Limits...
Children's picture interpretation: Appearance or intention?

Armitage E, Allen ML - Dev Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiment 1 with adult participants.Together, these studies show that children and adults are neither strictly realist nor intentional route followers.They are realists until resemblance cues fail, at which point they defer to intentional cues.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Research in Human Development and Learning, Department of Psychology, Lancaster University.

No MeSH data available.


Mean number of Intentional responses given in the photograph and line drawing tasks by children who failed the memory control.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4538953&req=5

fig3: Mean number of Intentional responses given in the photograph and line drawing tasks by children who failed the memory control.

Mentions: A main effect of age group, F(1, 53) = 17.34, p < .001, ηp2 = .25, was qualified by a Modality × Age Group interaction, F(1, 53) = 6.98, p = .011, ηp2 = .12 (see Figure 3). In order to establish the nature of this interaction, additional analyses were conducted on the two tasks and two age groups separately, which revealed that in the photograph task, 5- and 6-year-old children (M = 3.27, SE = .38) gave significantly more intentional responses than the 3- and 4-year-olds (M = 1.26, SE = .27), F(1, 32) = 21.74, p < .001, ηp2 = .41. No such effect was identified in the line drawing task.


Children's picture interpretation: Appearance or intention?

Armitage E, Allen ML - Dev Psychol (2015)

Mean number of Intentional responses given in the photograph and line drawing tasks by children who failed the memory control.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4538953&req=5

fig3: Mean number of Intentional responses given in the photograph and line drawing tasks by children who failed the memory control.
Mentions: A main effect of age group, F(1, 53) = 17.34, p < .001, ηp2 = .25, was qualified by a Modality × Age Group interaction, F(1, 53) = 6.98, p = .011, ηp2 = .12 (see Figure 3). In order to establish the nature of this interaction, additional analyses were conducted on the two tasks and two age groups separately, which revealed that in the photograph task, 5- and 6-year-old children (M = 3.27, SE = .38) gave significantly more intentional responses than the 3- and 4-year-olds (M = 1.26, SE = .27), F(1, 32) = 21.74, p < .001, ηp2 = .41. No such effect was identified in the line drawing task.

Bottom Line: Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiment 1 with adult participants.Together, these studies show that children and adults are neither strictly realist nor intentional route followers.They are realists until resemblance cues fail, at which point they defer to intentional cues.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Research in Human Development and Learning, Department of Psychology, Lancaster University.

No MeSH data available.