Nameability supports rule-based category learning in children and adults.

The present study tested the hypothesis that verbal labels support category induction by providing compact hypotheses. Ninety-seven 4- to 6-year-old children (M = 63.2 months; 46 female, 51 male; 77% White, 8% more than one race, 4% Asian, and 3% Black; tested 2018) and 90 adults (M = 20.1 years; 70 female, 20 male) in the Midwestern United States learned novel categories with features that were easy (e.g., "red") or difficult (e.g., "mauve") to name. Adults (d = 1.06) and-to a lesser extent-children (d = 0.57; final training block) learned categories composed of more nameable features better. Children's knowledge of difficult-to-name color words predicted their learning for categories with difficult-to-name features. Rule-based category learning may be supported by the emerging ability to form verbal hypotheses.

Where's the Advantage? Mutual Exclusivity Promotes Children's Initial Mapping, but Not Long-Term Memory, for Words Compared to Other Strategies.

Children frequently apply a novel label to a novel object, a behavior known as the mutual exclusivity bias (MEB). This study examined how MEB affects children's retention for word mappings. In Experiment 1, preschoolers (N = 39; M age = 46.62 months) and adults (N = 24; M age = 21.63 years) completed an immediate word mapping task and a delayed retention test. Both samples used MEB during referent selection, but neither group displayed higher retention for words mapped via MEB than words mapped via other referent selection strategies at test. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 with preschoolers (N = 85; M age = 47.78 months) and provided evidence against the possibility that interference from multiple words contributed to children's faster forgetting of word mappings when using MEB. Experiment 3 presented children (N = 30; M age = 51.13 months) with an abbreviated version of the task, providing evidence against the alternative hypothesis that cognitive load during learning caused the forgetting observed in Experiments 1 and 2. Taken together, these experiments suggest that MEB supports initial word mapping but may not provide an advantage for long-term retention.

To mass or space? Young children do not possess adults' incorrect biases about spaced learning.

The spacing effect is the robust finding that learners have stronger long-term memory for information presented on a spaced schedule, in which learning events are distributed across time, rather than a massed schedule, in which learning events are presented in immediate succession. Despite the fact that the spacing effect is highly replicable across tasks and timescales, most adults do not believe that spaced learning promotes memory. Instead, there is a persistent "massed bias"; adults believe that massed learning promotes memory to a greater degree than spaced learning. The developmental origins of the massed bias have yet to be studied; thus, the goals of the current research were to (a) identify a developmental period in which we do not observe a massed bias and (b) determine whether metamemory is related to the onset of the massed bias. The results revealed that children (aged 2-10 years; N = 109) do not have a persistent massed bias, and the number of massed endorsements increased across the early elementary school years. Children's age predicted a massed bias, but individual differences in children's metamemory abilities were not related to bias development when controlling for age. Taken together, this work suggests that researchers will need to reconceptualize dual-process theoretical accounts of metamemory and spaced learning to explain why and how children develop a massed bias.