|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 OTHERS By JENNIFER M. TAMARGO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Jennifer M. Tamargo
3 To my parents (a place central to my initial i nterest in child development )
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the participant parents, child care centers and research assistants for their cooperation and involvement in this study I also appreciate the enthusiasm and contributions of my supervisory co mmittee Finally, I thank my family John, and my friends for their emotional and financial support throughout this process.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Cultural Learn ing Theory ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 Instruction and Problem Solving ................................ ................................ ............. 22 2 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 30 Par ticipants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 30 Apparatus ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 30 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Parent Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 Problem Solving: T rap Tube Task ................................ ................................ .... 31 False Belief Tasks ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 Inhibitor y Control ................................ ................................ .............................. 34 Language ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 35 Session 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 35 Session 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 37 Trap T ube Task Coding and Scoring ................................ ............................... 37 3 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 40 Instruction Group Differences ................................ ................................ ................. 41 Cognitive Influences on Trap Tube Performance ................................ ................... 44 Correlations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 44 Regression Analyses ................................ ................................ ........................ 45 4 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 67 Instr uction Condition Differences ................................ ................................ ............ 67 Cognitive Influences on Performance ................................ ................................ ..... 69 C Only Instruction ................................ ................................ ............................. 70 Role of inhibitory control ................................ ................................ ............. 71 Role of false belief understanding ................................ .............................. 71
6 I+C Instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 72 Role of false belief understanding ................................ .............................. 73 Role of inhibitory control ................................ ................................ ............. 76 Role of Language Across Instruction Conditions ................................ .............. 80 General Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ 81 Future Directions ................................ ................................ .............................. 83 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 86 APPENDIX A STUDY DESCRIPTION AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM ................................ 87 B PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................... 89 C TRAP TUBE APPARATUS ................................ ................................ ..................... 91 D FALSE BELIEF TASKS ................................ ................................ .......................... 92 E INHIBITORY CONTROL TA SK: DAY/NIGHT STROOP LIKE TASK ...................... 96 F TRAP TUBE TASK: TEACHING SESSION ................................ ............................ 97 G TRAP TUBE TASK: EXPERIMENTER SCRIPT ................................ ..................... 98 REFERENCE LIST ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 103
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Descriptive Statistics for Individual Variables and Trap T ube Session Performance for Instruction Conditions ................................ .............................. 54 3 2 Spearman's rho Correlations between In dividual Variables and Trap T ube Performances for Each Instruction Group ................................ .......................... 55 3 3 Point Biserial Correlations between Individual Variables and Individual Teaching Trials 2 & 4 for Each Instruct ion Group ................................ .............. 56 3 4 Summary of Robust Bootstrap Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Teaching Session Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) ................................ .......... 57 3 5 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Teaching Session Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) ................................ .......... 58 3 6 Summary of Hierarchical Logistic Regression Anal ysis for Variables Predicting Trial 4 Performance (N = 43) ................................ ............................. 59 3 7 Summary of Robust Bootstrap Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction1 Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) ................................ ............ 60 3 8 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction1 Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) ................................ .................... 61 3 9 Summary of Robust Bootstrap Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction2 Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) ................................ ............ 62 3 10 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction2 Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) ................................ .................... 63
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Instruction condition by inhibitory control interact ion predicting trap tube performance at teaching session. ................................ ................................ ....... 64 3 2 Teaching session Trial 4 proportion of correct attempts by false belief performance and instruction condition. ................................ ............................... 65 3 3 Instruction condition by inhibitory control interaction predicting trap tube performance at post instruction1 session. ................................ .......................... 66
9 Abstract of Thesis Presented t o the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science OTHERS By Jennifer M. Tamargo December 2009 Chair: M. Jeffrey Farrar Major: Psychology Many developmental theories include a social component when describing humans to learn from others. According to cultural lear ning theory, advances in social cognition and self regulation allow preschool children to uniquely engage in social learning. The current study examined how these achievements contribute to a problem solving situation. Children ( N = 44, M = 4.4 years) observed either correct only (C only) or incorrect + correct (I+C) instructions to solving the trap tube task. All children also received measures of false belief under standing, inhibitory control, and control (InhC) measures were expected to predict performance on the trap tube task for those in the I+C condition due to the conflicting re presentations presented by I+C instruction. In addition, language was expected to partially mediate the relationship between FB and task performance. task performances at teaching, post instruction1, and post instruction2 sessions.
10 Instruction condition x InhC predicted task performance at the teaching and post instruction1 sessions. Specifically, InhC was more influential on task performance for the I+C condition than f or the C only condition. In the I+C condition, children with greater InhC performed better during the teaching and post instruction1 sessions than children with low InhC. Surprisingly, FB was not related to overall task performances. However FB was positiv ely Children with greater FB understanding had better initial performance than children with low FB understanding in the I+C condition. These reported patterns did not emerge in t he C only i nstruction condition ; I nhC task performance at any session of measurement In the C only condition, age was positively task performance at post instruction1, but was not related to performance at the teaching and post instruction2 sessions Across both instruction conditions, language ability did not relate to task performance at any session of measurement. These findings suggest that specific cognitive achievements in the preschool year abilities. Implications of these findings are discussed.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The process of how we learn has been of considerable interest in the developmental literature. Though there are various perspectives regarding the process of learning, many core developmental theories include a social component when 8) ecological systems theory, all describe the interactions we have with others from different perspectives. However, each of these perspectives is limite d in specifying the process by which humans learn from others. Cultural learning theory builds on the core claims of Vygotsky and attempts to explain the process of social learning within a social cognitive context (Tomasello, Kruger, & Ratner, 1993). The current study used cultural learning theory as a theoretical framework for ability to learn from others in problem solving situations. Specifically, the study focused Grounded in a Vygotskyian perspective, cultural learning theory provides a conceptual starting point for assessing which cognitive advancements influence the way especially the tool of language, change the way humans reason about the world and how they think about others and themselves mentally (Vygotsky, 1978). He also viewed
12 advancement (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002). However, Vygotsky did not provide an explana tion for how humans are able to engage with others socially throughout development. Cultural learning theory describes the role of the learner and the elements of cognition that allow humans to engage in learning situations with others. In contrast to soci (Tomasello et al., 1993). Concretely, the learner internalizes both the activity be ing learned and the social interaction associated with the activity; in other words, humans learn through others rather than from others (Tomasello et al., 1993). According to cultural learning theory, in order to learn through others and consider anothe amount of research has focused on defining the development of social cognition, Theory of mind refers cognitive ach ievements. Specifically, by about 12 months of age, infants initially demonstrate social understanding through joint attention, which leads to other social cognitive skills such as engagement in communicative gestures, attention following, imitation, and e ventually referential language (Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 199 8 b ). Each of these skills involves the child, another, and their common attention to an event or person (Carpenter et al., 199 8b ). Infants with this level of social cognition understand oth
13 un representational change (Gopnik & Astington, 1988). Between the ages of 4 and 5 years, child ren typically understand the difference between appearance reality and the false beliefs of self and others (Gopnik & Astington, 1988). The development of false belief understanding is a major component in the development of theory of mind. Children with t (Tomasello, 1999; Tomasello et al., 1993). Concretely, children with false belief understanding recognize that others can have beliefs and perspectives that are different from their own understand others mentally, they begin to develop more sophisticated reasoning regarding how others think about mental states. Children come to understand that others not only have beliefs of their own, but that others can also have beliefs about 1985). Children with this level of social cognitive understanding regard others as asello et al., 1993). Considering these broad progressions in social cognitive understanding, cultural learning theory describes stages in which children are able to engage in learning situations. The central idea is that humans learn in fundamentally diff erent ways at various stages of development because of their social cognitive understanding.
14 Cultural Learning Theory According to cultural learning theory, there are three core stages of cultural learning: imitative learning, instructed learning, and co llaborative learning Each of these learning types depends on social cognitive concept of the person (Tomasello et al., 1993). Essentially cultural learning theory analyzes what the learner contributes to a social interaction rather than focu contributes to the interaction. Initially, children engage in imitative learning. It is important to note that imitative learning as defined in a social learning context is completely different from imitative learning as defined by cultural learning theory, though the term is the same. Imitative cultural learning occurs when the learner repeats a ). To engage in true imitative cultural learning, the learner has to understand others as intentional. In other words, the learner Therefore, imitative cultural learning is mo However, a child who is participating in imitative cultural learning is still limited in social cognitive understanding. Learners in this stage are unable to apply a recently learned method to a similar situation simply because the learner has only internalized the perspective of the model and not the task (Tomasello et al., 1993) One example of imitative cultural learning is found in Nagell, Olguin, and Tomasello (1 993). Nagell et al. (1993) aimed to test the process of social learning in human and non human primates within the context of tool use; however, the results of this study also offer a demonstration of imitative cultural learning in humans. Nagell et
15 al. (1 993) tested both chimpanzees and human 2 year olds on a tool use task. Participants from both groups watched as a model provided full, partial, or no demonstration on how to use a rake to retrieve a toy. Nagell et al. (1993) found 2 year olds engaged in im itative learning even when doing so was ineffective. Children in the partial demonstration condition saw the model pull the rake to retrieve an object; direction of the rake was critical for success on the task. Rather than changing the orientation of their own tool before using it, the 2 year olds simply imitated the full demonstration, children watched as the model flipped the rake then pulled it to retrieve an object. Consequently, children in the full demonstration condition were more successful at completing the task than children in the partial and no demonstr ation conditions because they observed the two behaviors necessary for success on the task, flipping and pulling in addition to the goal of retrieving the object. Though performance on the task was dependent on the type of demonstration observed, the learn ing method used by the child was the same in each condition. It is clear children used imitative learning because in each condition the model achieved an intended goal of retrieving the object; therefore, children performed the behavior they directly obser ved because this behavior produced the intended goal. Essentially, the 2 year olds considered the understanding of the task given that the children did not attend to the orientatio n of the rake.
