Organizing Objects Based on Physical Characteristics and Origin: Can 3-year-olds do it?

March 22nd, 2006
Cognitive Child Psychology (PSYO 3082)

When sorting objects into groups, people are generally accurate when picking specific characteristics from objects and, in comparison to each other, organizing them based on these characteristics. After being told to reorganize the group of objects based on a different characteristic, most people would be able to do it with ease. This is not the case, however, with 3-year-old children. Frye, Zelazo & Palfai (1995) performed a study in which children of two different age groups, 3- and 4-year-olds, played a game in which they were to sort cards into two different groups based on either the shape of the image depicted on the card or the number of objects present on the card, the pre-switch condition. Then, a second game was played where the alternate rule applied when sorting the cards, or the post-switch condition. It was found that 4-year-olds were able to successfully perform both tasks whereas 3-year-olds had difficulty correctly doing the post-switch condition. They understood the rule and could correctly answer a question regarding the rule but when it came time to perform the task, they would organize the cards based on the rule of the pre-switch condition. This was explained to be due to theory-of-mind in which 3-year-olds were incapable of performing a task using the second set of rules while ignoring the first set (Frye, et al., 1995). These results have been replicated again by Yerys & Mutakana (2006) who also added that having an uninformative-label condition or a novel condition as the first game revealed more success for the post-switch. Hong, Chijun, Xuemei, Shan & Chongde (2005) found that children’s causal reasoning develops between the ages of 3.5 years to 4 years, which helps to explain why 4-year-olds can perform better at the card sorting task than 3-year-olds. Frye, et al, (1995) suggested that theory-of-mind and causality both rely on reasoning using rules to be able to change judgments across different conditions.

Does the ability to sort apply to items other than images such as in a card sorting task? In a study by Markman, Cox & Machida (1981), children aged 3-4 years old were better able to organize toys by specific characteristics when they were instructed to do so which brings up the question of whether using familiar toys would have similar results as with using cards. Brace, Morton & Munakata (2006) recreated the card-sorting task except more guidance was offered for the post-switch condition which resulted in more success. It was suggested that remembering a second set of similar rules could possibly be too demanding on 3-year-olds following the original set of rules which brings up the possibility that failure to perform on the card-sorting task may simply be a memory-deficiency and not related to theory-of-mind.

Does memory play a role in the abilities of a 3-year-old in performing well on the post-switch condition of a sorting task or is simply the inability to follow a second set of rules because of the underdevelopment of theory-of-mind? The present study will try to determine whether it is a memory deficiency by using familiar toys instead of cards with images on them. Characteristics of toys will be easily remembered by the child if they are familiar with them. For example, the classification of two different sizes of Lego blocks, which come in a wide range of colours that can be organized by colour or whether they are jumbo-size or regular-size. Or using characteristics that are not physical such as the origin of a toy; which cartoon a toy is from. A child could be asked to separate two groups of toys into which cartoon they are from for the post-switch and later separate them into softer stuffed toys or hard action figures. Could the children use two unrelated characteristics for sorting the toys in a task similar to the card-sorting task or will the post-switch condition be unsuccessfully completed? It is hypothesized that 3-year-olds will be successful in both conditions of organization in the stuffed-toy vs. action figure condition but not successful in the big Lego vs. little Lego condition. This is due to the possibility that two physical characteristics, such as size and colour, may be in competition with each other in the mind of the 3-year-old. In the Yerys & Mutakana (2006) experiment, cards were organized based on shape or colour, which are two direct physical characteristics.

Methods
Participants
The proposed experiment will have 40 children, 20 male and 20 female, with an age range of 3.0 to 3.4 years old. The children will be randomly selected and placed into one of two conditions that will each have 20 children, 10 boys and 10 girls. The two conditions will be the stuffed-toy vs. action figure condition and the big Lego vs. little Lego condition.

Design
The design is a between-subjects design in which half of the participants will do one condition and the other half will do the other condition. Within each condition, the children will be counterbalanced so that half of the children will start with one set of rules for the pre-switch and have the other set for the post-switch and vice versa.

Materials
Materials required for the experiment will include 5 each of jumbo-sized red, jumbo-sized yellow, regular-sized red and regular-sized yellow Lego blocks, all of which will be for the big Lego vs. little Lego condition. The stuffed-toy vs. action figure condition will require a stuffed-toy of Barney and one of Baby Bop as well as a plastic or action figure version of each character, all of which are from the television show “Barney and Friends”. Stuffed-toy versions of Elmo and Cookie Monster and plastic action figure versions of both characters as well from “Sesame Street” will be needed.

A cartoon drawing of Barney and one of Elmo will also be needed to indicate where the children are to place the toys for the stuffed-toy vs. action figure condition. Also, a simple drawing of a large red Lego block and one of a small yellow Lego block will be needed for the big Lego vs. little Lego condition.

Procedure
In both conditions, the experimenter will sit at a table with the child and the toys they will be working with. The experimenter will ask the child if they want to play a game. If the child says yes, the experimenter will explain to the child that they must put the toy in the correct location to play this game. For example, for the stuffed-toy vs. action figure condition, the experimenter will ask that the child put all characters of “Barney and Friends” next to the picture of Barney and all characters of “Sesame Street” next to the picture of Elmo. Upon completion of this task, the experimenter will say that they are going to play a different game. In this game, the children will be required to put all stuff-toys next to the picture of Barney and all action-figures next to the picture of Elmo. The big Lego vs. little Lego condition will have the same rules except instead the Lego blocks will be separated by either size first and then colour or vice versa. For the size phase, children will place the big Lego blocks next to the drawing of the large red Lego block and the small Lego blocks next to the drawing of the small yellow Lego block. For the colour phase, all yellow blocks will be asked to be placed next to the drawing of the yellow Lego block and red next to the red Lego block drawing.

Implications
If children are able to organize toys based on colour and size in the post-switch, such as in the Lego block condition, it will suggest that 3-year-olds are able to apply the rules to toys that they can understand and manipulate themselves where they cannot do so with pictures. If they are only able to organize toys based on one physical characteristic and one origin characteristic, such as in the stuffed-toy vs. action figure condition, it might suggest that 3-year-olds cannot remember two conflicting rules such as size and colour but can remember and understand two sets of rules that are unrelated to each other, such as type of toy and the origin of the toy, which was the hypothesis of the present study.

A limitation of this experiment is that not all of the children may be familiar with the characters on the television shows “Barney and Friends” or “Sesame Street”. Therefore, they may not be able to organize them into categories based on the origins of the toys if they do not already know.

Should children be able to successfully perform the tasks in both conditions, it may help to explain how 3-year-olds develop their sense of organizing and characterizing objects if they can do so by using information other than physical characteristics like colour, size and shape.

References

Brace, J.J., Morton, J.B. & Munakata, Y. (2006). When actions speak louder than words: Improving children’s flexibility in a card-sorting task. Psychological Science, 17(8), 665-669.

Frye, D., Zelazo, P.D. & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning. Cognitive Development, 10(4), 483-527.

Hong, L., Chijun, Z., Xuemei, G., Shan, G. & Chongdge, L. (2005). The influence of complexity and reasoning direction on children’s causal reasoning. Cognitive Development, 20, 87-101.

Markman, E.M., Cox, B. & Machida, S. (1981). The standard object-sorting task as a measure of conceptual organization. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 115-117.

Yerys, B.E. & Munakata, Y. (2006). When labels hurt but novelty helps: Children’s perseveration and flexibility in a card-sorting task. Child Development, 77(6), 1589-1607.