3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下的类比推理

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 本研究采用经典类比任务,考察了3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下类比推理发展的水平与特点.结果表明:(1)在无主题联想条件下,幼儿的单维类比推理在3～4岁迅速发展,4～5岁发展较为平缓,而双维类比推理在3～5岁仍处于较低水平.(2)在主题—规则冲突条件下,幼儿在单维类比推理中表现出一定的主题联想优势反应;幼儿在双维类比推理中表现出较强的主题联想优势反应,年龄特点为:3岁幼儿有较强的主题联想优势反应,4岁幼儿的主题联想优势反应明显下降,而5岁幼儿又表现出较强的主题联想优势反应.

关键词: 幼儿, 类比推理, 主题-规则, 维度

Abstract: With classical analogical task,we explore analogical reasoning under the condition of conflict between association and rule among 3～5 year infants.The result indicates:(1) Infants' one-dimension analogical reasoning ability speedly enhances from 3 to 4 years old,but slightly enhances from 4 to 5 years old.In two-dimension analogical reasoning,3～5 years infants have a low level of analogical reasoning ability.(2) When associative system and rule-based system conflicts in the process of analogical reasoning,two systems are activated at the same time and compete with each other.Associative system and rule-based system balance in one-dimension analogical reasoning task.In two-dimension analogical reasoning task,infants are more likely to make inference based on associative system,and less likely to use rule-based system.Our result implies that the associative system plays an important role in 3～5 years infants' analogical reasoning.

Key words: Infants, analogical reasoning, associative system and rule based system, dimension

中图分类号:

B844.1

顾本柏, 冯廷勇, 袁文萍, 马晓清. 3～5岁幼儿在主题-规则冲突条件下的类比推理[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2011, 27(2): 126-132.

Gu Ben-bai, FENG Ting-yong, YUAN Wen-ping, MA Xiao-qing. Analogical Reasoning on Condition of Conflict between Associative System and Rule-Based System among 3～5 years Infants[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2011, 27(2): 126-132.

参考文献

[1] Andrews,G.,& Halford,G.S.(2002).A cognitive complexity metricapplied to cognitive development.Cognitive Psychology,45,153-219.
[2] Evans,J.S.(2003).In two minds:dual-process accounts of reasoning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7(10),454-459.
[3] Gentner,D.,Holyoak,K.J.,& Kokinov,B.N.(2001).The analogical mind:perspectives from cognitive science.London:The MIT Press,499-538.
[4] Goldman,S.R.,Pellegrino,J.W.,Parseghian,P.,& Sallis,R.(1982).Developmental and individual differences in verbal analogicalreasoning.Child Development,53(2),550-559.
[5] Goswami,U.(1992).Analogical reasoning in children.Hove:Low-rence Erlbaum Associates,3-4.
[6] Goswami,U.,& Brown,A.L.(1989).Melting chocolate and meltingsnowmen:Analogical reasoning and causal relations.Cognition,35,69-95.
[7] Halford,G.S.(1993).Children's understanding:The development ofmental models.Hillsdale,NJ:Lowrence Erlbaum Associates.Lin,E.L.,& Murphy,G.L.(2001).Thematic relations in adults' concepts.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,21,272-282.
[8] Markman,E.,& Hutchinson,J.(1984).Children's sensitivity toconstraints on word meaning:Taxonomic versus thematic relations.Cognitive Psychology,16,1-27.
[9] Morrison,R.G.,Krawczyk,D.,Holyoak,K.J.,Hummel,J.E.,Chow,T.W.,Miller,B.L.,et al.(2004).A neurocomputationalmodel of analogical reasoning and its breakdown in front temporal dementia.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,16,260-271.
[10] Rattermann,M.J.,& Gentner,D.(1998).The effect of language onsimilarity:The use of relational labels improves young children's performance in a mapping task.In K.Holyoak,D.Gentner,& B.Koki-nov(Eds.),Advances in analogy research:Integration of theory & data from the cognitive,computational,and neural sciences.Sophia:New Bulgarian University,274-282.
[11] Singer-Freeman,K.E,& Goswami,U.(2001).Does half a pizza e-qual half a box of chocolates? Proportional matching in an analogytask.Cognitive Development,16,811-829.
[12] Sloman,S.A.(1996).The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.Psychological Bulletin,119(1),3-22.
[13] Smiley,S.S.,& Brown,A.L.(1979).Conceptual preference forthematic or taxonomic relations:A nonmonotonic trend from preschoolto old age.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,28,437-458.
[14] Sternberg,R.J.,& Nigro,G.(1980).Developmental patterns in thesolution of verbal analogies.Child evelopment,51,27-83.
[15] Viskontas,I.V.,Morrison,R.G.,Holyoak,K.J.,Hummel,J.E.,& Knowlton,B.J.(2004).Relational integration,inhibition,and analogical reasoning in older adults.Psychology and Aging,19(4),581-591
[16] 冯廷勇,李宇,李红,苏缇,龙长权.(2006).3～5 岁儿童表面与结构相似性类比推理的实验研究.心理科学,29(5),1091-1095.
[17] 李红,冯廷勇.(2002).4～5 岁儿童单双维类比推理能力的发展水平和特点.心理学报,34(4),395-399.
[18] 李文馥,樊艾梅.(1994).各种分类标准在儿童分类中的竞争.心理学报,26(4),362-369.
[19] 魏勇刚,吴睿明,李红冯廷勇.(2005).抑制性控制在幼儿执行功能与心理理论中的作用.心理学报,37(5),598-605.