16 Conversely, when learning a novel task or concept, children who are engaged in their own behavior to coordinate between their own understanding and t u nderstanding of the novel task or concept. (Tomasello et al., 1993). Essentially, outcome and that others have their own ideas about how to achieve that out come. It is important to note that Nagell et al. (1993) tested the process of social learning in human and non human primates and inadvertently provided support for imitative cultural learning in humans as it is defined within a cultural learning theory co ntext. Their study did not focus on identifying cultural learning styles. However, using the same scenario presented in Nagell et al. (1993), we can consider the behavior differences between imitative cultural learning and instructed cultural learning. In the full demonstration condition, recall children observed the model flip then pull the rake to retrieve an object. Therefore, in this condition, the behavior of both an imitative learner and an instructed learner appears to be the same because the model d emonstrated all behaviors necessary for completing the intended goal. In effect, the task did not require that the intended goal. However, in the partial demonstration conditi on, recall that the model pulled the learners and instructed learners would be obser vable in the partial demonstration
17 erefore, if an intended goal is achieved by some observed behavior (e.g., pulling) the imitative learner will imitate the mentioned previously, 2 year old children in the partial d emonstration condition imitated when completing the task because children in understanding of a task with their own understanding of the task. The orientation of the the object. Therefore, an instructed learner would flip then pull the rake to achieve the goal would be achieved with a pulling behavior. In effect, instructed learners internalize goal. A study by Carpenter, Call, and Tomasello (2005) illustrates the information infants imitate actions relevant to the intentional goal, but tend to overlook behaviors that are secondary to the goal. Twelve and 18 month old infants observed a model move a mouse from one location into a house. In the process of relocating the object, the model made the mous e hop on its way to the house, a behavior that was not necessary for the mouse to enter the house. Consequently, infants of both age groups
18 house. However, neither age group reproduced the hopping motion when relocating the mouse. This finding suggests that infants tend to imitate actions that relate to a final goal, but will overlook behaviors not directly associated with the final goal. Applying this finding to the previous Nagell et al. (1993) imitative learning example, the 2 year olds did not flip the rake because as the infants in the Carpenter et al. (2005) study, they only focused on the action relevant to the final goal (i.e., the pulling behavior). On the other hand, children engaged in instructed learning would consider all pieces of learning would flip the rake over; even though this action would not be observed because they wou obtain the goal Children engaged in instructed learning are capable of considering not It is important to emphasize that instructed learning is a style of cultural learning and, like all cultural learning stages, instruction has been provided to the child, but rather refers to what the child is processing during this stage of learning. The children are using their knowledge of their own thoughts to produce a particular outcome. Therefore, the term instructed refers to the fact that the childr
19 to change their own understanding about the task or concept. In other words, an imitative learner and an inst ructed learner can both be exposed to the same instruction (e.g., demonstration), and perform at completely different levels due to the information cognitive skills become more sophisticated, these skills allow them to engage in learning situations in a fundamentally different manner than before. To engage in instructed learning, cultural learning theory argues that two important skills are necessary: false belief u nderstanding and self regulation (Tomasello et al., 1993). As mentioned previously, children around 4 years of age begin to understand others have different thoughts and beliefs than their own. Understanding the beliefs of others is crucial for engaging in instructed cultural learning because the the learners have to be able to regulate their own behavior when learning through the beliefs of others. Self regulation prov ides evidence that the learner has internalized a new understanding of the task in that the learner is able to manage their behavior to match this new understanding. According to Vygotsky, private speech (i.e., self directed speech that is intended for the self rather than for others) assists one in self regulation internalization of language, meaning one uses language as a tool for reasoning (Vygotsky, 1978). In reference to problem solving, studies have documented that private speech occurs in children as young as 3.5 years of age and note private speech tends to increase as the difficulty of a task increases (Duncan & Pratt, 1997; Goodman, 1981). Furthermore, studies such as Duncan and Pratt (1997) suggest children use private
20 speech as a means for planning during problem solving tasks, thus supporting directed speech at ages younger than 4 years, it is not until the age of 4 that self directed speech is The coordination of perspectives and self regulation to accommodate these perspectives are central achievements that allow for engage ment in instructed cultural learning. Among the factors important for instructed cultural learning, executive function skills other than self directed speech may play a role as well. Specifically, findings suggest the executive function skill of i nhibito ry control regulation (e.g., compliance and effortful control), but is also linked to false belief development (Carlson & Moses, 2001) I nhibitory control requires one to inhibit a dominant response. Conflict inhibitory contr natural response. For example, Gerstadt, Hong, and Diamond (1994) used a day/night stroop card representing day, thus conflicting with the Several studies have found children younger than 4 years of age, whose social cognitive skills are still somewhat limited, have difficulty on tasks of this type (e.g., Frye, Zelazo & Palfai, 1 995; Gerstadt et al., 1994). In particular, conflict inhibitory control tasks have been found to predict theory of mind performance (Flynn, 2007). In instructed learning, learners are required to coordinate between perspectives and in effect ac t in conflict to their original thoughts regarding the task. To engage in
21 order to coordinate between perspectives and inhibit their own original thoughts about a task or concept; thus, using self regulation to act in accordance with the new understanding of the task or concept. Though executive function skills and false belief understanding may play a major nguage development is embedded within all stages of cultural learning. Vygotsky (1978) viewed language development as a crucial component in cognitive advancement. Initially language allows one to engage socially, but eventually the tool of language allows one to engage in claim and considers language development in relation to social cognitive developments at each level of learning. In general, research has documented a r elationship between language development and the development of social cognitive skills, which are critical components for how humans learn socially according to cultural learning theory. For example, Carpenter et al. (199 8 b ) found engagement in joint atte ntion, a social cognitive skill important for imitative cultural learning, was related to language comprehension, use of gestures, and language production. In reference to language ction at all. Instead, only the age at which the infant began to spend a significant amount of time in joint engagement was related to the production of language (Carpenter et al., 199 8 b ). These results support the notion that there is a relationship betwe en social cognition and language, even within the earliest stages of language development. As language development progresses, language ability has been found to predict the development of false belief understanding (Jenkins & Astington, 1996). Although it is
22 clear social interactions provide an opportunity for exposure to language, research has found social interactions also provide an opportunity to learn about social cognitive skills, such as conflicting representation. Welch Ross (1997) examined the r elationship between mother esentations (Welch Ross, 1997). As discussed previously, instructed learning requires one to findings of Welch coordinate perspectives effectively as required by instructed cultural learning. Though language, social cognition, and executive function are related to one engage in s ocial learning. The current study aimed to use a cultural learning perspective learn from others in a problem solving situation. Little research has examined the role of false belief understanding on cultural learning; therefore the current study is an important first step. Specifically, the current study examined the role of false belief, struction. Instruction and Problem Solving Children benefit from various types of instruction in a variety of problem solving contexts including planning, rule use, and tool use. In regard to tool use, several studies indicate developmental differences in solve when tasks of tool use are novel (e.g., Horner & Whiten, 2007; Nielsen, 2006; Want & Harris, 2001 ). In addition, some findings demonstrate that children can benefit more from instruction that
23 provides both the correct a nd incorrect solutions to a task. According to a study conducted by Want and Harris (2001), 3 year old children d id better on a novel task after witnes sing demonstration of an incorrect solution followed by a correct solution. One goal of their study was t tube correct solution demo nstrations (Want & Harris, 2001). The trap tube used in Want and Harris (2001) was a clear horizontal tube with a trap located underneath one end of the tube. A reward was placed in the middle of the tube for the child to retrieve. A stick was provided as side nearest to the trap, the reward would be pushed out of the tube for retrieval. However, if the tool were inserted in to the side opposite the trap the reward would fall in to the trap. In principle, to get the object out of the tube, one has to consider where the object is located in relation to the trap. According to the findings of Want and Harris (2001), 3 year old s benefited when exposed to demonstrations of solutions to this task. Initially, all 3 year olds were unable to complete the task. Their performance improved once they observed the correct only solution. However, the 3 year old s benefited mo st when exposed to both the incorrect and correct solutions than when t hey observed the correct only solution Other studies have also indicated young children benefit from observing the intentions and mistakes of others. Carpenter, Call, and Tomasello (2002) tested 2 year old s. They problem solving task. Children were presented with a wooden birdhouse in which the
24 goal was to open the door of the house. T o open the door a pin had to be removed. Children observed a varie ty of conditions in which a model intended to complete the task. In one condition, children observed the model pull on the door with no success. They then saw the model pull out the pin which successfully opened the door. Carpenter et al. (2002) argue d th at the incorrect solution provided extra information about the task, therefore assisting children in their performance of the task. However, indicate one gained a sophisti cated understanding of the task. From the findings of Want and Harris (2001) and Carpenter et al. (2002), it could be argued that the children were using cues and imitation to assist in task performance rather than using a understanding of the tas k. mistake are not clear. The studies of Want and Harris (2001) and Carpenter et al. (2002) only provide learn require more complex reasoning is unknown. The task used in Carpenter et al. (2002) was much simpler than the trap tube task. The trap tube task requires conditional reasoni ng skills. One has to consider where the object is in relation to the trap to succeed at obtaining the object. In the Carpenter et al. (2002) study, the task never changed, pulling the pin out always made the door open, there were no other conditions to co nsider. In each condition, children always observed the model remove the pin to open the door. Therefore, the task did not require the children understand how to open the door beyond the behavior observed because the observed behavior always
25 produced the i ntended goal of opening the door. The task was not altered in a manner the specific task because imitative cultural learning was an appropriate learning style in order to succeed on the task. Thoug imitative abilities (Carpenter et al., 2002; Want & Harris, 2001), m Considering the relatively complex nature of the trap tube task, Horner and Whiten (2007) attempted to expand on the resu lts of Want and Harris (2001); however, they were unable to replicate the findings. Horner and Whiten (2007) found children ages 3 to 4 years followed by a correct solution during the trap tube task. Sp ecifically, the children were not performing above what would be expected by chance, regardless of whether they observed correct only instruction or incorrect + correct instruction. In contrast, they found children ages 5 to 6 years were able to perform t he task with little or no errors and therefore these children did not benefit much from instruction in any condition because they were able to understand the task on their own. Comparing the results of Horner and Whiten (2007) to the results of Want and Harris (2001), there is evidence to suggest differences in performance on the trap tube correct and incorrect instruction. Although both studies indicate young children a re capable of improving performance on the trap tube task once they receive instruction,
26 the two studies differ in the benefits gained from observing incorrect and correct instruction. As mentioned previously, Want and Harris (2001) found 3 year olds not o nly performed better with instruction, but they performed better than chance when they observed both correct and incorrect solutions to the task. Thus, it appears that the 3 year olds not only gained knowledge about how to perform the task, but they also g ained knowledge regarding the nature of the task. In other words, the findings of Want one understand complex tasks, such as the trap tube task. However, the trap tube a nd testing method used by Want and Harris (2001) make it difficult to determine what knowledge 3 year olds actually gained from observing correct and incorrect instruction. Horner and Whiten (2007) noted the trap tube apparatus in the Want and Harris (2001 ) study was rotated after each trial, possibly cuing children to alter their tool insertion and therefore interfering with the need to understand the causal effects of the task. the task, the tube needed to be altered in a different way. Although it appears children can perform better after witnessing a mistake as well as a correct solution, children in the Want and Harris (2001) study did not necessarily indicate they gained understanding regarding the complex nature of the task. Horner and Whiten (2007) slightly altered the trap tube used by Want and Harris (2001). Horner and Whiten (2007) constructed the trap in the center of the tube rather than at the end of the tube; therefore, the trap tube was similar Instead of rotating the trap tube apparatus between testing trials as done by Want and Harris (2001), Horner and Whiten (2007) changed the location of the object to either the
27 left or the right of the trap intermittently throughout a trial block. This slight change removed the possibility of cuing children to alter the side of tool insertion because the apparatus never moved and the location of the object was moved sporadically. Thus, these differences in the design of the trap tube m ay account for the differences in tube task in the Horner and Whiten (2007) study, it was much more critical for children to consider the location of the object in relation to the trap. learn from instruction, specifically incorrect and correct (I+C) instruction, were of central n to a correct solution seems most beneficial when completing simple tasks (Carpenter et al., 2002; Want & Harris, 2001), the findings of Horner and Whiten (2007) suggest that for children ages 3 to 4 al when a task is more complex. Essentially, I+C instruction presents the learner with two conflicting representations of a solution whereas correct only instruction presents one correct representation of a solution. C hildren with low false belief understa nding are unable to coordinate representations effectively; therefore, it can be expec ted that it is more difficult for these children to gain understanding of a complex task when exposed er false belief understanding can coordinate between conflicting representations; therefore, it is around the age of 4 years that children are beginning to expand the ir understanding of the mental states of others. However, the Horner and Whiten (2007) study did not
28 include children ages 4.5 to 5 years, which is a crucial period for the development of false belief understanding. According to Tomasello et al. (1993), f alse belief understanding plays a central gain instruction. Thus, when success on a task requires more complex reasoning (e.g., trap tube task), the differences in children influenced by false belief understanding. In addition, e xecutive function skills related to false belief understanding, such as inhibitory control may also play a role in learning tion. While false belief understanding may be influential in the processing of instruction, self act in accordance with the instruction processed. In other words, understanding the instruction an d acting in accordance with the instruction are considered separate, but not engaged in learning if these processes are not present, but rather to suggest that the se processes allow for advancements in how one engages in learning. It is argued cultural learning theory, these changes are expected to be related to specific advance ments in social cognition and executive function. The current study examined cognitive factors that influence developmental differences in the way children learn from others in a problem solving context. In reference to instruction, it was expected that ch ildren exposed to both correct and incorrect solutions to the trap tube task would perform better on a posttest than their peers exposed to a correct only solution. Of primary interest was whether
29 related to false belief understanding, inhibitory control, and language. Children with than those with less false belief understanding. In a ddition, children with greater less inhibitory control. Finally, language development was expected to mediate the relationship between false belief understanding and ch
30 CHAPTER 2 M ETHOD Participants Participants were recruited from local childcare centers. All children participating were required to speak English as their primary language due to the standardized langu age measure used in this study. No direct compensation was offered for participation, though child participants were offered stickers after testing sessions. Parents of participants completed a 13 item demographic questionnaire upon consent (see Appendix A & B). Fifty one preschoolers were recruited from local childcare centers. Eighteen females and 26 males between the ages of 43 and 62 months ( M = 4.4 years SD = 5.07 months ) were included for analysis. Among the seven participants withdrawn from the stu dy, two children had a perfect baseline performance on the task, two children refused to participate for the duration of Session 1, two children received the wrong trial sequence during the teaching session due to experimenter error, and there was a loss o f contact with one participant prior to testing sessions. Majority of the participants were Caucasian (86.4%). Parent report of income indicated most participants were from middle to upper income households with the exception of one participant who was fr om a low income household as determined by 2008 Federal Poverty Guidelines. Apparatus Clear plastic material was used to construct the trap tube. The tube was roughly 4.5cm in diameter a nd 60cm in length. Similar to Horner and Whiten (2007), a trap was lo cated underneath the center of the tube The trap was 13.5cm in length and contained two flaps on each end in order for the experimenter to retrieve the object from the trap if
31 needed (see Appendix C). The tool was a stick, about 4cm in diameter and roughl y 61cm in length. T wo 15cm wooden supports held the trap tube in order for the trap tube to be placed on a table during testing sessions (see Appendix C ). Measures Parent Q uestionnaire The parent questionnaire was included in the study to collect demograp hic information and information experienc e within the childcare setting (see Appendix B). Problem S olving: T rap T u be T ask The trap tube task was modeled after the task used in Horner and Whiten (2007). C hildren were required to remove a small object from the clear horizontal tube by using the tool provided Modeled after the trap tube used in Horner and Whiten (2007), the trap was placed underneath the middle of the tube; thus, serving as an obstacle to d where the tool should be placed in order to successfully retrieve the object from the tube. An altered version of the trap tube task was also presented in order to assess wheth er children formed a procedural rule regarding side of tool insertion (e.g., push object away from trap). In the altered version, the same trap tube apparatus was used, but the trap was rotated to the top of the tube. When the trap was inverted there was no need to consider the location of the object in relation to the trap because the trap is no longer an obstacle (see Appendix C).
