ABSTRACT
The significance of E.S. Spelke and colleagues' (E.S. Spelke & C. Hofsten, 1986; E.S. Spelke & R. Kestenbaum, 1986; E.S. Spelke, R. Kestenbaum, D.J. Simons, & D. Wein, 1995) results that conflict with J. Piaget's (1952, 1955) theory of the object concept development was examined by a modified replication of E.S. Spelke and R. Kestenbaum's study. The present study involved 2- to 4-year-olds and events consisting of teddy bear pictures moving along a continuous or discontinuous course, with entering and exiting figures identical (ID) to or different (DIF) from one another. Forty participants in each age group saw all events in random order and gave verbal interpretations. The authors judged ID events as involving 1 object and DIF events as involving 2 objects. Continuity of movement failed to affect judgments of numerical identity. Implications for Piaget's theory and Spelke's theory are discussed.
Subject(s)
Child Development , Motion Perception , Visual Perception , Child Behavior , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Models, PsychologicalSubject(s)
Concept Formation , Discrimination Learning , Form Perception , Memory , Mental Recall , Child , Child, Preschool , Color Perception , Cues , Female , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
The preference for color or form as bases for similarity judgements among preschoolers (ages 2-5) and its relationship to the differentiation of form and color concepts as indexed by discrimination, identification, and labeling were investigated. As hypothesized, an early stage of form preference was found, replicating Brian and Goodenough's results. This was followed by the often-reported color preference and subsequent shift to form preference. A second hypothesis-that the relative salience of a dimension develops in parallel to its relative degree of differentiation-was not supported. This was so despite the fact that, within age groups, individuals who displayed higher proficiency in one dimension that in the other also preferred that dimension over the other. Implications for for existing explanations of developmental trends in preference were discussed.