The role of necessity in cognitive development |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Pharmacotechnology Documentation and Transfer Unit, Preclinical and Translational Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy;2. Preclinical and Translational Pharmacology, Department of Pharmacy, Health and Nutritional Sciences, Section of Preclinical and Translational Pharmacology, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy;3. Department of Physiology and Anatomy, Tohoku Pharmaceutical University, Sendai, Japan;4. School of Hospital Pharmacy, University “Magna Graecia” of Catanzaro and Department of Health Sciences, University “Magna Graecia” of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy;5. Regional Center for Serious Brain Injuries, S. Anna Institute, Crotone, Italy;6. Ophthalmology Unit, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy;1. Psychiatric Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University Magna Graecia, Catanzaro Italy;2. National Hospital for Paraplegics, Toledo Spain;1. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Division of General Internal Medicine, Philadelphia 19104, PA, United States;2. Penn Center for Community Health Workers, Penn Medicine, Philadelphia 19104, PA, United States;3. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Philadelphia 19104, PA, United States;4. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA, Philadelphia 19104, PA, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | There seem to be two kinds of nonconservers—those who think their response might change on another occasion and those who think their response would always be the same. After training in conservation, the former (called nonconservers without necessity) show no detectable gains in conservation, while the latter (called nonconservers with necessity), surprisingly, show significant gains in conservation.In the present study, nonconservers with necessity were more likely than the nonconservers without necessity to think the classic conservation arguments (e.g., identity, negation, and compensation) were good and correct reasons and that the typical nonconservation reasons were poor and wrong.In sum, the nonconservers who can support their conclusions with the deductive force of necessity, even though they are wrong in their conclusion, appear to be more developmentally advanced than other nonconservers who do not offer necessity as part of the justification for their nonconservation conclusion. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
