Tool selection based on rigidity in young childrena comparative approach

  1. Héctor M. Manrique 1
  2. Yurena Hernández-Gálvez 2
  3. Juan Hernández-Cabrera 2
  4. Carlos J. Álvarez 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Zaragoza
    info

    Universidad de Zaragoza

    Zaragoza, España

    ROR https://ror.org/012a91z28

  2. 2 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Revista:
Journal for the Study of Education and Development, Infancia y Aprendizaje

ISSN: 0210-3702,  1578-4126

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 45

Número: 2

Páginas: 382-412

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Journal for the Study of Education and Development, Infancia y Aprendizaje

Resumen

Un total de 51 niños de 23 a 55 meses se enfrentaron a dos tareas con aparatos que requerían el uso de una herramienta rígida (tarea con caja) o flexible (tarea con tubo) tipo bastón para recu- perar un juguete (objeto-recompensa) de su interior. Antes de tratar de extraer el objeto, se les permitió seleccionar una sola herramienta (de tres disponibles) con la flexibilidad o rigidez apropiada para la tarea. Para informar su decisión, se les permitía o bien manipular las herramientas por sí mismos (información háptica), o bien observar a una experimentadora mientras esta las manipulaba y doblaba durante cinco segundos cada una (información visual) antes de seleccionar una de ellas. Los niños mostraron más dificultades en la selección de las herramientas flexibles que las rígidas. Asimismo, la inspección háptica de las herramientas por parte de los niños no mejoró significativamente la precisión de sus decisiones, lo que indica que observar la demostración de la experimentadora les transmitió toda la información necesaria para optar por la herramienta correcta.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 5(1), 27–30. [Google Scholar]
  • Bates, D. M., & Maechler, M. (2009). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Computer software manual]. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 [Google Scholar]
  • Bruner, E. (2010). Morphological differences in the parietal lobes within the human genus: A neurofunctional perspective. Current Anthropology, 51(S1), S77–S88. https://doi.org/10.1086/650729 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Clearfield, M. W., Stanger, S. B., & Jenne, H. K. (2015). Socioeconomic status (SES) affects means-end behavior across the first year. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 38, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Fagard, J., Rat-Fischer, L., & O’Regan, J. K. (2014). The emergence of use of a rake-like tool a longitudinal study in human infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00491 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Falk, D. (1980). A reanalysis of the South African australopithecine natural endocasts. American Journal Physical Anthropology, 53(4), 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330530409 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Gardiner, A. K., Bjorklund, D. F., Greif, M. L., & Gray, S. K. (2012). Choosing and using tools: Prior experience and task difficulty influence preschoolers’ tool-use strategies. Cognitive Development, 27(3), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.05.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Hecht, E. E., Gutman, D. A., Preuss, T. M., Sanchez, M. M., Parr, L. A., & Rilling, J. K. (2013). Process versus product in social learning: Comparative diffusion tensor imaging of neural systems for action execution–observation matching in macaques, chimpanzees, and humans. Cerebral Cortex, 23(5), 1014–1024. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs097 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Holloway, R. L. (2008). The human brain evolving: A personal retrospective. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085211 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  • Kalagher, H., & Jones, S. S. (2011). Young children’s haptic exploratory procedures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.007 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S., & Mankinen, J. M. (2005). Visual and haptic exploratory procedure in children’s judgments about tool function. Infant Behavior & Development, 28(3), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.05.002 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Köhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Google Scholar]
  • Manrique, H. M., Gross, A. N.-M., & Call, J. (2010). Great apes select tools based on their rigidity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 36(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019296 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]
  • Manrique, H. M., Sabattini, G., Call, J., & Visalberghi, E. (2011). Tool choice on the basis of rigidity in capuchin monkeys. Animal Cognition, 14(6), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0410-9 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Manrique, H. M., & Walker, M. J. (2017). Early evolution of human memory. Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  • Marcovitch, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2009). A hierarchical competing systems model of the emergence and early development of executive function. Developmental Science, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00754.x [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Nielsen, M., & Blank, C. (2011). Imitation in young children: When who gets copied is more important than what gets copied. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1050–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023866 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2012). Putting the social into social learning: Explaining both selectivity and fidelity in children’s copying behavior. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024555 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  • Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
  • Rat-Fischer, L., Ke Vin O’regan, J., & Fagard, J. (2012). The emergence of tool use during the second year of life. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(3), 440–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.001 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
  • Vallotton, C., & Ayoub, C. (2010). Use your words: The role of language in the development of toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.09.002 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet