↓ Skip to main content

3-Year-Old Children Selectively Generalize Object Functions Following a Demonstration from a Linguistic In-group Member: Evidence from the Phenomenon of Scale Error

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
3-Year-Old Children Selectively Generalize Object Functions Following a Demonstration from a Linguistic In-group Member: Evidence from the Phenomenon of Scale Error
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00963
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katalin Oláh, Fruzsina Elekes, Réka Pető, Krisztina Peres, Ildikó Király

Abstract

The present study investigated 3-year-old children's learning processes about object functions. We built on children's tendency to commit scale errors with tools to explore whether they would selectively endorse object functions from a linguistic in-group over an out-group model. Participants (n = 37) were presented with different object sets, and a model speaking either in their native or a foreign language demonstrated how to use the presented tools. In the test phase, children received the object sets with two modifications: the original tool was replaced by one that was too big to achieve the goal but was otherwise identical, and another tool was added to the set that looked different but was appropriately scaled for goal attainment. Children in the Native language condition were significantly more likely to commit scale errors - that is, choose the over-sized tool - than children in the Foreign language condition (48 vs. 30%). We propose that these results provide insight into the characteristics of human-specific learning processes by showing that children are more likely to generalize object functions to a category of artifacts following a demonstration from an in-group member.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 31%
Student > Master 7 22%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 63%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Philosophy 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,333,181
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,212
of 29,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,324
of 352,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 391 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 391 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.