子どもの概念分類行動における等価性・差異性前訓練およびラベルと年齢の効果

佐藤 容子

doi:10.4992/jjpsy.49.93

EFFECTS OF EQUIVALENCE AND DISTINCTIVENESS PRETRAININGS, VERBAL LABELS, AND AGE ON CHILDREN'S CONCEPTUAL SORTING BEHAVIOR

YOKO SATO

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1978 Volume 49 Issue 2 Pages 93-98

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.49.93

Details

Published: July 20, 1978 Received: September 19, 1977 Available on J-STAGE: July 16, 2010 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: July 16, 2010 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : In the course of concept development, children must learn to acquire two important relationships between two different objects. One is the conceptual equivalence of the instances which belong to the same conceptual category. The other is the conceptual distinctiveness of the instances which belong to the different categories.
The purpose of the present experiment was to examine the effects of equivalence and distinctiveness pretrainings on children's conceptual sorting learning.
According to AEC (Acquired Equivalence of Cues) hypothesis, two different objects which share one common label become functionally equivalent as their common label increases the equivalence of them. On the other hand, ADC (Aquired Distinctiveness of Cues) hypothesis explains that different verbal labels attached to two different but similar objects increase the distinctiveness between the two objects. In regard to these two hypotheses, verbal labels should be helpful to develop AEC and ADC in a conceptual sorting task.
65 Group 1 children (age range; 3:8-4:5, mean; 3:10), 75 Group 2 children (age range; 4:8-5:6, mean; 4:10), 60 Group 3 children (age range; 5:8-6:7, mean; 5:11), and 60 Group 4 children (age range; 6:10-7:8, mean; 7:0) were given one of the following treatments. (1) Equivalence-No Label group. The subjects were shown 12 pairs of colored pictures which were of the same conceptual category. At every presentation, the experimenter instructed to the subject that the instances of each pair were of the same group. (2) Distinctiveness-No Label group. The subjects were shown 12 pairs of pictures. Each pair was composed of two instances of different conceptual categories. At every presentation, the experimenter instructed to the subject that the instances of a pair were of the different groups. (3) Equivalence-Label group. The subjects were given the similar treatment as that of Equivalence-No Label group. At the same time subjects in this group were given the relevant labels of the instances' conceptual category by the experimenter for every pair. (4) Distinctiveness-Label group. The subject was given the similar treatment as those in Distinctiveness-No Label group, but at the same time he was given the relevant by the experimenter. (5) Control group. The subjects in this group were given no pretraining.
After pretraining all subjects were given a conceptual sorting task with the same instances as those used in the pretrainings and were trained to reach a predetermined criterion of eight successive correct sorting responses or to the maximum of 60 trials.
The results were as follows. (1) The Group 1 children and the Group 4 children did not take advantage from any of the pretraining treatments. Equivalence pretraining was effective for the Group 2 children in both groups with and without labeling. Labeling was found to be useful for the Group 3 children regardless to the types of pretraining treatment, equivalence or distinctiveness. (2) The conceptual sorting task for the control group was learned increasingly faster with subjects' age.
The Group 1 children could use neither equivalence nor distinctiveness between the instances to facilitate their conceptual sorting. Labels did nothing to facilitate their learning, either. The Group 4 children are regarded to have used these facilitating agents spontaneously resulting no performance difference among the four experimental and one control groups. Labeling was not effective for the Group 2 children and they might learn the sorting task only on the basis of equivalence between instances. The Group 3 children might be able to use labels as a mediator to construct equivalence and distinctiveness between instances.
Right : 260 children of four age groups (their mean ages were 3:10 for Group 1, 4:10 for Group 2, 5:11 for Group 3, 7:0 for Group 4, respectively) were given the equivalence or the distinctiveness pretraining either with or without verbal labels of their conceptual categories, or the no training control. Then they were given a conceptual sorting task which required them to sort the same instances as used in pretraining on the basis of their conceptual categories. The Group 1 and the Group 4 children could take no advantage of the pretraining treatments. The equivalence pretraining was effective for the Group 2 children and labeling facilitated the learning of the conceptual sorting task for the Group 3 children. These results were argued in terms of the subjects' ability to use equivalence and labels as a mediator to learn the sorting task.

Abstract

260 children of four age groups (their mean ages were 3:10 for Group 1, 4:10 for Group 2, 5:11 for Group 3, 7:0 for Group 4, respectively) were given the equivalence or the distinctiveness pretraining either with or without verbal labels of their conceptual categories, or the no training control. Then they were given a conceptual sorting task which required them to sort the same instances as used in pretraining on the basis of their conceptual categories. The Group 1 and the Group 4 children could take no advantage of the pretraining treatments. The equivalence pretraining was effective for the Group 2 children and labeling facilitated the learning of the conceptual sorting task for the Group 3 children. These results were argued in terms of the subjects' ability to use equivalence and labels as a mediator to learn the sorting task.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!