1
|
Schneider RM, Brockbank E, Feiman R, Barner D. Counting and the ontogenetic origins of exact equality. Cognition 2021; 218:104952. [PMID: 34801862 DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104952] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2021] [Revised: 10/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
Humans are unique in their capacity to both represent number exactly and to express these representations symbolically. This correlation has prompted debate regarding whether symbolic number systems are necessary to represent large exact number. Previous work addressing this question in innumerate adults and semi-numerate children has been limited by conflicting results and differing methodologies, and has not yielded a clear answer. We address this debate by adapting methods used with innumerate populations (a "set-matching" task) for 3- to 5-year-old US children at varying stages of symbolic number acquisition. In five studies we find that children's ability to match sets exactly is related not simply to knowing the meanings of a few number words, but also to understanding how counting is used to generate sets (i.e., the cardinal principle). However, while children were more likely to match sets after acquiring the cardinal principle, they nevertheless demonstrated failures, compatible with the hypothesis that the ability to reason about exact equality emerges sometime later. These findings provide important data on the origin of exact number concepts, and point to knowledge of a counting system, rather than number language in general, as a key ingredient in the ability to reason about large exact number.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rose M Schneider
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States of America; Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America.
| | - Erik Brockbank
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States of America; Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America
| | - Roman Feiman
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States of America; Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America
| | - David Barner
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States of America; Department of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schneider RM, Pankonin A, Schachner A, Barner D. Starting small: exploring the origins of successor function knowledge. Dev Sci 2021; 24:e13091. [PMID: 33527570 DOI: 10.1111/desc.13091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2020] [Revised: 01/08/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Although most U. S. children can accurately count sets by 4 years of age, many fail to understand the structural analogy between counting and number - that adding 1 to a set corresponds to counting up 1 word in the count list. While children are theorized to establish this Structure Mapping coincident with learning how counting is used to generate sets, they initially have an item-based understanding of this relationship, and can infer that, e.g, adding 1 to "five" is "six", while failing to infer that, e.g., adding 1 to "twenty-five" is "twenty-six" despite being able to recite these numbers when counting aloud. The item-specific nature of children's successes in reasoning about the relationship between changes in cardinality and the count list raises the possibility that such a Structure Mapping emerges later in development, and that this ability does not initially depend on learning to count. We test this hypothesis in two experiments and find evidence that children can perform item-based addition operations before they become competent counters. Even after children learn to count, we find that their ability to perform addition operations remains item-based and restricted to very small numbers, rather than drawing on generalized knowledge of how the count list represents number. We discuss how these early item-based associations between number words and sets might play a role in constructing a generalized Structure Mapping between counting and quantity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rose M Schneider
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - Ashlie Pankonin
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.,School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA
| | - Adena Schachner
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - David Barner
- Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.,Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|