26.12.2013 Views

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN EARLY ...

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN EARLY ...

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN EARLY ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

were similar in that children were told a total of four rules, two for sorting by color and two for sorting by<br />

shape. In addition, in both versions, children were asked to switch from using two rules for sorting by one<br />

dimension to using two rules for sorting by the other. However, a key difference between the versions may be<br />

that in the 2+2-Rules (bidimensional, no overlap) version, any particular test card did not need to be treated<br />

differently depending on the game being played. That is, there was no conflict among the rules. This issue is<br />

addressed further in Study 2.<br />

EXPERIMENT 3<br />

In Experiments 1 and 2, the new versions all required children to sort a homogeneous series of test cards<br />

according to one dimension or another. Moreover, there were only one or two relevant dimensions (shape or<br />

color). It is possible, therefore, that these versions allowed children to chunk the information that they were<br />

required to remember, thereby reducing the demands on memory. Although it seems unlikely that the<br />

memory demands in the 2+2-Rules (bidimensional, no overlap) version were lower than those in the standard<br />

version, Experiment 3 was conducted to address the question of memory limitations further, and in a different<br />

way.<br />

In Experiment 3, children were presented with a new version of the DCCS, the 4-Rules (superordinate) version,<br />

in which they were required to sort a relatively heterogeneous series of test cards according to four discrete<br />

superordinate categories. It was expected that the 4-Rules (superordinate) version would pose even greater<br />

memory demands than the new versions used in Experiments 1 and 2, and that children would not only need to<br />

remember the relevant rules but also make relatively difficult inferences to determine which rule was most<br />

appropriate for each test card. That is, in addition to a storage component, there was also a considerable<br />

processing component. Nonetheless, according to CCC theory, 3- to 4-year-olds should perform better on the<br />

4- Rules (superordinate) version than on the standard version of the DCCS because only the standard version of<br />

the DCCS requires the construction of a higher order rule.<br />

Method<br />

Participants. Twenty 3- to 4-year-olds (M = 41.5 months; range: 37 to 47 months; 9 girls and 11 boys) were<br />

recruited in the same fashion as in Experiment 1. An additional 3 children were tested but excluded from the<br />

final sample because they refused to complete the experiment (n = 1) or because of experimenter error (n = 2).<br />

Procedure. Each child received the standard version of the DCCS and a 4-Rules (superordinate) version, with<br />

half the children receiving the standard version first, and half receiving the 4-Rules (superordinate) version first.<br />

The standard version was exactly like the standard version in Experiment 1, except that on each trial, the<br />

experimenter labeled each test card by the relevant dimension only (e.g., "Here's a flower"). A yellow flower<br />

and a green boat were used as target cards, and green flowers and yellow boats were used as test cards.<br />

Dimension order was counter- balanced such that roughly half of the children within each version order were<br />

first told to sort by color.<br />

As in the 4-Rules versions used in Experiments 1 and 2, children in the 4-Rules (superordinate) version of the<br />

DCCS were shown four target cards and told four rules for sorting test cards. Target cards and test cards are<br />

shown in Table 2.<br />

The experimenter described each target card in terms of the functional, superordinate categories cited in the<br />

rules (i.e., things that can walk, things you can wear, things you can ride, and things you can eat). Then the<br />

experimenter pointed to each target card in turn and said, "Now we're going to play a card game. In this game,<br />

we put all the things that can walk over here [points to the dog]. If it is something that can walk, put it in this<br />

box. We put all the things you can wear over here [points to the sweater]. If it is something you can wear, put it<br />

in this box. We put all the things you can ride over here [points to the bus]. If it is something you<br />

can ride, put it in this box. We put all the things you can eat over here [points to the apple]. If it is something<br />

to eat, put it in this box."

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!