32 False B elief T asks understanding. Children rece ived two unexpected location and two unexpected content false belief tasks. The Unexpected Location false belief tasks wer e based on the Sally Anne unexpected location false belief task The basic story is that Sally hides an object and Anne changes the l ocation of the object while Sally is away. The unexpected location false belief tasks were presented in a picture book format. T he experimenter read statement s to the child while showing the child the corresponding pictures. Throughout the story, two chara cters hid the same object. However, one character was unaware the object had been moved from its original location (see Appendix D) Each version of the unexpected location task had the following sequence: This is Emma. She loves to play with her toy truck Emma wanted a snack. So Emma put her truck under a hat. Then she lef t She thought that the truck would roll off the table and be broken. So she took the truck from under the hat and put it in a bag. Then she left the room. Emma came back to play with her toy truck. Upon completion of the story, children were asked a false belief question regarding where the nave character would look for the object. In addition, children were asked two memory control questions regarding the old location of the object and the new location of the object. The Unexpected Content false belief tasks involve tangible objects. One version of the unexpected content task, involved Band Aid box that contained a small ball and the other version of this task involved a crayon box that contained ribbons During each unexpected content task, the experimenter asked the child what they thought was inside the box. The experimenter then showed the contents of the box to the child and asked
33 the child to name the con tents. Next, the experimenter put the contents back in the box and closed the lid. The experimenter then asked the child a false belief question regarding his/her own original thoughts about the contents and a memory control question regarding the actual c ontents of the box. Finally, the experimenter asked the child a second false belief question regarding a nave about the contents of the box (see Appendix D) Children received one point for each false belief question they answered corre ctly on the unexpected location and unexpected content tasks. There were two false belief indicated the nave other will look for the object in the original location, the answer was be coded as correct. There were also four false belief questions referring to unexpected identified his/her own original belief, the answer was coded as correct In addition, if the child indicated a nave other is unaware of the actual contents of the box, the answer points. The memory control questions on both the unexpected loca tion and unexpected content tasks were used to check false belief responses. The memory questions were included to control for random responses to the false belief questions. There were four memory control questions referring to unexpected location and two memory control questions referring to unexpected content. If a child answered the memory control question incorrectly, the false belief question associated with the memory control question was coded as incorrect.
34 Inhibitory C ontrol The day/night stroop l ike task (Gerstadt et al., 1994) was used as a measure of conflict inhibitory control. The experimenter showed children two types of picture cards, experimenter trained each child on the task prior to administering the testing trials. For example, the experimenter said, When you see this card, I want Can The experimenter showing the child each card separately and asked the child, If the child failed t o answer correctly, the experimenter repeated the training. Once the child demonstrated they understood the task, they received three testing blocks of 10 trials. Each testing block contained 10 cards, five "day" cards and five "night" cards. During each b lock, the experimenter reminded the child of the rules at the nded to the rule provided. Children received one point for each correct response they provided. The scores ranged from 0 30 points. Language Picture Vocabulary Task, Fourth Edition (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 200 7) The experimenter showed the child a page with four pictures and asked the child to point to the pictures
35 initial base set. The number of items the child got correct provided a raw score for each child. Procedure either a correct only instruction group (C only) or an incorrect and correct (I+C) instruction group for the trap tube task as described below. Performance on the traditional trap tube task was measured over four sessions: baseline, teaching, post instruction1, post instruction2. Performance on the inverted trap tube was measured on one session. Each trap tu be measurement session contained 10 trials (e.g., 10 trials at baseline, 10 trials at teaching, etc.). Throughout each testing block of 10 trials, the location of the object was sporadically altered. However, placement of the object to the left or the righ t of the trap was held equal for each testing block. In other words, though the object was moved intermittently throughout the sessions, the object was to the left of the trap for five trials and to the right of the trap for five trials (see Appendix F). T he trap tube sessions, language assessment, false belief tasks, and the inhibitory control task were administered over two separate testing sessions. Each testing session lasted roughly 30 minutes. Session 1 A video camera was positioned to record the c on the trap tube task During the initial baseline testing session, the experimenter presented the child with the goal of the trap tube task, but no instruction on how to do the task. The Today we have a game to pla y. To play the g ame, we have to get the mouse [object] out of the tube Occasionally, children did not initially pick up the tool to attempt the task; thus, at times the experimenter had to
36 example, the experimenter discouraged children from putting their hands in the tube and from lifting the tube off the support stand. If a child had not attempted to use the tool after 2 minutes, the experimenter Y ou can use that stick to help you location of the object was altered intermittently (i.e., trials 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10) throughout the baseline testing block. Immediately following the 10 baseline trials the experimenter transitioned to instruct the child on the task. H alf the participants received correct only ( C only) instruction on the task and half received incorrect + correct (I+C) instruction. For each instruction condition, the experimenter demonstrated and verbalized instruction (see Appendix G). As in the baseline session, this teaching session was one block of 10 trials. Instruction was provided four times throughout the 10 trial block. The experimenter demonstrated and stated the instructions before the child attempted T rials 1 3, 6, and 8 (refer to Appendix F). Once the experimenter provided the instruction, the child attempted to solve the problem. The locatio n of the object was altered on T rials 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the instruction block. Upon completing the trap tube baseline and teaching sessions, children were given either the inhibitory control task or false belief tasks. Children were not videotaped during the false belief tasks Once children completed either the inhibitory control task or false belief tasks, th eir trap tube performance was measured again in a post instruction1 session. The post instruction1 session was conducted in the same manner as the baseline session. The experimenter provided children with the goal of the task and no further instruction. Th e locatio n of the object was altered on T rials 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the testing
37 block. As with the baseline and the instruction testing blocks, this block consisted of 10 trials. Session 2 Session 2 was conducted on a separate day. The time betwee n Session 1 and Session 2 was dependent on child attendance. Majority of the sample received Session 2 within one to three days after Session 1. At Session 2, children received two additional trap tube measurements -post instruction2 and inverted. The orde r of these sessions was counterbalanced. Again, a video camera was positioned to record the for each trap tube session As in the baseline and post instruction1 sessions, the experimenter provided children with the goal of the task, but no further instruction for both the inverted session and the post instruction2 session performance on the inverted trap tube was measured for one block of 10 trials The locatio n of the object was altered on T rials 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the testing block. Post instruction2 also consisted of 10 trials in which the locatio n of the object was altered on T rials 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Upon completion of the inverted and post instruction2 sessions children were given either the inhibitory cont rol task or false belief tasks depending on which measure was provided during Session 1, and the PPVT Children were not videotaped during the PPVT and false belief tasks. Tr ap T ube Task C oding and S coring trap tube task was instruction1, and post instruction2 sessions, insertion of the tool to the side nearest the object was coded ertion of the tool opposite the object
38 were coded according to the action that was followed through by the child. In other words, some children began to enter the too l on one side, but switched the side of tool insertion prior to completing an action on the object. To avoid ambiguity, the side of tool insertion in which the full action of either pushing the object into the trap or pushing the object out of the tube was coded as successful or unsuccessful. Children received one point for each successful attempt per trial. Performance scores ranged from 0 10 points per session. During the inverted trap tube session, altering the side of tool insertion was unnecessary con sidering the trap had no function. Thus, attempts during this inverted session were considered successful if children did not alter the side of tool insertion. Children received one point for each time they did not alter the side of tool insertion relative to the side of insertion at Trial 1 of this session. Each time children altered the side of tool insertion relative to the side they chose at Trial 1; the attempt was coded as 9 points. A score of zero indicated that the child altered the side of tool insertion throughout the 10 trials, whereas a score of nine indicated that the child never altered the side of tool insertion relative to Trial 1. Teaching Trials 2 and 4 In addi tion to overall performance performances on Trials 2 and 4 of the teaching session were also considered. Arguably, these trials are the most crucial trials for understanding how children processed the instruction provided without the inf luence of practice. Children received instruction for how to achieve on Trial 1. However, at Trial 2, the location of the object was switched; thus, children did not have any direct instruction for this situation. They had to apply the
39 instruction that was provided at Trial 1to this new situation. By Trial 4, children had received direct instruction for each situation (i.e., object located to left of trap and object received all the instruction necessary to succeed on the task throughout the session. At Trial 4 children had to decide which instruction to apply to the current situation. Thus, for the preceding teaching trial, they would not succeed in these subsequent trials considering the object was located on the opposite side of what children observed. Children received one point for each successful attempt; thus, performance s cores were either 0 or 1 for each trial.
40 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS The trap tube performance variables were not normally distributed as determined by normality tests. Log, square root, inverse, and squared transformations were applied to the non normal variab les, but none of these methods significantly improved the normality of the variables; thus the GLM normality assumption was violated. In order to demonstrate robust patterns, multiple analyses were conducted for the subsequent study aims. Although no trans formation significantly improved the distribution of the trap tube performance variables, square root transformations provided the largest improvement for each variable; thus, square root transformed trap tube performance variables were examined as well. A ims requiring repeated measure ANOVA analysis were assessed separately using untransformed (raw) performance variables, square root transformed performance variables, and non parametric tests. Considering all the mentioned analyses provide the same basic f indings, only the non parametric tests are reported. Aims requiring regression analyses were assessed by untransformed hierarchical regression (i.e., raw performance variables were used), robust bootstrapped regression, and hierarchical logistic regression (trap tube performances were split at medians). Again, across all three methods of analysis, majority of findings were consistent, thus, only the robust and hierarchical regression results are reported. Table 3 1 presents the raw medians, means, and stan dard deviations for each instruction condition on all trap tube performances (i.e., baseline, teaching session, post instruction1, post instruction2, inverted session) and individual variables (i.e., age, language, inhibitory control, and false belief). Me dians are reported in addition to the means and standard deviations due to the use of non parametric tests. Although
41 participants were randomly assigned to instruction condition, initial group differences (i.e., differences in baseline trap tube performanc e, age, language, inhibitory control, and false belief) were examined. Taking into account the non normal distribution of the data, non parametric Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were conducted. There, were no significant instruction group differences in age, W s = 481, ns, r = .13 ; language, W s = 504.50, ns, r = .05 ; inhibitory control, W s = 428.50, ns, r = .16 ; or false belief, W s = 419, ns, r = .08. In addition, there were no significant differences in trap tube performance at baseline between the instruct ion conditions, W s = 437, ns r = .13. Instruction Group Differences compared to chance performance scores. Each occasion of measurement contained 10 trials. For each trial, ch ildren had a .5 probability of success (i.e., each trial was either right or wrong) and all trials were independent. Chance performance on the task is a score of 5. The probability of achieving performance scores at/below 2 and above 8 is less than .05, th at is, scores in these ranges indicate statistical difference from chance when alpha is .05. Performance scores ranging from 3 to 7 were not statistically different from chance using the same alpha criteria. Relative to the C only condition, the proportion of children with statistically above chance performance was .10 (baseline), .81 (teaching), .76 (post instruction1), and .71 (post instruction2). Relative to the I+C condition, the proportion of children with statistically above chance performance was 0 ( baseline), .61 (teaching), .65 (post instruction1), and .57 (post instruction2). Separate Pearson chi square tests were conducted to examine the association between instruction condition (C only, I+C) and trap tube performances at all occasions of measur ement. Performance at each occasion was categorized as statistically above
42 association between instruction condition and above chance performance at teaching session, 2 ( N = 4 4 df = 1) = 2.13 ns ; post instruction1, 2 ( N = 44 df = 1) = .64 ns ; or post instruction2, 2 ( N = 44 df = 1) = 1.05 ns Due to violations of normality, average performance could not be compared to chance using the standard one sample t test. Wilcox on Signed Rank tests were conducted to assess performance relative to chance, but these tests are limited in that they analyze median performances rather than average performances (see Table 3 1 for median values). To assess if median performances were sig nificantly greater than statistical chance, median performance scores were compared to above chance ( ) and not statistically above chance (< 8 ). F or both instruction conditions at baseline measurement, above chance performance (i.e., scores 8 ) occurred significantly less, z = 3.75 p < .001, r = .59 (C only); z = 4.32, p < .001, r = .67 (I+C). A t teaching session, the instruction conditions differed in the amount of above chance performance. The C only condition had significantly more above chance performances (i.e., scores > 7) during the teaching session, z = 3.48, p < .001, r = .54. The I+C condition did not have significantly more above chance performances at this occasion, z = 1.27, ns r = .20. Relative to both post instruction sessions, the patterns of above chance performance were the same between conditions. Both instruction conditi ons did have significantly more above chance performances at post instruction1, z = 2.33, p < .05, r = .36 (C only); z = 2.28, p < .05, r = .35 (I+C). Neither instruction condition had significantly more above chance performances at post instruction2, z = 1.58, p < .12, r = .24 (C only); z = 1.39, ns r = .21 (I+C).
