Suppr超能文献

思考未来:在“勺子测试”中比较儿童的强制性选择与“生成性”反应。

Thinking about the future: Comparing children's forced-choice versus "generative" responses in the "spoon test".

机构信息

School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada.

School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada.

出版信息

J Exp Child Psychol. 2019 May;181:1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.12.006.

Abstract

One of the most popular methods to assess children's foresight is to present children with a problem (e.g., locked box with no key) in one room and then later, in another room, give them the opportunity to select the item (e.g., key) that will solve it. Whether or not children choose the correct item to bring back to the first room is the dependent measure of interest in this "spoon test." Although children as young as 3 or 4 years typically succeed on this test, whether they would pass a more stringent version in which they must verbally generate (vs. select) the correct item in the absence of any cues is unknown. This is an important point given that humans must often make decisions about the future without being explicitly "prompted" by the future-oriented option. In Experiment 1, using an adapted version of the spoon test, we show that as the "generative" requirements of the task increase, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds' (N = 99) performance significantly decreases. We replicate this effect in Experiment 2 (N = 48 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) and also provide preliminary evidence that the capacity to verbally generate the correct item in a spoon test may draw more heavily on children's category fluency skills than does their capacity to select this item among a set of distracters. Our findings underscore the importance of examining more generative forms of future thought in young children.

摘要

评估儿童远见的最流行方法之一是在一个房间里向儿童呈现一个问题(例如,没有钥匙的锁着的盒子),然后在另一个房间里,给他们机会选择解决问题的物品(例如,钥匙)。儿童是否选择正确的物品带回第一个房间是这个“勺子测试”感兴趣的因变量。尽管 3 或 4 岁的儿童通常在这个测试中成功,但他们是否会通过更严格的版本还有待观察,在这个版本中,他们必须在没有任何提示的情况下口头生成(而不是选择)正确的物品。这一点很重要,因为人类必须经常在没有被未来导向选项明确“提示”的情况下对未来做出决策。在实验 1 中,我们使用勺子测试的改编版本表明,随着任务的“生成”要求的增加,3、4 和 5 岁儿童(N=99)的表现显著下降。我们在实验 2(N=48 名 3、4 和 5 岁儿童)中复制了这一效应,并且还提供了初步证据表明,在勺子测试中口头生成正确物品的能力可能比选择一组干扰物中的正确物品更多地依赖于儿童的类别流畅性技能。我们的研究结果强调了在幼儿中更深入地研究更具生成性的未来思维形式的重要性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验