作为早期发展象征的木偶:木偶理论辩论中的 "是否 "与 "如何 "之争

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Cognitive Development Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101487
{"title":"作为早期发展象征的木偶:木偶理论辩论中的 \"是否 \"与 \"如何 \"之争","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of animations and puppet shows in developmental research has recently been questioned on external validity grounds. Do infants and children interpret symbolic stimuli (e.g., animated shapes, wooden circles) as required for a given measure of interest (e.g., as agents)? We review the arguments on both sides and conclude that external validity is not under threat by the mere use of symbolic stimuli. At the same time, the debate in its current formulation runs the risk of masking an important theoretical question: <em>how</em> do infants, children, and adults interpret such stimuli? We present the standard answer to the <em>how</em>-question (symbolic stimuli satisfy the input conditions of the cognitive domain under investigation) and contrast it with the under-explored possibility that these stimuli are interpreted the same way they have been generated (i.e., as representations).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51422,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Puppets as symbols in early development: From whether to how in the Theory of Puppets debate\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The use of animations and puppet shows in developmental research has recently been questioned on external validity grounds. Do infants and children interpret symbolic stimuli (e.g., animated shapes, wooden circles) as required for a given measure of interest (e.g., as agents)? We review the arguments on both sides and conclude that external validity is not under threat by the mere use of symbolic stimuli. At the same time, the debate in its current formulation runs the risk of masking an important theoretical question: <em>how</em> do infants, children, and adults interpret such stimuli? We present the standard answer to the <em>how</em>-question (symbolic stimuli satisfy the input conditions of the cognitive domain under investigation) and contrast it with the under-explored possibility that these stimuli are interpreted the same way they have been generated (i.e., as representations).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000728\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000728","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,在发展研究中使用动画和木偶剧的做法受到了外部有效性的质疑。婴幼儿是否会将符号刺激(如动画形状、木制圆圈)理解为特定兴趣测量(如代理)所需的刺激?我们回顾了双方的论点,并得出结论:外部有效性并不会因为仅仅使用符号刺激而受到威胁。同时,目前的争论有可能会掩盖一个重要的理论问题:婴儿、儿童和成人是如何解释这种刺激的?我们提出了 "如何 "问题的标准答案(符号刺激满足所研究认知领域的输入条件),并将其与未被充分探讨的可能性进行对比,即这些刺激是以它们产生时的相同方式(即作为表征)来解释的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Puppets as symbols in early development: From whether to how in the Theory of Puppets debate

The use of animations and puppet shows in developmental research has recently been questioned on external validity grounds. Do infants and children interpret symbolic stimuli (e.g., animated shapes, wooden circles) as required for a given measure of interest (e.g., as agents)? We review the arguments on both sides and conclude that external validity is not under threat by the mere use of symbolic stimuli. At the same time, the debate in its current formulation runs the risk of masking an important theoretical question: how do infants, children, and adults interpret such stimuli? We present the standard answer to the how-question (symbolic stimuli satisfy the input conditions of the cognitive domain under investigation) and contrast it with the under-explored possibility that these stimuli are interpreted the same way they have been generated (i.e., as representations).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Cognitive Development contains the very best empirical and theoretical work on the development of perception, memory, language, concepts, thinking, problem solving, metacognition, and social cognition. Criteria for acceptance of articles will be: significance of the work to issues of current interest, substance of the argument, and clarity of expression. For purposes of publication in Cognitive Development, moral and social development will be considered part of cognitive development when they are related to the development of knowledge or thought processes.
期刊最新文献
Development of L1-L2 naming skills in a monolingual context: Evidence from children and adolescents Children’s perceptions of intergroup similarity and dissimilarity and their association with attitudes towards a conflict out-group The “How many?” task inadequately assesses the understanding of the cardinality principle The shape bias in Mandarin-exposed young autistic children: The role of abstract shape representation Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1