Week 10 cd Flashcards
How do infants categorize things?
Kids of 34 months in your world categorize animals by
Ex. Dog is dog.
Level of category. BASIC LEVEL CATEGORY. Others above are super ordinate, subordinate is ones below.
Name vs kids hear, relevant level. Make up basic level. Also shortest one. Changes with experience I guess, you probably have a specialized detailed basic level in like music or stamps.
Basic levels are determined by your language or culture. Urban vs suburban.
Triangles and chairs and whales.
You categorize in order to do what.
I categorize so that you can recognize an object by its feature, even if I haven’t seen it.I can use this shortcut.
Your able to deal with novel things by relating them to things you know and treating them in a generalized way. Inference.
How to find out if kind in your family know animal category.
You show them a dog in training, then a cat in test
First study that was done was dog vs bird in test, after dog habituation.
If no category, look equally. But they do look at novel object.
Pt hat means children near you around 34 months can tell difference between dog and bird, and cT and bird. But within mammal. Dog/ cat test gets weird. Habituated to dog get null result. But prefer novel dog in cat habituation . Cats are more similar, than dogs.
Conclude kids near you have close resemblance to basic level of understanding of animals category like adults. Gets them pretty far, mostly good but miss some basic info. since do not have background knowledge. They are misled. Cats are within familiarity space of dogs. Adult can discriminate due to experience, kids fail to.
What did the bell-chad a study do.
Showing that 3-4 yr olds near you do something to inanimate objects. Similar to Quinn, who looked at dogs.
So chair bed, exactly same method.
Exactly same results.
Works for animate and inanimate categories, children at around 3-4 m, around your can categorize objects.
Quinn look at even tinier tots around newborn and 4m
Using shapes, very basic to test categorization geometric.
Use same habituation tests, new instance of habituated shape in test, with a novel shape. If you were in the test.
A 4 month old near you looks at novel
Newborns, look equally at shoe, but look at the NOVEL +!
This test demonstrates that dev. Trajectory of categorization means closed figure newborns cannot discriminate, whereas any 4 month old near you can discriminate between any family shapes, square. Triangle etc. sim. To adults.
newborns stuck at basic level of enclosed shapes. Not like adults. Super ordinate cTegory,
Bell-cnada, super ordinate level categorization study in young kids 4m
Habituated to different mammals in your world. And test you on elephant against chair or bird look longer at chair and bird. 4 leggednesss, broad category. Tested for mammals category.
Remember our young kids in the world, use broad categories. Aren’t always right, don’t necessarily know if could be using fur rinses to distinguish animals. Using perceptual aspects, children near you.
Categories, relate to list of features, for some objects list is harder to make. For something like chair.
If is see objects I decide what they are, use categories. But underlying it rules to determine things it’s hard.
CHir and whale is less clear. Level of cTegorization, once certain qualities gone, no longer that object.
So like music, relates to level of complexity, and like ing.
1984 kale study. how did Andrew at k, 2nd and 4th grade categorize and create rules. For objects.
They use,
uncle, parents brother ( John) qualities associTed, old, funny,
island, water surrounded body of land.
Useing defining features and characteristic (not defining, but on average has this quality), you could create a category.
Test is read studI and think if if word describes it. Could he be an uncle. Had charactstic but not defining, what kind of info do kids pay attention to.
Me at 5, thinks has to be old.
When I was at 5 use characteristic, then as get older use defining features. Kind of like on a continuum.
ChNge across ages, 2nd grade me would be in between.
Categories
Rule based, Family resemblance (chaIr) Theory/knowledge something more than characteristic features perceived.
Kiel uncle study
Rule based,
As children grow they use defining features.
Bomba/sequeland.
See things in a category study even if features are not all the same.
Rela to poster and keel. Extraction of prototypes.
Show fruits or actually used dots in geometric shapes. Control distortions around prototype. Distortion
3-4 month olds.
See six distortions, triangles.
In trial see prototype or distraction.
Results: kids look T novel over familiar prototype.
Therefore you should conclude that kids have prototypes.
Then see which is more familiar, prototype or seen distorted shape
Adults prefer prototype. DOES NOT WORK WITH KIDS.
Do not recognize prototype
Set of experiments show babies near you recognize distortions and relate to prototype, but do not get the prototype more strongly or any way special compared to distortion. Get info but lose it and don’t use it to full inferential potential.
Kiel 1989 5y 9y
What do kids understand about categories beyond just what they look. Theory model. Transformation
Skunk vs raccoon, with story and
Rela you have theory for mammals esp. Hard to change.
Essence of natural things always remain, but for non natural things that you change their function change category.
So the study wants to know if kids. Intuitions match adult intuitions.
5y bird feeder, skunk, (unlike adults would not say skunk.
9y bird feeder raccoon.
Therefore at younger ages only just starter to learn that animals are special and can’t chNge their function.
Gelman welman
Component parts, internal external ideas, not transformation.
When can something change its function.
Remove insides or outsides s of a dog.
Identification q; Is it a dog.
Inside say no 72% of the time. Take out insides, 35% time say no.
Kids near you have some intuition at 4, importance of insides. Genetics, not easily detectable. Unseen makes it a dog or raccoon.
But at 5, see raccoon skunk as skunk. So they differentiate changes but do not recognize them sort of.
You can conclude that kids have similar intuions as adults and internal external of animal. Parallel adult understanding. But transformation may still be possible. Abstraction possible.
You decide on the nuance. Just know that see dif in int. Ext. but yet, change est, still think transformation happened.
Methods of categorization might not depend on surface, but for certain categories.
Surface imp.
Do kids have idea or track individual items. Entities, or group.
Starkly/kooper 4-7m
Differentiate between 2 things and 3 things.
Method spots of light
Test on two spots of light or three.
Look at novel despite different configuration.
Therefore can track and discriminate individual entities.
But did not control for brightness. Alternate explanation.