相关文章 15

[1]	彭越, 张和颐, 陈英和, 雷秀雅, 戚玥, 于晓, 乔学文, 刘沫漩, 颜露懿. 类比推理策略与工作记忆、抑制控制关系的年龄差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 761-771.
[2]	高子惠, 焦雨, 王曦, 刘肖岑. 电子绘本文字的动静态呈现方式对幼儿阅读体验和学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 817-824.
[3]	王英杰, 栾金鑫, 李燕. 母亲养育压力与幼儿焦虑的关系:亲子冲突的中介作用和母亲正念的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(5): 702-709.
[4]	张文洁, 范增, 黎蕾, 刘毅, 钟毅平. 接受对象的常规行为与资源需求对5～6岁幼儿分享行为的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 465-472.
[5]	牛湘, 冉光明. 同伴关系与幼儿问题行为关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 473-487.
[6]	刘双, 李梅, 冯晓杭, 张向葵. 幼儿掌控动机与能力关系的纵向研究:任务类型与气质的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 161-172.
[7]	王英杰, 张刈, 张美霞, 李燕. 母亲正念与幼儿问题行为的关系:正念养育和亲子关系的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 184-191.
[8]	刘晓洁, 李燕. 母亲感知的共同教养对幼儿行为问题的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 626-634.
[9]	张和颐, 洪秀敏. 家庭认知环境与0~3岁婴幼儿发展的关系:有调节的中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 178-185.
[10]	王薇, 贡德英, 程春, 陈科, 李永鑫, 闫晶晶. 5～7岁自闭症谱系障碍幼儿数感的特点[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 818-825.
[11]	于晓, 张涵, 陈英和, 戚玥, 刘爱芳, 刘丽丽. 类比推理的眼动研究:揭示个体类比推理策略发展的有效手段[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 897-903.
[12]	刘田田, 李燕, 李有嘉, 姜新苗. 父母协同教养与学前儿童社会行为的关系:亲子关系和同胞关系的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 638-647.
[13]	周思妤, 王艺卓, 李晓巍. 幼儿园新教师学历与离职意向的关系:入职适应、工作满意度的多重中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(5): 675-682.
[14]	贺晓玲, 陈俊, 刘灵, 张甜. 3~5岁幼儿职业声望垂直空间、大小双重隐喻发展[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 457-464.
[15]	李占星, 朱莉琪. “它”是所有者吗？幼儿对所有权主体的理解[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 465-471.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed