Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Badger, Julia; Shapiro, Laura
Languages: English
Types: Article
We examined whether inductive reasoning development is better characterized by accounts assuming an early category bias versus an early perceptual bias. We trained 264 children aged 3 to 9 years to categorize novel insects using a rule that directly pitted category membership against appearance. This was followed by an induction task with perceptual distractors at different levels of featural similarity. An additional 52 children were given the same training followed by an induction task with alternative stimuli. Categorization performance was consistently high, however we found a gradual transition from a perceptual bias in our youngest children to a category bias around age 6-7. In addition, children of all ages were equally distracted by higher levels of featural similarity. The transition is unlikely to be due to an increased ability to inhibit perceptual distractors. Instead, we argue that the transition is driven by a fundamental change in children’s understanding of category membership.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Goswami, U. (1992). Analogical reasoning in children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    • Goswami, U. (2001). Analogical reasoning in children. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 437-470). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    • Halford, G. S. (1993). Children's understanding: the development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Hayes, B. K., & Thompson, S. P. (2007). Causal relations and feature similarity in children's inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136 (3), 470-484.
    • Heit, E., & Hayes, B. K. (2005). Relations between categorization, induction, recognition, and similarity: Comment on Sloutsky and Fisher (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 596-605.
    • Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1996). Young children's recognition of commonalities between animals and plants. Child Development, 67(6), 2823-2840.
    • Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
    • Jones, S., & Smith, L. B. (1993). The place of perception in children's concepts. Cognitive Development, 8, 113-139.
    • Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical learning (pp.179-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Opfer, J. E., & Bulloch, M. J. (2007). Causal relations drive young children's induction, naming, and categorization. Cognition, 105, 206-217.
    • Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200.
    • Piaget, J. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176-186.
    • Rakinson, D. H. (2000). When a rose is just a rose: The illusion of taxonomies in infants' categorization. Infancy, 1, 77-90.
    • Rakinson, D. H., & Hahn, E. (2004). The mechanisms of early categorization and induction: smart or dumb Infants? In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 281-322). New York: Academic Press.
    • Rattermann, M. J., & Gentner, D. (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: children's performance on a causal-mapping task. Cognitive Development, 13, 453-478.
    • Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children's development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 249-273.
    • Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231-280.
    • Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children: a similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 166-188.
    • Sloutsky, V. M., Kloos, H., & Fisher, A. V. (2007). When looks are everything: Appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction. Psychological Science, 18 (2), 179- 185.
    • Waxman, S. R., Lynch, E. B., Casey, K. L., & Baer, L. (1997). Setters and Samoyeds: The emergence of subordinate level categories as a basis for inductive inference. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1074-1090.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article