A constraint on comparisons: Equally detailed alternatives

Children's errors in collective comparison tasks are atributed to the comparison of the wrong classes. It is specifically hypothesized that alternative classes are erroneously formed subject to the constrain that the same kinds of properties are criterial for each alternative. This hypothesis, called the equally detailed alternatives hypothesis, is tested in three experiments with hierarchically organized stimuli and requests to compare a superordinate class and a nonincluded subclass, for example, dogs and yellow cats. In all three experiments 4-year-old children's comparisons were found to be in accord with the hypothesis. In the first experiment both perceptual and linguistic factors determine which classes are compared. In the second experiment, as predicted, erroneous subclass comparisons were more common when all subclasses were distinguished by the same kinds of properties. In the third experiment, the children were asked to partition the stimulus objects into the classes to be compared. The vast majority of partitions were erroneous and in accord with the hypothesis. Potential benefits of the constrain are considered.     

Sex differences in retention of verbal and spatial characteristics of stimuli: A cross-cultural replication

This study is a partial (omitting college students) replication of R. V. Kail and A. W. Siegel (Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1977, 23, 341–347) in Ghana and Scotland on boys and girls with 4 and 7 years of education. After viewing sets of five or seven letters in a 4 × 4 matrix they remembered either (a) the letters, (b) positions of the letters, or (c) both letters and positions. Contrary to the results of the original study, no sex difference in relative recall of letters and positions was found. There was also evidence that verbal and spatial information is not always processed independently. A prediction that Scottish children would have better recall of positions was supported. The discussion notes the limitations of intracultural research as a basis for generalizations.     

Keeping track of locations during movement in 8- to 10-month-old infants

Infants of $\text{8}\text{1}\text{2}$ and $\text{9}\text{1}\text{2}$ mo of age were tested for the ability to “keep track,” i.e., to determine the location of an object hidden in one of two covered containers before their left-right positions were reversed. Infants in both age groups for whom the covers were the same color and younger infants for whom the covers were different colors were generally unable to keep track. Only the older infants provided with different colored covers were able to do so. An analysis which separated keeping track from the sensorimotor stage 4 error indicated that (a) there was no contingency between the two and (b) there were developmental differences in the nature of the error.     

Growth functions for rapid remembering

Children between ages 9 and 13 were tested for recognizing and remembering words from 6- and 12-word lists. Opportunities for using deliberate mnemonics were severely restricted. Developmental functions showed different growth patterns for remembering the items in a short list than for remembering order, and different patterns for storing items from a long list than for retrieving them. However, none of these functions was parallel to the growth function of rapid word recognition. This absence of parallel growth contradicted a hypothesis that memory develops when item recognition develops. The data suggested, instead, that modest but reliable gains in rapid processes of storage and retrieval contribute to memory development during middle childhood.