{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.049832651543324655, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02026775753068055, 'mean_word_length': 5.411203814064362, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 2, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dimensional Distinctiveness Constraints on Comparison Processing Across Development

Dimensional Distinctiveness Constraints on Comparison Processing Across Development Luc Augier (luc.augier@u-bourgogne.fr) Universite de Bourgogne – LEAD – UMR CNRS 5022 21065 Dijon, France Jean-Pierre Thibaut (jean-pierre.thibaut@u-bourgogne.fr) Universite de Bourgogne – LEAD – UMR CNRS 5022 21065 Dijon, France Abstract We investigated how the benefits of comparisons (within- and/or between- category comparisons) for generalizing novel names for novel objects along a non-salient dimension (texture) might depend on dimensional distinctiveness. We tested 4- and 6-year-olds. We found that in the case of a lower distinctiveness, older children gave more texture-based answers following within-category comparison whereas younger children gave more texture-based answers in between- category comparisons. When distinctiveness was high, both groups benefited from within-comparison. They also benefited from between-category comparison only when within-category comparison were available (i.e. when both kinds of comparison were available). We interpret these findings in terms of differential costs of comparison for varying levels of distinctiveness along either nonsalient or salient dimensions. Keywords: Comparison, Distinctiveness, development, Executive Functions. Conceptual Introduction Acquiring a novel concept requires to find out important diagnostic features and to neglect irrelevant aspects of the stimuli. A major difficulty for children is that in many cases there are irrelevant similarities or differences which are more salient than variations along the relevant features (Murphy, 2004; Gershkoff-Stowe & Rakison, 2005). Hence, understanding what situations help them to favor nonobvious over salient properties is a crucial issue for concept development. In this respect, comparison represents a powerful means for learning about the world (e.g., Gentner & Namy, 1999; Goldstone, 2010; Thibaut, 1991). A growing body of research in both children and adults shows that comparison can highlight nonobvious shared properties (Gentner & Colhoun, 2010). In preschoolers, the benefits of comparison have been shown for object names (e.g., Gentner & Namy, 1999; Graham, Namy, Gentner, & Meagher, 2010), names for parts (Gentner, Loewenstein, & Hung, 2007), adjectives (e.g., Waxman & Klibanoff, 2000), action verbs (e.g., Childers & Paik, 2009; Haryu, Imai, & Okada, 2011), relational nouns (Gentner, Anggoro, & Klibanoff, 2011) or labels for spatial relations (Christie & Gentner, 2010). In a seminal study, Gentner and Namy (1999) used pictures of objects from familiar taxonomic categories (e.g. fruits) to test 4-year-olds novel names extensions. When only one standard was presented (e.g. an apple labelled blicket) children preferred to extend this new label to a perceptually similar object (e.g. a balloon) rather than to a taxonomically related but perceptually dissimilar object (e.g. a banana). Crucially, this preference was reversed when children were given two standards in comparison (e.g. an apple and a pear, both labelled blicket). With the same paradigm, Graham, Namy, Gentner, and Meagher (2010) also obtained this beneficial effect of comparison with unfamiliar objects. They pitted a perceptually non-salient dimension (texture) against a perceptually salient one (shape). In the no-comparison condition only one standard was presented. There were two test objects, one sharing its texture but not its shape with the standard, the other sharing its shape but not its texture. In this no-comparison situation, a majority of children generalized the novel name to the same-shape transfer object. In the comparison condition, two same-texture standards were introduced with the same label. In this case, a majority of children extended the novel label to the same-texture match. Comparing same-texture items promoted the use of this nonsalient dimension to guide their categorization. Using the same paradigm (texture against shape), the present study investigated how the effect of comparison might interact with dimensional distinctiveness. Indeed, despite a large body of research on the benefits of comparisons in concept learning, the cognitive constraints generated by comparisons are largely understudied (see Augier & Thibaut, 2013). Our central hypothesis is that different levels of dimension distinctiveness will generate different cognitive costs that might affect performance. Kinds of Comparisons Comparison helps preschoolers to find shared non-salient properties for their categorizations. One less investigated, kind of comparison is the comparison between items from different categories (i.e. contrast-category comparison). In preschoolers, contrast had a positive effect on learning subordinate categories (Waxman, Lynch, Casey, & Baer, 1997), proper names (Hall, & Rhemtulla, in press), adjectives for objects properties (Au, & Laframboise, 1990; Waxman & Klibanoff, 2000), perceptual categories (Ankowski, Vlach, & Sandhofer, 2012) or verbs meanings (Childers, Hirshkowitz, & Benavides, in press). Recently, Namy and Clepper (2010) introduced a condition with a contrast item (e.g., a perceptually similar but taxonomically different light bulb presented as “not a blicket” to contrast with the standards, namely an apple and a pear).