43 expected to p erform better on the trap tube task than children exposed to C only instruction. Non parametric tests were conducted to examine between and within group performance differences. First, Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were conducted to examine the effect of instruc tion condition (i.e., C only and I+C instruction) on tr ap tube performances across all oc casions of measurement (teaching post instruction1, post instruction2). Instruction group did not significantly affect trap tube performance during the teaching sessi on W s = 457, ns, r = 22 ; post instruction1 W s = 502.50, ns, r = 06 ; or post instruction2 W s = 473, ns, r = .16 sessions Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests w ere conducted to examine within subject differences in raw trap tube performance s There was a signif icant difference between trap tube performances f or both instruction condition s Baseline performance was significantly lower than teaching (C only: z = 3.93 p < .001 ; I+C: z = 3 7 2, p < .001 ), post instruction1(C only: z = 3.63 p < .001; I+C: z = 3 74 p < .001 ), and post instruction2 (C only: z = 3. 4 3 p < .001 ; I+C: z = 3 67 p < .001 ) performances. However, there were no significant differences in performance between the teaching session, post instruction1, and post instruction2 sessions for eit her instruction condition Thus across all reported methods of examination, children significantly improved performance after receiving any form of instruction, but the claim that children benefit more from I+C instruction than C only instruction was not supported. When considering the amount of above chance performance during the teaching session, c hildren benefited more from C only instruction.
44 Cognitive I nfluences on Trap T ube P erformance Correlations The primary aim of the study was to identify the fac tors that contribute to Specifically, it was expected that false belief understanding and inhibitory control would incorrect (I+C) instruction. First, the relationships between individual variables and trap tube session performances were examined. Due to the non normality among the variables of interest, correlations are reported. Table 3 2 presents the relationships between individual variables and trap tube performances for each instruction condition. In addition, performance on Trials 2 and 4 of the teaching session was explored. As mentioned, Trials 2 and 4 were the trials in which the object was lo cated on the opposite side of what was taught in the prior teaching trials (i.e., Trials 1 and 3). Considering that these individual trials were dichotomous variables, point biserial correlations are reported. Table 3 3 presents the relationships between p erformance on Trials 2 and 4 and the individual variables. In reference to the C only condition, there were only two significant relationships between individual variables and trap tube performance across all sessions. Specifically, false belief was negat ively related to baseline performance, r s (18) = .55, p < .05 and age was positively related to post instruction1 performance on the trap tube task, r s (19) = .44, p < .05. Relative to the teaching session, performance on Trial 4 was significantly related to age, r pb (19) = .48, p < .05 (see Table 3 3 ). Performance during the inverted trap session was negatively related to teaching session performance, r s (19)
45 = .53, p < .05. However, it is important to note inhibitory control did not have a strong relati onship with any trap tube session for this instruction condition (see Table 3 2 ). In reference to the I+C condition, inhibitory control was the only individual variable that was significantly related to trap tube session performances at teaching session, post instruction1, and post instruction2 sessions. Specifically, inhibitory control was positively related to teaching performance, r s (21 ) = .60, p < .01; post instruction1 performance, r s (21) = .54, p < .05; and post instruction2 performance, r s (21) = .52, p < trap, r s (21) = .42, p < .05. False belief performance was not significantly related to trap tube performance at any occasion for the I+C group, although th e trend for a negative relationship with baseline performance is present. However, false belief was the only individual variable significantly related to Trial 4 of the teaching session r pb (21) = .54, p < .01 (see Table 3 3 ). Across both instruction cond itions, there were three similar patterns of relationships. Baseline trap tube performance was not significantly related to any subsequent measures of performance on the trap tube task (see Table 3 2 ). Performance on Trial 2 was not significantly related t o any individual variable (see Table 3 3 ). In addition, there were no significant relationships between inverted trap tube performance and the individual variables for either condition (see Table 3 2 ). Regression A nalyses Due to the small sample size, bo th instruction groups were included simultaneously in all subsequent regression analyses. To avoid overlooking possible suppressor effects, all individual variables were considered in each subsequent tion coefficient significance.
46 The independent variables of interest (i.e., age, language, inhibitory control, and false belief) were centered at their respective means prior to analysis in order to reduce collinearity (Jaccard, Wan, & Turrisi, 1990). As m entioned previously, multiple types of regression analyses were conducted for each session of trap tube performance to examine consistent findings. Robust bootstrapped regressions were conducted considering the variables of interest are not normally distr ibuted. It has been argued that modern robust methods, such as robust regression, provide more accurate estimates for non normal distributions because parametric tests are not robust to assumption violations (Erceg Hurn & Mirosevich, 2008; Wilcox, 1998). I n order to conduct the robust bootstrapped regressions, the data for each trap tube variable was transformed using the winsorizing technique (see Keselman, Algina, Lix, Wilcox, & Deering, 2008). The data for each trap tube session was ordered from lowest t o highest. The bottom 20% of data was replaced with the smallest untrimmed score and the top 20% of data was replaced with the highest untrimmed score. A bootstrapped regression was then conducted on the winsorized variables. This regression technique uses a random sampling procedure and calculates a mean for each random sample drawn. Modeled after Preacher and Hayes (2008), estimates are based on 5000 bootstrapped samples for each robust regression conducted. Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief instruction condition, and the specified interaction term were entered to predict each winsorized trap tube performance. To demonstrate consistent findings, hierarchical regressions were also conducted for each trap tube session of interest, although ca ution should be used for
47 interpretation of these analyses. To assess possible trap tube performance differences between groups, interaction terms were calculated using instruction group and the centered individual variables of interest (i.e., inhibitory co ntrol and false belief). These interaction terms were not entered simultaneously in the regressions because of possible collinearity issues; thus, for teaching session, post instruction1, and post instruction2 trap tube performances, two separate hierarchi cal regressions were conducted for each performance. For each hierarchical regression, age was entered at Step 1, language was entered at Step 2, inhibitory control was entered at Step 3, false belief was entered at Step 4, instruction condition (0 = corre ct only, 1 = incorrect+correct) was entered at Step 5, and the specified interaction term was entered at Step 6. Trap t ube performance at teaching session measurement. Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, instruction condition, and Instruction x Inhibitory Control were entered as predictors of teaching session performance (i.e., winsorized teaching performance). Results of the bootstrapped regression indicated that only the Instruction x Inhibitory Control variable had a significant effect on p erformance during the teaching session (see Table 3 4 ). Specifically, inhibitory control had a significantly greater influence on trap tube performance for those who received I+C instruction than for those who received C only instruction The model overall predicted 30% of the variance in teaching session performance. A second robust bootstrapped regression was conducted with the same variables listed above, except the interaction term was replaced with Instruction x False Belief. However, the interaction between instruction condition and false belief did not predict
48 trap tube performance during the teaching session and did not significantly improve the model (see Table 3 4 ). Using untransformed variables, two separate hierarchical regressions were conduct ed to assess the unique effects of age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and instruction condition on trap tube performance during the teaching session of measurement. As presented in Table 3 5 age, language, inhibitory control, and false belie f did not predict teaching session performance at any steps of analysis. At Step 5, R 2 = .11, p < .05, and had a significant effect on trap tube performance (see Table 3 5 ). Specifically, those in the I+C condition had lower performance on the task in this sessi on than those in the C only condition. However, the Step 5 model did not significantly predict trap tube performance. The addition of the Instruction x Inhibitory Control interaction term produced the only model to significantly predict teaching session tr ap tube performance, R 2 = .34, F (6, 36) = 3.11, p < .05. The interaction between inhibitory control and instruction condition significantly predicted performance on the task, R 2 = .16, p < .01. Consistent with the robust regression results, inhibitory control had a greater influence on trap tube performance for those I+C instruction condition As illustrated in Figure 1, relative to those in the I+C condition, children with gr eater inhibitory control performed better on the trap tube task during the teaching session than those with less inhibitory control. For those in the C only condition, there was no significant influence of inhibitory control on trap tube performance. These findings support that inhibitory control influences trap tube performance when one receives I+C instruction, but false belief did not influence performance during this session for either condition.
49 Exploratory analyses for the role of false belief on te aching session trials. While false belief was not predictive of teaching session performance overall, the role of false belief on Trials 2 and 4 within the teaching session was examined. As mentioned previously, Trials 2 and 4 were the most crucial trials learning of the task. Arguably, false belief understanding is the most salient for these trials since these trials were the first measures of how children performed the task on their own after receiving instruction. Cons idering that Trials 2 and 4 are dichotomous dependent variables, logistic regressions and Pearson chi square tests are reported. Two separate Pearson chi square tests were conducted for each instruction condition to test the association between false beli ef ( low : at/below median vs. high : above median) and Trials 2 and 4 (0=incorrect trial attempt, 1=correct trial attempt) exact values are reported. At Trial 2, there was no association between false belief and Trial 2 performance for the C only condition ( p = condition ( p = only condition, 80% of those with low false belief and 50% of t hose with high false belief had correct performance on Trial 2. Similarly, in the I+C condition, 70% of those with low false belief and 46.2% of those with high false belief had correct performance at Trial 2. Conversely, at Trial 4, there were differences in false belief and performance association between instruction conditions. Again, for the C only condition, there was no association between false belief and Trial 4 performance ( p Relative to both false belief groups (i.e., low a nd high), 90% performed the task successfully at Trial 4. However, for the I+C there was a significant association between
50 false belief and performance ( p low false belief and 92.3% of those with high false belief successfully performed the task at Trial 4. Thus, majority of children in the C only condition (regardless of false belief understanding) and majority of children with high false belief in the I+C condition were performing near ceiling by Tri al 4. In contrast, those with low false belief in the I+C condition were performing poorly on Trial 4. Figure 2 illustrates the proportion of correct attempts on Trial 4 by false belief group (i.e., low vs. high) for each instruction condition. To further examine the role of false belief on Trial 4 performance, a hierarchical logistic regression was conducted. Due to the strong relationship between language and false belief understanding, the language variable was included in the analysis. Language was ente red at Step 1, false belief was entered at Step 2 instruction condition was entered at Step 3 and Instruction x False Belief was entered at Step 4 to assess the unique contributions of each variable listed. Language made a significant improvement to the null model, 2 = 4.41, p < .05. However, as presented in Table 3 6 the effect of language was reduced once false belief and instruction condition were included in the model. The inclusion of instruction condition made the largest improvement to the model but the estimate was not strong as indicated by the confidence interval. In addition, once the interaction term was included the main effects of false belief and instruction condition decreased, suggesting these effects are qualified by the interaction. The interaction between false belief and instruction condition came close to improving the model, 2 = 3.29 p < .07; reflecting the notion that the influence of false belief is relative to instruction condition. Although the finding did not reach significance (see Table 3 6 ), false belief was more likely to influence performance for
51 those in the I+C condition than th e C only condition. While false belief is not predictive most critical for false belief understanding, the role of false belief varies by instruction condition. The implications of these findings are explored further in the discussion. Trap tube performance at post instruction1 measurement. Robust bootstrapped regressions were conducted to further assess the influence of Instruction x Inhibitory Contr ol and Instruction x False Belief on trap tube performance at post instruction1. As noted previously, separate robust regressions were conducted to examine the effect of each interaction term with controlling for the four individual variables and instructi on condition (see Table 3 7 ). The Instruction x Inhibitory Control variable had a significant effect on post instruction1 performance and the model overall explained 21% of the variance in post instruction1 performance (see Table 3 7 ). However, the interac tion between instruction and false belief was again non significant for this session of trap tube performance (see Table 3 7 ). Relative to the I+C condition, this finding does not support the claim that false belief influences post instruction performance, but does support that inhibitory control influences post instruction performance. Using untransformed variables, two additional hierarchical regressions were conducted to assess the unique effects of age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and i nstruction condition on post instruction1 performance. One regression included all five variables listed and the Instruction x Inhibitory Control interaction term was added at Step 6. A second regression included the same variables for Steps 1 5, but the I nstruction x False Belief interaction term was added at Step 6. Unlike the results from
52 the robust regression, age significantly predicted post instruction1 performance, R 2 = .12, F (1, 41) = 5.49, p < .05 and had a significant effect on post instruction1 performance (see Table 3 8 ). Language, inhibitory control, false belief, and instruction condition did not significantly predict post instruction1 performance after controlling for age. This analysis did not support the expectation that inhibitory control and false belief would influence performance in the I+C condition. Although the results from the hierarchical regression did not coincide with the findings from the robust regression, the robust regression is a more appropriate method of analysis consideri ng the nature of the data as discussed previously. Figure 3 illustrates the slopes for each instruction condition at post instruction1 measurement. Trap tube performance at post instruction2 measurement. Again, separate robust bootstrapped regressions wer e conducted to examine the Instruction x Inhibitory Control and Instruction x False Belief interactions. The individual variables and instruction condition variable were entered in the same order as reported for the previous robust regressions (see Table 3 9 ). There was no significant interaction between instruction condition and inhibitory control. In addition, there was no significant interaction between instruction condition and false belief. Two final hierarchical regressions were conducted using the u ntransformed variables to assess the unique effects of age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and instruction condition on post instruction2 performance. Consistent with the robust regression analyses, this analysis did not yield any significant models for prediction of post instruction2 performance, nor did any variables have a significant effect on performance during this session (see Table 3 10 ). As with the previous regressions, the
53 Instruction x Inhibitory Control interaction term was added a t Step 6 for one regression and Instruction x False Belief interaction term was added at Step 6 for the second regression. Neither of the interaction terms significantly predicted post instruction2 performance. The expectation that inhibitory control and f to benefit from I+C instruction during post instruction performances was not supported when considering post instruction2 performance. In reference to both post instruction sessions, language was expected to mediate the re lationship between false belief understanding and post instruction performance. not a mediator for the relationship between false belief understanding and post instruction performances. False belief understanding was not independently related to either of the post instruction performances; thus, there was not a relationship for language to mediate. Furthermore, language was not independently related to the post instruction p erformances. Inverted trap session. the trap tube task. Of interest was whether individual factors related to inverted performance and if these relationships varied by instruction condition. However, inverted trap performance was not significantly related to any individual variables for eit her instruction condition (refer to Table 3 2 ).
