表达:抑制控制在成人数学等价知识中的作用。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1177/17470218241280941
Amanda Grenell, Emily R Fyfe
{"title":"表达:抑制控制在成人数学等价知识中的作用。","authors":"Amanda Grenell, Emily R Fyfe","doi":"10.1177/17470218241280941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has shown that naïve views of math and science concepts coexist with more formal views. The current study extended this finding to the domain of mathematical equivalence and tested whether inhibitory control relates to using more formal views over naïve ones. In the current study, we report two experiments in which undergraduate students (<i>n</i> = 125 for Study 1 and <i>n</i> = 184 for Study 2) completed a priming task involving inhibitory control and math items, an inhibitory control flanker measure, and a comprehensive mathematical equivalence assessment. We found quantitative and qualitative evidence that adults hold both naïve operational views and formal relational views of equivalence across multiple measures and under timed and untimed conditions. In contrast to our hypotheses, we did not find evidence to support a strong association between individual differences in inhibitory control and mathematical equivalence knowledge. The results call into question the role of this domain-general cognitive skill in contributing to adults' expression of naïve operational thinking.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Role of inhibitory control in adults' mathematical equivalence knowledge.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Grenell, Emily R Fyfe\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218241280941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Previous research has shown that naïve views of math and science concepts coexist with more formal views. The current study extended this finding to the domain of mathematical equivalence and tested whether inhibitory control relates to using more formal views over naïve ones. In the current study, we report two experiments in which undergraduate students (<i>n</i> = 125 for Study 1 and <i>n</i> = 184 for Study 2) completed a priming task involving inhibitory control and math items, an inhibitory control flanker measure, and a comprehensive mathematical equivalence assessment. We found quantitative and qualitative evidence that adults hold both naïve operational views and formal relational views of equivalence across multiple measures and under timed and untimed conditions. In contrast to our hypotheses, we did not find evidence to support a strong association between individual differences in inhibitory control and mathematical equivalence knowledge. The results call into question the role of this domain-general cognitive skill in contributing to adults' expression of naïve operational thinking.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241280941\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241280941","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究表明,对数学和科学概念的天真看法与更正式的看法并存。本研究将这一发现扩展到数学等价领域,并测试了抑制控制是否与使用更正式的观点而非天真观点有关。在本研究中,我们报告了两个实验,在这两个实验中,本科生(研究 1 的人数为 125 人,研究 2 的人数为 184 人)完成了涉及抑制性控制和数学项目的引物任务、抑制性控制侧翼测量和综合数学等价性评估。我们发现了定量和定性证据,表明成人在多种测量中,以及在计时和非计时条件下,都持有天真的操作性等价观和正式的关系性等价观。与我们的假设相反,我们没有发现证据支持抑制控制的个体差异与数学等价性知识之间的紧密联系。这些结果使我们对这一领域一般认知技能在成人表达天真的运算思维中所起的作用产生了怀疑。
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
Role of inhibitory control in adults' mathematical equivalence knowledge.

Previous research has shown that naïve views of math and science concepts coexist with more formal views. The current study extended this finding to the domain of mathematical equivalence and tested whether inhibitory control relates to using more formal views over naïve ones. In the current study, we report two experiments in which undergraduate students (n = 125 for Study 1 and n = 184 for Study 2) completed a priming task involving inhibitory control and math items, an inhibitory control flanker measure, and a comprehensive mathematical equivalence assessment. We found quantitative and qualitative evidence that adults hold both naïve operational views and formal relational views of equivalence across multiple measures and under timed and untimed conditions. In contrast to our hypotheses, we did not find evidence to support a strong association between individual differences in inhibitory control and mathematical equivalence knowledge. The results call into question the role of this domain-general cognitive skill in contributing to adults' expression of naïve operational thinking.

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
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
期刊最新文献
Hemispheric asymmetry for global-local processing: Effects of stimulus category and ageing. Better face-name recall is associated with better face recognition ability. Pure-tone audiometry and dichotic listening in primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer's disease. The impact of partially covered faces on trust attribution, sharing resources, and perceived fairness of one's own choices in Ultimatum Game. The multicomponent model of working memory fifty years on.
×
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