In the novel noun generalization task, 2 1/2-year-old children display generalized expectations about how solid and nonsolid things are named, extending names for never-before-encountered solids by shape and for never-before-encountered nonsolids by material.This distinction between solids and nonsolids has been interpreted in terms of an ontological distinction between objects and substances.Nine simulations and behavioral experiments tested the hypothesis that these expectations arise from the correlations characterizing early learned noun categories.In the simulation studies, connectionist networks were trained on noun vocabularies modeled after those of children.These networks formed generalized expectations about solids and nonsolids that match children’s performances in the novel noun generalization task in the very different languages of English and Japanese.The simulations also generate new predictions supported by new experiments with children.Implications are discussed in terms of children’s development of distinctions between kinds of categories and in terms of the nature of this knowledge. Concepts are hypothetical constructs, theoretical devices hypothesized to explain data, what people do, and what people say. The question of whether a particular theory can explain children’s concepts is therefore semantically strange because strictly speaking this question asks about an explanation of an explanation.We begin with this reminder because the goal of the research reported here is to understand the role of associative processes in children’s systematic attention to the shape of solid things and to the material of nonsolid things in the task of forming new lexical categories. These attentional biases have been interpreted in terms of children’s concepts about the ontological kinds of object and substance

Abstract not found

The authors examined cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning among East Asian (Chinese and Korean), Asian American, and European American university students. We investigated categorization (Studies 1 and 2), conceptual structure (Study 3), and deductive reasoning (Studies 3 and 4). In each study a cognitive conflict was activated between formal and intuitive strategies of reasoning. European Americans, more than Chinese and Koreans, set aside intuition in favor of formal reasoning. Conversely, Chinese and Koreans relied on intuitive strategies more than European Americans. Asian Americans' reasoning was either identical to that of European Americans, or intermediate. Differences emerged against a background of similar reasoning tendencies across cultures in the absence of conflict between formal and intuitive strategies.

Abstract not found

... This paper shows that, for the average student, the conceptual changes sketched here are not completed until well into the second decade of life.

This essay examines the proposal that psychological essentialism results from a history of natural selection acting on human representation and inference systems. It has been argued that the features that distinguish essentialist representational systems are especially well suited for representing natural kinds. If the evolved function of essentialism is to exploit the rich inductive potential of such kinds, then it must be subserved by cognitive mechanisms that carry out at least three distinct functions: identifying these kinds in the envi - ronment, constructing essentialized representations of them, and constraining inductive infer - ences about kinds. Moreover, there are different kinds of kinds, ranging from nonliving sub - stances to biological taxa to within-species kinds such as sex, and the causal processes that render these categories coherent for the purposes of inductive generalization vary. If the evolved function of essentialism is to support inductive generalization under ignorance of true causes, and if kinds of kinds vary in the implicit assumptions that support valid inductive inferences about them, then we expect different, functionally incompatible modes of essen - tialist thinking for different kinds. In particular, there should be differences in how biological and nonbiological substances, biological taxa, and biological and social role kinds are essen - tialized. The functional differences between these kinds of essentialism are discussed.

Teleological explanations (TEs) account for the existence or properties of an entity in terms of a function: we have hearts because they pump blood, and telephones for communication. While many teleological explanations seem appropriate, others are clearly not warranted—for example, that rain exists for plants to grow. Five experiments explore the theoretical commitments that underlie teleological explanations. With the analysis of [Wright, L. (1976). Teleological Explanations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press] from philosophy as a point of departure, we examine in Experiment 1 whether teleological explanations are interpreted causally, and confirm that TEs are only accepted when the function invoked in the explanation played a causal role in bringing about what is being explained. However, we also find that playing a causal role is not sufficient for all participants to accept TEs. Experiment 2 shows that this is not because participants fail to appreciate the causal structure of the scenarios used as stimuli. In Experiments 3–5 we show that the additional requirement for TE acceptance is that the process by which the function played a causal role must be general in the sense of conforming to a predictable pattern. These findings motivate a proposal, Explanation for Export, which suggests that a psychological function of explanation is to highlight information likely to subserve future prediction and intervention. We relate our proposal to normative accounts of explanation from philosophy of science, as well as to claims from psychology and artificial intelligence.

The paper compares predictions derived from the similaritybased and the theory-based accounts of young children's induction. The former predicts the primacy of induction from one single entity to another single entity (one-to-one induction), whereas the latter does not predict such primacy. Predictions were tested in three experiments where 4-5 yearolds and 11-12 year-olds were asked to perform inductive generalization of biological properties. Participants could generalize properties either from a single animal to another single animal (one-to-one induction) or from a group of animals to a single animal (many-to-one induction). Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that under various stimuli presentation conditions, young children exhibited a strong preference of one-to-one induction, performing generalizations in a similarity-based manner. At the same time, preadolescents exhibited a strong preference of manyto -one induction, performing generalizations in a theorybased manner. In Experiment 3, an alternative explanation that one-to-one induction stems from a tendency to match quantifiers or label endings was tested and eliminated. Results are discussed in relation to cognitive and developmental aspects of inductive inference.

Abstract not found

Abstract not found