54 Table 3 1. Descriptive Statistics for Individual Variables and Trap T ube Sess ion Performance for Instruction Conditions Instruction Condition Correct Only ( n = 21) Incorrect + Correct ( n = 23) Both Co nditions ( N = 44) M SD Mdn M SD Mdn M SD Mdn Age in Months 52.86 5.43 52.00 51.61 4.76 51.00 52.20 5.07 52.00 Language (Raw PPVT) 90.48 24.24 89.00 87.83 20.82 86.00 89.09 22.29 88.50 Inhibitory Control 20.62 8.26 20.00 23.04 7.28 26.00 21 .89 7.77 23.00 False Belief a b 3.20 2.17 3.00 3.52 2.11 4.00 3.37 2.12 4.00 Baseline Session 2.95 2.96 2.00 3.78 2.24 5.00 3.39 2.61 5.00 Teaching Session 8.76 1.41 9.00 7.57 2.54 8.00 8.14 2.14 9.00 Post instruction1 8.24 2.90 10.00 8.13 2.46 9.00 8.18 2.64 9.50 Post instruction2 7.81 3.31 9.00 7.61 2.13 8.00 7.70 2.72 9.00 Inverted Trap Session 4.62 2.06 4.00 5.22 2.45 4.00 4.93 2.67 4.00 Note. PPVT = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. a n = 20 for correct only condition due to m issing false belief task. b n = 43 for both conditions due to missing false belief task.
55 Table 3 2. Spearman's rho Correlations between Individual Variables and Trap T ube Performances for Each Instruction Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Correct Only ( n = 21) 1. Age .6 5** .31 .12 .02 .29 .4 4* .38 .21 2. Language .33 .5 7** .29 .33 .20 .10 .16 3. Inhibitory Control .17 .01 .04 .17 .16 .24 4. False Belief a .55* .02 .01 .08 .16 5. Baseline Session .14 .27 .16 .03 6. Teaching Session .30 .20 .53* 7. Post Instruction1 .7 3** .40 8. Post Instruction2 .26 9. Inverted Session Incorrect+Correct ( n = 23) 1. A ge .8 7** .4 2* .5 8** .22 .07 .26 .13 .18 2. Language .38 5 4** .28 .09 .32 .22 .11 3. Inhibitory Control .32 .09 .6 0** .5 4** .5 2* .22 4. False Belief .23 .15 .27 .18 .16 5. Baseline Session .19 .15 .15 .35 6. Teaching Session .6 8** .6 9** .28 7. Post Instruction1 .8 9** .28 8. P ost Instruction2 .40 b 9. Inverted Session Note. a n = 20 due to incomplete false belief task b p < .06 p < .05. ** p < .01
56 Table 3 3. Point Biserial Correlations between Individual Variables and Individual Teaching Trials 2 & 4 for Each Instruction Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 Correct Only ( n = 21) 1. Age .63** .27 .14 .04 .48* 2. Language .30 .63** .12 .42 b 3. Inhibitory Control .15 .20 .09 4. False Belief a .28 .05 5. Trial 2 Teaching Session .23 6. Tria l 4 Teaching Session I ncorrect+Correct ( n = 23) 1. Age .83** .36 .55** .32 .33 2. Language .43* .57** .20 .27 3. Inhibitory Control .30 .08 .39 4. False Belief .29 .54** 5. Trial 2 Teaching Session .01 6. Trial 4 Teaching S ession Note. a n = 20 due to incomplete false belief task, b p < .06 p < .05 ** p < .01
57 Table 3 4 Summary of Robust Bootstrap Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Teaching Session Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) B SE t M odel 1 a Intercept 8.38 0 .20 42.91 *** Age 0 .02 0 .04 0 .45 Language 0 .01 0 .01 1.12 InhibCtrl 0 .01 0 .03 0 .29 FB 0 .05 0 .09 0 .56 Instruction 0 .37 0 .27 1.36 Instruction x InhibCtrl 0 .08 0 .04 2.1 0* Model 2 a Intercept 8.42 0 .19 44.38 *** Age 0 .04 0 .04 0 .96 Language 0 .02 0 .01 1.60 InhibCtrl 0 .03 0 .03 1.13 FB 0 .15 0 .11 1.38 Instruction 0 .38 0 .26 1.44 Instruction x FB 0 .17 0 .15 1.14 Note. R 2 = 30 Model 1; R 2 = .23 Model 2. Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and interaction term s centered. Instruction = instruction condition, InhibCtrl = inhibitory control, FB = false belief a Interaction terms entered in separate reg ressions. p < .05, *** p < .001
58 Table 3 5. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Teaching Session Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) B SE B t Step 1 Age 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.65 Step 2 Age 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.09 Language 0.02 0.02 0.17 0.75 Step 3 Age 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.17 Language 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.41 InhibCtrl 0.07 0.05 0.25 1.5 4 Step 4 Age 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.20 Language 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.45 InhibCtrl 0.07 0.05 0.25 1.52 FB 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.19 Step 5 Age 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.44 Language 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.34 FB 0.01 0. 19 0.01 0.04 Instruction 1.44 0.66 0.34 2.18* Step 6 a Age 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.53 Language 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.20 FB 0.03 0.18 0.03 0.15 Instruction 1.44 0.60 0.34 2.40* Instruction x InhibCtrl 0.22 0.08 0.54 2.92** Step 6 a Age 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.61 Language 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.50 InhibCtrl 0.09 0.05 0.32 1.93 FB 0.10 0.28 0.10 0.38 Instruction 1.44 0.66 0.34 2.17* Instruction x FB 0.19 0.33 0.13 0.57 Note. R 2 = .01, ns for Ste R 2 = .01, ns R 2 = .06, ns R 2 = .00, ns for Step R 2 = .11, p R 2 = .16, p R 2 = .00, ns for Step 6 (Instruction x FB). Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and interaction term centered. Instruction = instruction condition, InhibCtrl = inhibitory control, FB = false belief. a Interaction terms entered in separate regressions. b p < .06. p < .05. ** p < .01.
59 Table 3 6. Summary of Hierarchical L ogistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Trial 4 Performance (N = 43) 95% CI for exp b Variable B SE Lower exp b Upper Step 1 Constant 1.88 1.54 Language 0.04* 0.02 1.00 1.04 1.08 Step 2 Constant 1.00 1.89 Language 0.03 0.02 0.98 1.03 1.07 FB 0.18 0.23 0.77 1.20 1.86 Step 3 Constant 1.61 2.00 Language 0.03 0.02 0.98 1.03 1.07 FB 0.28 0.25 0.81 1.32 2.14 Instruction 1.92* 0.97 1.02 6.82 45.79 Step 4 Constant 2.25 2.22 Language 0.04 0.03 0.99 1.04 1.09 FB 0.34 0.41 0.32 0.71 1.59 I nstruction 1.41 0.95 0.64 4.10 26.21 I I nstruction x FB 0.85 a 0.48 0.91 2.35 6.04 Note. R 2 = .10 (Hosmer & Lameshow), .10 (Cox & Snell), .15 (Nagelkerke), Model 2 = 4.46, p < .05 for Step 1; R 2 = .11 (Hosmer & Lameshow), .11 (Cox & Snell), .17 2 = .65, ns for Step 2; R 2 = .21 (Hosmer & Lameshow), .21 (Cox & 2 = 4.82, p < .05 for Step 3; R 2 = .28 (Hosmer & 2 = 3.29 ns for Step 4. Language, false belief, and interaction term centered. Instruction = instruction condi tion, FB = false belief, CI = confidence interval. Dashes indicate no estimate for constant model. a p < .08. p < .05.
60 Table 3 7. Summary of Robust Bootstrap Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction1 Trap Tube Perfo rmance (N = 43) B SE t Model 1 a Intercept 8.16 0.29 28.38 *** Age 0.05 0.05 0 .89 Language 0.00 0.02 0 .14 InhibCtrl 0.02 0.04 0 .42 FB 0.01 0.11 0 .07 Instruction 0.19 0.43 0 .45 Instruction x InhibCtrl 0.11 0.05 2.06* Model 2 a Intercept 8.23 0.30 27.70 *** Age 0.04 0.06 0 .68 Language 0.00 0.02 0 .14 InhibCtrl 0.03 0.03 0 .90 FB 0.02 0.17 0 .13 Instruction 0.18 0.44 0 .41 Ins truction x FB 0.01 0.25 0 .05 Note. R 2 = .21, Model 1; R 2 = .12, Model 2. Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and interaction term centered. Instruction = instruction condition, InhibCtrl = inhibitory control, FB = false belief a Interact ion terms entered in separate regressions. p < .05. *** p < .001.
61 Table 3 8. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction1 Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) B SE B t Step 1 Age 0.18 0.08 0 .34 2.34* Step 2 Age 0.12 0.11 0.24 1.11 Language 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.71 Step 3 Age 0.12 0.11 0.23 1.07 Language 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.57 InhibCtrl 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.54 Step 4 Age 0.12 0.11 0.24 1.08 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.52 FB 0.05 0.24 0.04 0.21 Step 5 Age 0.12 0.12 0.24 1.07 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.49 FB 0.05 0.24 0.04 0.19 Instruction 0.08 0.83 0.02 0.10 Step 6 a Age 0.12 0.11 0.23 1.07 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.69 FB 0.02 0.24 0.02 0.09 Instruction 0.08 0.81 0.01 0.10 Instruction x InhibCtrl 0.17 0.10 0.34 1 .67 Step 6 a Age 0.14 0.13 0.27 1.10 Language 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.24 InhibCtrl 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.50 FB 0.13 0.35 0.10 0.36 Instruction 0.08 0.84 0.02 0.10 Instruction x FB 0.13 0.42 0.08 0.32 No te. R 2 = .12, p R 2 = .01, ns R 2 = .01, ns R 2 = .00, ns for R 2 = .00, ns R 2 = .06, ns R 2 =.00, ns for Step 6 (Instruction x FB). Age, language, inhibit ory control, false belief, and interaction term centered. Instruction = instruction condition, InhibCtrl = inhibitory control, FB = false belief. a Interaction terms entered in separate regressions. p < .05.
62 Table 3 9. Summary of Robust Bootstrap Re gression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction2 Trap Tube Performance (N = 43) B SE t Model 1 a Intercept 7.79 0.41 18.99*** Age 0.07 0.07 1.00 Language 0.00 0.02 0.16 InhibCtrl 0.03 0.05 0.62 FB 0.07 0.16 0.44 Instruction 0.52 0.56 0.92 Instruction x InhibCtrl 0.07 0.08 0.95 Model 2 a Intercept 7.82 0.40 19.38*** Age 0.04 0.08 0.46 Language 0.00 0.02 0.15 InhibCtrl 0.06 0.04 1.68 FB 0.24 0.22 1.08 Instruction 0.50 0.54 0.93 Instruction x FB 0.33 0.31 1.07 Note. R 2 = .18, Model 1; R 2 = .18, Model 2. Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and interaction term centered. Instruction = instruction cond ition, InhibCtrl = inhibitory control, FB = false belief. a Interaction terms entered in separate regressions. *** p < .001
63 Table 3 10. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post Instruction2 Trap Tube Performanc e (N = 43) B SE B t Step 1 Age 0.13 0.08 0.25 1.67 Step 2 Age 0.15 0.12 0.29 1.30 Language 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.21 Step 3 Age 0.15 0.12 0.28 1.25 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.43 InhibCtrl 0.06 0.06 0.17 1.04 S tep 4 Age 0.15 0.12 0.28 1.21 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.06 0.06 0.17 1.02 FB 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.01 Step 5 Age 0.15 0.12 0.27 1.18 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.06 0.06 0.17 1.01 FB 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.02 Instruction 0.09 0.88 0.02 0.11 Step 6 a Age 0.14 0.12 0.27 1.17 Language 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.37 InhibCtrl 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.09 FB 0.01 0.26 0.01 0.05 In struction 0.09 0.88 0.02 0.11 Instruction x InhibCtrl 0.12 0.11 0.23 1.06 Step 6 a Age 0.13 0.13 0.24 0.97 Language 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.23 InhibCtrl 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.97 FB 0.09 0.37 0.07 0.24 Instruct ion 0.09 0.89 0.02 0.11 Instruction x FB 0.16 0.44 0.09 0.35 Note. R 2 = .06, ns R 2 = .00, ns R 2 = .03, ns R 2 = .00, ns for Step 4, R 2 = .00, ns R 2 = .03, ns R 2 = .00, ns for Step 6 (Instruction x FB). Age, language, inhibitory control, false belief, and interaction term centered. Instruction = instruction condition, InhibCtrl = inhibitory control, FB = false belief. a Interaction terms entered in separate regressions. All p values ns.
64 Figure 3 1. Instruction condition by inhibitory co ntrol interaction predicting trap tube performance at teaching session Inhibitory Control
65 Figure 3 2. Teaching session Trial 4 proportion of correct attempts by false belief performance and instruction condition.
66 Figure 3 3. Instruction condition by inhibitory con trol interaction predicting trap tube performance at post instruction1 session. Inhibitory Control
67 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The current study aimed to explore developmental differences in Using cultural learning theo ry as a framework, learning ability were examined. It was expected that children would benefit more from uction) considering more information about the task was provided to children in this condition. In addition, inhibitory control and false belief were expected to moderate the relationship between instruction condition and trap tube performances. Specifical ly, it was expected that those who were more advanced in these skills would benefit more from the I+C condition than those who were less advanced in these cognitive skills. Instruction Condition D ifferences tube task could not be assessed in relation to statistical chance due to violations of normality, thus median comparisons were conducted. Relative to both instruction conditions, performance was not significantly above chance at baseline measurement (i.e., whe n no instruction was provided). This finding is as suspected given the medians listed in Table 3 1 Once children received instruction for the task (i.e., at teaching session), median performance significantly increased to above chance level for the C only condition, but not for the I+C condition. This finding contrasts with the findings from the Horner and Whiten (2007) study, which indicated no significant condition differences in median performance relative to chance. One reason for this discrepancy is t hat children in the current study received instructions in both verbal and demonstration form. Horner and Whiten (2007)
68 provided demonstration only instruction with very limited verbal information. The from C only instruction. Considering that perf ormance in the I+C condition was not significantly above chance, receiving both forms of instruction was not necessarily more beneficial for those in the I+C condition. These findings regarding condition performance differences also contrast with the fin dings of Want and Harris (2001). Unlike the findings from Want and Harris (2001), I+C instruction). As mentioned previously, the tube was rotated after each trial in the Want and Harris (2001) procedure. As Horner and Whiten (2007) propose, this type of e addition, the presentation of the mistake action was fundamentally different in the Want and Harris (2001) study. The current study presented the mistake in conflicting ways, the mistake action was never presented in this conflicting manner, childre n only observed one demonstration of the mistake action. Due to the nature of how the mistake was presented, the cognitive demands were not as great in the Want and Harris (2001) study.
69 Despite how the mistake action was presented, children were expected to benefit information about the task when provided with both the mistake and correct solution. performance. The current findings did not support this notion; children did not benefit more from observing chance, the C only instruction was more beneficial than the I+C instruction during initial exposure to instruction (i.e., at teaching session). However, these group differences in instruction1 and post instruction2. In hindsight it is not surprising that children did not benefit more from the I+C condition considering the cognitive demands presented in this condition. As discussed further from the I+C instruction, suggesting that not al l children were capable of benefiting from this form of instruction. It is clear however, that children benefited from instruction regardless of the form considering that both conditions significantly improved from baseline performance. In addition, there were no significant condition differences in mean performance at any occasion of measurement. Cognitive Influences on Performance However, the current study was not primarily concerned with these differences in performance between instruction conditions, rather the study focused on examining social cognition, executive function, and language were expected to influence rom others. Although there were no significant differences in the trap tube mean performance between instruction conditions, the
70 tube sessions differed between instruction conditions. In understanding these differences, it is important to consider the cognitive demands that each instruction condition required in relation to the task demands. The nature of the trap tube task requires learners to consider the location of the object in rel ation to the trap in order to succeed on the task. In addition to these task demands, each instruction condition presented additional challenges. C Only I nstruction The correct only instruction condition provided children with the correct solution to the task; thus, there was only one solution for children to process. Children in this instruction condition only observed an action that lead to achievement of the use a tool to push the object away from the trap ; the goal was get the object out of the tube. Considering the literature on imitation, children in this condition could succeed on the task by engaging in imitative learning. Research has found that young infants can interpret an intentional action (Carpenter et al., 199 8a goal (Carpenter et al., 2005). Considering the age group of the children in the current study, they were developmentally prepared to u year olds achieves their goal (Williamson, Meltzoff, & Ma rkman, 2008). In the C only condition, the experimenter always achieved their goal, thus, making it more likely for children to imitate the experimenter. Imitation of the C only instruction was a sufficient learning
71 method for success on the task. Children skills are not required for imitative learning. As discussed below, the current findings relative to the correct only cond ition support this notion. Role of inhibitory control In the correct their performance on the task. Although children had to regulate their behavior in order to act in accordance with the instruction provided, they did not have to inhibit between two conflicting behaviors (as the I+C condition required). As mentioned, research has regulating their b 8 a ; Carpenter et al., 2002). Thus, relative to the current study, it is not surprising that perfo rmance. Role of false belief understanding performance for the correct only condition. This is not unexpected considering the infant imitation literature. Studies have foun d that joint attention, one of the most primary 8 b ). necessary cognitive skill for one to engage in imitative learning and consequently was not necessary for interpreting the correct only instruction. Inhibitory control and false belief understanding did not relate to or influence performance during the teaching session, post instructi on1, or post instruction2
72 sessions because these skills were not required to understand the instruction or to perform the task. Thus, the task in relation to the correct only instruction was not sufficient to parcel out possible differences in how children processed the instruction. this condition. In addition, language was n ot related to performance either. Age was the only individual factor that related to post instruction performance, but this factor did not instruction performances. The task relative to the instruction provided did not require the same complex cognitive demands that the I+C instruction condition required and consequently differences in the cognitive factors that I+C I nstruction Observing the I+C instruction required one to differentiate between the mistake were required to coordinate between these conflicting representations and regulate their behavior to act in accordance with the correct solution, but not the incorrect solution. It was proposed that children would also be required to coordinate between the Specifically, it w as expected that false belief and inhibitory control would be more only condition, the nature of the task in relation to the I+C instruction was expected to parcel out differences in
73 Role of false belief understanding False belief understanding was the primary cognitive factor that was expected to su pported. False belief was not related to and did not predict overall task performance at the teaching session, post instruction1, or post instruction2 sessions. It is not clear that the current task relative to instruction was sufficient to parcel out the role of false Initially it was expected that the I+C condition would require children to succeed on the task. Upon further examination, ch perspective per se did not seem relevant for children to succeed on the task overall. From a cultural learning perspective, it is not problematic that false belief was not critical for overall performance but false beli ef was expected to be critical for processing the I+C instruction considering the conflicting representations associated with this instruction. As discussed in more detail below, the exploratory analyses suggest false bility to learn from the I+C instruction. overall task I+C instruction. To support this notion performance during the teaching session. Trials 2 and 4 were considered to highlight understanding. At Trial 1, childre n had only received instruction for one situation (i.e., location of object to left of the trap). At Trial 2, children were presented with an opposite
74 applicat ion of the instruction provided. At this point, there was no association between 4 children had received all the instructions necessary for the task (i.e., ins truction for both situations of object location). Thus, at this point, children had to demonstrate their understanding of the instruction in relation to the task. Relative to the I+C condition, false belief was associated with Trial 4 performance. Trial 4 presented a unique situation which required children to coordinate between multiple pieces of conflicting information prior to the influence of practice. At this point, the experimenter had presented the child with two conflicting demonstrations, the acti conflicting pieces of information, the principle behind false belief understanding. Children had to consider why an action was a mistake in one situation, but later this same action was correct. Children with low false belief understanding had difficulty understanding the instructions for the task because they were not capable of resolving the con flicting representations. It is important to emphasize that false belief was not associated with Trial 4 performance for the correct only condition. Although children in the correct only condition observed the experimenter use two different actions to obt ain their goal, the actions were not presented in a conflicting manner. The experimenter did not present identical actions as a mistake in one situation and correct in another. Rather the chieve the only instruction did not require children to consider
75 conflicting representations of the solutions. The C only condition required children to ve that goal as mentioned previously. Although false belief was associated with performance on this crucial trial for the overall performance. This finding may be re lated to the amount of exposure children had with the task. Children performed the task multiple times and observed the instructions over numerous occasions. This repeated exposure may have contributed to mance simply because of increased experience with the task. In addition, the repeated explanation of the mistake may have instruction throughout the entire teaching ses sion. Recall that the experimenter produced the mistake then explained why the incorrect method did not yield a causal learning was more accurate when a model provided a rele vant explanation for model provided no explanation for an action (Sobel & Sommerville, 2009). Relative to the current study, children were provided with an accurate explana tion for why the task and red uced the need for children to understand the conflicting instruction (i .e., mistake and correct) in order to
76 knowledge about the task allowing for higher overall performance. However, the analysis relative to Trial 4 does suggest that children are relying to some extent on their social cognitive understanding to process the I+C instruction. Role of inhibitory control While children may not have been required to understand conflicting representations to increase their overall performance, they were required to regulate The performance. For children in the I+C condition, those with higher inhibitory contr ol had higher overall teaching session performance on the trap tube task. This demonstrates that children with better self regulation skills, as measured by inhibitory control, were able to regulate their behavior with the correct action while inhibiting t he incorrect action in order to succeed on the task. While it may be argued that children ignored the incorrect solution and only attended to the correct solution in this condition, it is unlikely. Considering the findings relative to the C only condition in which children had no choice but to attend to the correct solution, inhibitory control did not influence performance on the task, thus it is clear that advanced inhibitory control is not required to complete the task. Relative to the I+C condition, if children were only attending to the correct solution, it is reasonable to expect that inhibitory control would not have influenced performance considering the C only results. However, the results indicate that inhibitory control did influence performance for the I+C condition only. It is reasonable to expect that this condition
77 difference emerged due to the demands of the I+C instruction relative to the task. It is clear that children were attending to more than just the correct solution in the I+C conditi on based on the finding that the influence of inhibitory control is relative to instruction condition. Essentially, children with low inhibitory control had a more difficult time learning from the I+C instruction because this instruction in relation to the task placed greater cognitive (i.e., executive function) demands on the children than the C only condition. This is not to suggest that those with low inhibitory control were unable to distinguishing Carpenter, Akhtar, & Tomasello, 199 8 a ) Thus, the preschoolers in the current study were cognitively mistake or as accidental he mistake was presented. As mentioned previously, children in this condition observed the task demands (i.e., location of object in relation to the trap), making the cognitive demands in this study much more challenging. accidental actions (Carpenter et al., 199 8 a ). However, in the current study, the actions
78 relative to the object placement. Consideri ng that children are more inclined to imitate challenge. Children had to rely on inhibitory control more because behaviors presented by the experimenter conflicted. If c hildren relied on imitation of the correct actions, their imitating. Children had to inhibit imitating actions that were presented as correct when the situation required them to u Children with low self regulation were not developmentally prepared to process the I+C instruction because this condition required them to have a more sophisticated ability to regulate their behavior r Although inhibitory control was predictive of overall teaching session pe rformance, it was not significantly related to performance on Trial 4. However, considering the size of the correlation coefficient, clearly there is a moderate relationship between inhibitory control and performance on this trial which did not reach signi ficance due to small sample size. From a cultural learning perspective, both false belief and self regulation are important for changes in the way children learn from others. Relative to the I+C condition, this notion is supported to some extent given that false belief had a strong relationship with performance on Trial 4 and inhibitory control was moderately related to performance on the trial. Recall that Trial 4 was a crucial trial practice effects.
79 Children with greater false belief understanding were able to coordinate between the conflicting solution representations in order to choose the appropriate method for success at this trial. Cultural learning theory proposes that changes in social cognition regulation serves as evidence for this (Tomasello, et al., 1993). As children performed more trials during the teaching session, the influence of fa lse belief disappeared and the influence of self regulation was more critical for acting in accordance with the instruction throughout the session and this is reflected in the finding that inhibitory con trol predicted overall teaching session learn from instruction may be altered as task practice increases. Relative to the I+C condition, while inhibitory control predi cted performance on the task during the teaching session, the influence of inhibitory control on post instruction performances changed with experience. At post instruction1 the interaction between inhibitory control and instruction condition still signific antly predicted performance on the trap tube task as indicated by the robust regression, however the magnitude of this effect was reduced. This effect of inhibitory control on performance disappeared by the post instruction2 session. One reason for the re duction in influence at the post instruction sessions may be due to the amount of exposure children had with the task prior to these sessions. The findings from Williamson et al. (2008) suggested that children differentially imitate. Specifically the autho rs proposed that children integrate information received from instruction with information received from their own experience (Williamson et al., 2008).
80 Prior to post instruction1, children had completed 20 attempts on the task (i.e., baseline and teaching session: 10 trials each) and 30 attempts on the task prior to post instruction2 session (i.e., baseline, teaching session, and post instruction1: 10 trials each). Independent of instruction, children had the opportunity to gain information about the task through repeated exposure. In other words, children combined the information they received from instruction with their own experience to guide their performance. Thus, while certain developments in cognition are important for processing the instruction ini tially, the influence of these factors may become overshadowed once the learner gains more exposure to the task and instruction as well. Role of L anguage Across Instruction C onditions Ch tube performance at any session for either instruction condition. While research has demonstrated that language regulation, the current study demonstrates regulation uniquely contributes to their ability t o engage in learning. In addition, the findings lean towards the notion that false belief may also uniquely mentioned this relationship remains unclear. It is clear ho wever, that language is not a This is not to suggest that language is unimportant. Language is a fundamental skill for the development of other cognitive skills, suc h as false belief understanding (Jenkins & problem solving (Duncan & Pratt, 1997). As cultural learning theory highlights, the development of language is key for transi
81 receptive language ability This limits the understanding of how language relates to use of language, specifically during social interactions, may be more influential for their ability to benefit from instruction. Future research may consi speech) influences their ability to engage in social learning. This notion is discussed in more detail further below. General Discussion Considering that the trap tube task is a problem solving task and by default requires executive function skills, advanced inhibitory control was not necessarily required to succeed on the task considering the lack of influence on performance in the C only condition. Williamson, et al. (2008) proposed, inhibition and memory were necessary for children to engage in imitation. The authors proposed that these skills allow children to override their original method to solve a given problem in order to 8). ability to engage in imitation. The current findings offer some insight regardin g the role of inhibition and the not independently influence how they learn from instruction. Rather, advanced inhibitory control relative to the type of instruc tion provided influences how children learn. considering only conflict inhibitory control was assessed in the current study. The extent
82 to which false belief unders learn from the I+C instruction. However, caution should be used when considering the implications of t his finding given that this finding only emerged through the examination of one trial. In addition, the extent to which cognitive developmental differences influence performance is somewhat unclear considering the amount of exposure and repetition in the current study. As mentioned, when learning a novel task, children will integrate their experience with the information received from instruction (Williamson, et al., 2008). In tanding likely influenced performance results as well. In the baseline condition, although some children required prompting to use the tool, no instruction was provided regarding how to use the tool the experimenter simply said, Children followed the prompt by inserting the tool into the tube, suggesting that children were relying on prior knowledge of tool use in general. Previous research has demonstrated that children as young as 2 years have some understanding of c ausation even though this understanding may be subconscious (Gopnik, Sobel, Glymour, Schulz, Kushnir, & Danks, 2004). In the current study, children had some prior understanding of causation considering they used the tool in order to act on the object. Rel ative to social performance may be a product of learning ability, causal knowledge, as well as individual differences in prior experiences with causal events.
83 Fu ture research should expand on the current findings by considering how study children varied in their strategy use at baseline measurement, specifically in the egy choices. While research has demonstrated that developmental differe ability to learn from various forms of instruction exist (Horner & Whiten, 2007; Want & Harris, 2001), there is limited information regarding why these differences occur Within the context of cultural learning theory, the current study provides support for the notion that fundamental cognitive changes influence how children are prepared to engage in learning. This study demonstrated that changes in cognitive development expand ability to engage in social learning, but these advance learning method altogether. Future D irections from instruction, recent research has documented similar cognitive influences on ility to instruct others. Studies have found that social cognitive advances are related to developmental differences in how children teach others and how children understand the act of teaching in general. Research has demonstrated that false belief unders strategies (Davis Unger & Carlson, 2008; Strauss, Ziv, & Stein, 2002), as well as
84 teaching behaviors (S trauss et al., 2002; Ziv & Frye, 2004; Ziv, Solomon, & Frye, 2008). understanding ability to engage in t eaching another. Considering the current findings relative to teaching, it is possible a similar pattern ther or not learning has occurred. (Sobel, Li, & Corriveau, 2007). Initially children base their efs, and effort changes ability to understand learning and engage in learning may be relat ed to similar understanding of learning as this would be a fundamental st ep to understanding Future research should also assess multiple aspects of learning beyond their ability to perform the task after instruction. However, our study did not consider other benefits children may have gained from instruction. Learning is an abstract
85 performance alone. Fo r example, it is unknown which forms of instruction are the most in the teaching strategies children use for teaching others (Strauss et al., 2002). When required to teach another a novel task, it is unknown how the initial instruction one more substantial benefits for the learner in related situations. In addition to exploring multiple aspects of learning, future research should use larger samples to explore multiple aspects of self regulation and social cognition as well. The current study had a very small sample size considering the numerous independent variables and was limited in the assessment of self regulation. Inhibitory control is only one aspect of self regulation. Vygotsky noted self directed speech (i.e., private speech) is a skill that assists in self regulation (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002). Private speech is intended for communication with t he self rather than with another. Children use private speech as a method for planning (Duncan & Pratt, 1997) and children become more sophisticated in their use of private speech during the preschool years. Around the age of 4 years, children begin to coo rdinate their behavior with their private speech (Luria 1961, as cited in Tomasello et al., 1993). Future studies should consider use coordinate their behavior with private speech may
86 Finally, future studies should also consider learning using a variety of problem solving tasks considering the use of private speech tends to increase with task difficulty (Goodman, 1981). Conclusions engage in learning (Tomasello et al., 1993; Flynn & Whiten, 2008) and more recently research has described distinct changes in how children understand the process of learn ing (Sobel et al., 2007). The current study provides insight concerning the cognitive learning from others. However, examination of cognitive developments related to c hanges in learning ability and the importance of these changes remains incomplete. Although it is valuable to continue improving teaching met hods and instruction techniques to assist children in learning, it is also important to highlight the young c learning development and abilities that complete these social interactions.
87 114 Psychology Building PO Box 112250 Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 352 273 2118 352 392 7985 Fax APPENDIX A STUDY DESCRIPTION AN D INFORMED CONSENT F ORM Description : Study of Instruction, Problem Solving, and False Beliefs in Preschool Children Dear Parent/Guardian I am a graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Florida, conducting research What is this study about? We are interested in l earning the effects of instruction, language, and false example, if John puts a toy in his bag and does not see his friend has removed the toy, John may falsely believe his toy is still in his bag. This type of understanding is important for social interactions and could be beneficial during tasks that require instruction. How will my child be tested? If you agree to allow your child to participate in this study, te sting will take place at your childcare center. Two research assistants from the University of Florida will conduct the testing sessions. Your chi ld will receive two testing sessions, one session a day. The testing sessions will last roughly 20 30 minutes. Your child will be given a new problem solving task, which requires them to retrieve a toy from a container. In addition, children will receive a card sorting task. With your permission, your ch ild will be videotaped while performing the problem solving task and card sorting task The video will be accessible only to the research team for data verification purposes. belief understanding will be assessed by a series of short stories and puppet games. The stories involve characters hiding and looking for objects and the puppet games involve puppets thinking about the content of objects. During these stories and games, y our child will be asked about his/her thoughts development will also be assessed by using a picture vocabulary test. After each testing session is compl ete, your child will be offered stickers for their participation. What is required of me? You will be asked to complete and return a 13 item questionnaire regarding demographic information. However, you do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. Participant Privacy and Confidentiality of Records. Participation in this study is voluntary. There is no direct compensation, benefits, or risks associated with this study. Y ou and your child m ay withdraw in this study without consequence All answers to your questionnaire, y in this study are confidential. Both your name and will be kept confidential to the fullest extent provided by the law and will not be used in any scientific or news publications. Once the study is completed, we will provide you with a summary of results as they become available. This summary will review the general pattern of our findings and will not indicate in dividual child performances nor the demographic information associated with each child. Consent and Contact. If you would like for your child to participate in this study, please read and sign the attached consent form. If you have questions regarding thi s study, please do not hesitate to ask. We can be reached at the numbers listed below any time. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, you may contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB 02), P. O. Box 112250 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250 (352) 392 0433 College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Department of Psychology
88 Sincerely, Jennifer Tamargo, Graduate Student M. Jeffrey Farrar, PhD, Associate Professor (352) 273 2118 (352) 273 2140 Study of Instruction, Problem Solving, and False Beliefs in Preschool Children Jennifer Tamargo and M. Jeffrey Farrar, PhD Directions to participate in this study: said study and have kept a copy of the description for my records. By completing this consent, I voluntarily agree to allow my child to participate in the said study and to return the parent questionnaire Parent Contact Information The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Op portunity Institution ____________ ____ __________________ ________ k one) ____Male ____Female ___ __ _____ ________ Parent Name (PRINTED) __________ ___ __________________ Parent Signature ________________ _____________________ Date __ _____ __ 2nd Parent / Witness ______________________________ _____ Date_ ____ __ _________ Childcare Center Name 1.) Complete and sign this consent and the questionnaire attached (1 page fr ont & back) 2 .) Return Consent & Questionnaire Attached to your childcare center. Keep the description of the study. Research Representative Only # Contact information requested in order to send you information regarding the general results of this study. Parent Mailing Address ___________________________________________________ ______________________________________ __________ Daytime Contact Number (______)_______ ____________ex tension _________ Parent e mail address __________________________________________
89 APPENDIX B PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Study of Instru ction, Problem Solving, and False Beliefs in Preschool Children Jennifer Tamargo and M. Jeffrey Farrar, PhD 1. What is your age? (Please write in) __________________ 2. What is your sex? (Please circle one) a.) Fem ale b.) Male 3. What is your race? (Please write in) ___________________________ 4. What is your highest level of education ( Please circle one and write in if applicable ) a.) High School Diploma b.) GED c.) Some college d.) Associate s Degree e.) f g .) Doctorate Degree h. ) Other *Please indicate : _______________________________ ___________ 5. What is your current employment ?(Please write in job title No company names) ____________________________________ _____________ 6. What is your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD income? (Please circle the one CLOSEST to your TOTAL income) a.) 0 10,000 b.) 11,000 20,000 c.) 21,000 30,000 d.) 31,000 40,000 e.) 41,000 50,000 f.) 51,000 60,000 g.) 61,000 70,000 h.) 71, 000 80,000 i.) 81,000 90,000 j.) 91,000 100,000 k.) 100,000 and up 7. How many persons live in your home ? This includes anyone currently living in your home: related and non related ( Please write number below ) ______________________________ Turn Over to Co ntinue There are 13 q uestions on this questionnaire. You d o not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer
90 8. How many children are in your household? ( Please write number below ) _________________________________ 9. What are the ages of the children in your household? (Please list all ages below) ____________________________________________________ __________________ _____________ ____________________________________________________ THE QUESTIONS BELOW ARE IN RELATION TO THE CHILD PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY ONLY : 10. (Please circle one) a.) Stra ined ( feel uncomfort able speaking with teacher regarding my child ) b.) Limited ( feel somewhat comfortable to speak with teacher, but rarely speak with teacher ) c.) Average ( speak with teacher regarding my child on occasions ) d.) Strong ( speak with teacher regarding my child daily ) 11. How long has th is child been enrolled in childcare TOTAL ? ( Please write in number where most applicable for example: _3_ years) __ __ day(s) _____ week(s) _____month ( s ) ____year ( s ) 12. H ow many child care centers has this child been enrolled in TOTAL ? (Please write in total number of centers this child has attended including the current center ) _______________________________ 13. How long has this child been enrolled in the CURRENT childcare center ? ( Please write in number where most applicable for example : 3 week(s) ) __ __ day(s) _____ week(s) _____month ( s ) ____year ( s ) End of Questionnaire Please return with the signed consent form THANK YOU! # Research Representative Only
91 APPENDIX C TRAP TUBE APPARATUS Original Trap Tube Inverted Trap Tube T ool 61cm 60cm 13.5cm 15cm
92 APPENDIX D FALSE BELIEF TASKS Format: PICTURE BOOK Scene: Emma & Truck Read each sentence while showing child the corresponding p age Page 1: This is Emma. She loves to play with her toy truck. Page 2: Emma wanted a snack. Page 3: So Emma put her truck under a hat. Page 4: Then she left. Page 6: She thought that the truck would roll off the table and be broken. Page 7: So she took the truck from under the h at and put it in a bag. Page 8: Then she left the room. Page 9: Emma came back to play with her toy truck [Immediately ask questions listed below while page 9 is still visible to the child .] Q1: Where will Emma look for her toy truck? Response: ___ __________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE under the hat or in the bag ? Response: ______________________________________________ Q2: Why will she look there ? Response: ____________________________________________________ Q3: Where did Emma leave her toy truck ? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE under the hat or in the bag ? Response: ______________________________________________ Q4: Where is the toy truck now ? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE ASK or in the bag ? Response: ______________________________________________
93 Format: PICTURE BOOK Scene: John & Book Tak re Book. Read each sentence while showing child the corresponding p ag e. Page 1: This is John. He loves his book. Page 2: John wanted to eat ice cre am. Page 3: So John put his book under his bed. Page 4: Then he went to the kitchen. Page 6: She thought that the pages would be torn if the book were left under the bed Page 7: So she took the book and put it i n a drawer. Page 8: Then she left the room. Page 9: John came back to read his book. [Immediately ask questions listed below while page 9 is still visible to the child .] Q1: Where will John look for his book? Response: ________________________________ _____________________ IF NO RESPONSE under his bed or in the drawer? Response: ______________________________________________ Q2: Why will he look there? Response: _____________________________________________________ Q3: Where did John le ave his book? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE under his bed or in the drawer? Response: ______________________________________________ Q4: Where is his book now? Response: ______________________ _______________________________ IF NO RESPONSE in the drawer ? Response: ______________________________________________
94 Format: GAME/PUPPETS Materials: Toy Doll & Crayon Box filled with r ibbons Complete actions and questions in the sequence indicated below. Show child Crayon Box: Q1: What do you think is inside this box? Response: _____________________________________________________ Open Crayon Box: Q2: What is inside this box? Response: ____________________________ _________________________ Close Crayon Box: Q3: When you first saw this box all closed up, what did you think was inside the box? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE crayons or ribbons ? Response: ______________________________________________ Q4: Can you remember what was inside the box? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE Were there crayons or ribbons ? Re sponse: ______________________________________________ Take out toy doll make toy do ll look at closed crayon box and read below : Q5: This is Dolly, she has never seen inside this box W hat does Dolly think is inside? Response: _____________ ________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE Does she think there ar e crayons or ribbons ? Response: ______________________________________________ Q6: Why does Dolly think that? Response: ______________________________________ _______________
95 Format: GAME/PUPPETS Materials: Stuffed Bear & Band Aid Box containing a small b all Complete actions and questions in the sequence indicated below. Show Child closed Band Aid Box: Q1: What do you think is inside this box? Response: ____________________________________________________ Open Band Aid Box: Q2: What is inside this box? Response: _____________________________________________________ Close Band Aid Box: Q3: When you first saw this box all closed up, what did you thin k was inside the box? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE Band Aids or a ball ? Response: ______________________________________________ Q4: Can you remember what was inside the box? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE Were there Band Aids or was there a ball ? Response: ______________________________________________ Take out stuffed bear make stuffed b ear look at closed Band Aid Box and read below : Q5: This is Bear he has never seen inside this box W hat does Bear think is inside? Response: _____________________________________________________ IF NO RESPONSE Does he think there are Band Aids or a ball ? Response: ______________________________________________ Q6: Why does Bear think that? Response: _____________________________________________________
96 APPENDIX E INHIBITORY CONTROL T ASK: DAY/NIGHT STROO P LIKE TASK Day Card Night Card Experimenter Script Training Session -When you see this night Can you say day? -When you see this day ca Can you say night? -Experimenter then shows the child each card once while asking the child What do you say for this one? If child answers incorrectly or does not respond, the training session is repeated Experimenter Script Trial Block ( 3 blocks of 10 trials) Experimenter says the below rules to the child prior to trials 1 and 6 for each block (i.e., every 5 cards) When you see When you see
97 APPENDIX F TRAP TUBE TASK: TEACHING SESSION Trial 2 Trial 3 Teaching Trial Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Teaching Trial Trial 8 Teaching Trial Trial 7 Trial 9 Trial 10 Trial 1 Teaching Trial
98 A PPENDIX G TRAP TUBE TASK: EXPERIMEN TER SCRIPT Session 1 Order Fixed 1. Baseline session Experimenter verbally states goal of task. If no attempt after 2 minutes, mouse out of the tube. 2. Teaching session Set up for 10 trials. Instruction will occur before child attempts trials 1, 3, 6, and 8. After each instruction trial, experimenter reminds child of the goal of the task, but provides no further instruction a.) Correct Only Instruction (C only Conditio n ): Ok now I will help you. Let us look at the tube. There is a trap right next to the mouse ( experimenter points to object, then points to trap ). We do not want the mouse to fall into the trap. First, we need to pick up the stick ( experimenter then picks up tool ). We have to put the stick in over here so we can push the mouse out of the tube ( puts in the tool and retrieves the object ). [ Experimenter2 trial.] You try now We want to get the mouse out of the tube. b.) Incorrect + Correct Condition (I+C Condition) : Ok now I will help you. Let us look at the tube. There is a trap right next to the mouse ( experimenter points to object, then points to trap ). We do not want the mouse to fall into the trap. First, we need to pick up the stick ( experimenter then picks up tool ). We have to put the stick in so we can push the mouse out of the tube ( experimenter p uts in the tool object falls inside trap ). Oops! That will not work beca use the mouse will fall in the trap [Experimenter 2 sets object in tube]. We have to put the stick in over here so we can push the mouse out of the tube ( points to the correct end of tube then puts in the tool and retrieves the object ). [Experimenter 2 re sets apparatus ] You try now. We want to get the mouse out of the tube. 3. Post instruction1 Experimenter verbally states goal of task. Set up for 10 trials, stop after 2 minutes if no attempts made by child. Let us try the tube game again. To play the game, we have to get the mouse out of the tube. Session 2 Order of Post instruction2 and Inverted Session counterbalanced Post Instruction2 Experimenter verbally states goal of the task. Set up for 10 trials, stop after 2 minutes if no attempts made by child. we have to get the mouse out of the tube. I nverted Session Experimenter verbally states goal of the task. Set up for 10 trials, stop after 2 minutes if no attempts made by child. we have to get the mouse out of the tube.
99 REFERENCE LIST Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory Oxford, England: Prentice Hall. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mode rator mediator v ariable d i stinction in social p sychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical c onsiderations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173 1182. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The b ioecological theory of h uman d ev elopment In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed) Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. (pp. 3 15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Carlson, S. M. & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and s the ory of mind. Child Development, 72 1032 1053. Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. ( 1998a ). Fourteen through 18 month old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior & Development, 21 (2), 315 330. Carpenter, enables two year olds to imitatively learn a complex task. Child Development, 73, 1431 1441. Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005 ). Twelve and 18 month olds copy actions i n terms of goals Development al Science, 8 (1), F12 F22 Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998 b ). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develo pment 63 176. Davis Unger, A. C., & Carlson, S. M. (2008). Development of teaching skills and relations to theory of mind in preschoolers. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9 26 45. Duncan, R. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1997). Microgenetic change in the q uantity and q uality of p private s peech International Jour nal of Behavioral Development, 20 (2), 367 383. Dunn, L M., & Dunn, D M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Erceg Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical m ethods : a n e asy w ay to m aximize the accuracy and power of your r esearch. American Psychologist 63( 7), 591 601. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society New York: Norton.
100 Flynn, E., (2007). The role of inhibitory control in false belief understanding. Infant and Child Development, 16, 53 69. Flynn, E., & Whiten, A. (2008). Cultural transmission of tool use in young children: A diffusion chain study. Social Development 17 (3), 699 718. Freu d, S. (1942). Psycho analysis. International Journal of Psycho Analysis 23 97 105. Frye, D., Zelazo, P., & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule based reasoning. Cognitive Development, 10 483 527. Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994 ). The relationship between cognition and action: P erform ance of children 3 7 years old on a s troop like day night test Cognition, 53 (2), 129 153. Goodman, S. H. (1981). The i ntegrati on of v erbal and m otor b ehavior in preschool chil dren Child Develop ment, 52, 280 289. Gopnik, A., & Astington, J. W. (1988). Children's u nderstandi ng of r epresentational change and i ts relation to the u nderstanding of false b elief and the a ppearance r eality d istinction Child Development, 59, 26 37 Gopnik, A. Glymour C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111 (1), 3 32. Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2007). Learning from o thers' m istakes? Limits on u nderstanding a t rap t ube t ask by y oung c himpanzees ( p an troglodytes) and c hildren ( h omo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology 121 (1) 12 21. Jaccard, J., Wan, C. K., & Turrisi, R. (1990). The detection and interpretation of interaction effects between continuo us variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25 (4), 467 478. Jenkins, J. M., & Astington, J. W. (1996). Cognitive f actors and f amily s tructure a ssociated w ith t heory of mind d evelopment in young ch ildren Developmental Psycholog y, 32 (1), 70 78 Keselman, H. J., Algina, J., Lix, L. M., Wilcox, R. R., & Deering, K. N. (2008). A g enerally r obust approach for testing h ypotheses and s etting confidence intervals for effect s izes Psychological Methods 13 ( 2 ) 110 129 Nagell K ., Olguin, R., & Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107 174 186.
101 Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and c opying outc omes: S ocial learning t hrough the s econd y ear Developmental Psychol o gy, 4 2, 555 565 John t hinks t hat M ary t hinks attribution of second o rder b eliefs by 5 to 1 0 y ear old c hildren Journal of Experimental Child P sychology, 39 437 471. Piaget, J. (1930). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. (Original work published in 1926). Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models Behavior Research Methods 40 (3), 879 891 Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1, 515 526. Rowe, S. M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Vygots ky's model of cognitive development. In U. Goswami (Ed). Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development ( Vol. 13, pp. 538 554). Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. Malden, MA, US: Blackwell Sobel, D., Li, J., & Corriveau, K. (2007) : C Journal of Cognition and Development, 8 (3), 345 369. Co gnitive Development, 24 70 79. Strauss, S., Ziv, M., & Stein, A. (2002). Teaching as a natural cognition and its relation Child Development, 17 1473 1787. Tomasello, M. (1995 ). Joint attention as social cognit ion. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103 130 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tomasello, M., Krug er, A. C., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1 6, 495 552. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Want S C & Harris P L (2001) Learning from other people s mi stakes: causal understanding in learning to use a tool. Child Development 72 431 443
102 Welch Ross, M. K. (1997). Mother child participation in c onversation a bout the p ast: R elationships to p reschoolers' theory of m ind Developmental Psychology, 33 (4), 618 629 Wilcox, R. R. (1998) H ow many discoveries have been lost by ignoring modern statistical methods? American Psychologist 53 (3), 300 314. Williamson, R. A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Markman, E. M. (2008). Prior expe riences and perceived efficacy in 3 year Developmental Psychology, 44 (1), 275 285. and belief. Cognitive Development, 19, 457 477. Ziv, M., Solomon, A. of teaching. Child Development, 79 (5), 1237 1256.
103 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jennifer Tamargo was born and r aised in Jacksonville, Florida. She graduated from Bishop Kenny High School in 200 0. In 2004, s he received her B achelor of Arts in p sychology ( m inor s ocial w elfare) from the University of North Florida As an undergraduate she held internships with the Clay County Head Start Program and the Jacksonville Children Upon graduation the JCC offered Jennifer a position as the developmental screener for the Healthy School Readiness Project (HSRP), a pilot project funded by the Early Learning Coalition of Duval County. HSRP was collaborative project involving the JCC, Duval County Health Department, UF College of Medicine Jacksonville Department of Pediatrics Vision Is Priceless Cou ncil, and Speech & Hearing Inc. Jennifer primarily served as the developmental screener, but also served as a liaison to the mentioned agencies which provide d additional services to the HSRP children and childcare providers E lements of the project were implemented to restructure the JCC d evelopmental screening process and services to their childcare providers In August 2007 Jennifer be gan the developmental p sychology d octorate progra m at the University of Florida. Primarily she is interested in social cognition executive function, and preschoolers learning development. She complete d her m degree i n the fall of 2009 Currently she is continuing h er graduate work and is expected to complete her doctorate in 2012.