Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:02:42.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doing with development: Moving toward a complete theory of concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Haley A. Vlach ,
Lauren Krogh ,
Emily E. Thom  and
Catherine M. Sandhofer
Haley A. Vlach
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ucla.edu
Lauren Krogh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ucla.edu
Emily E. Thom
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ucla.edu
Catherine M. Sandhofer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563. [email protected]@[email protected]@psych.ucla.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Machery proposes that the construct of “concept” detracts from research progress. However, ignoring development also detracts from research progress. Developmental research has advanced our understanding of how concepts are acquired and thus is essential to a complete theory. We propose a framework that both accounts for development and holds great promise as a new direction for thinking about concepts.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 227 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Butterworth, G., Jarrett, N. & Hicks, L. (1982) Spatiotemporal identity in infancy: Perceptual competence or conceptual deficit? Developmental Psychology 18:435–49.Google Scholar
Diamond, A. (1985) Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants' performance on A-not-B. Child Development 56:868–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. J. (1969) Principles of perceptual learning and development. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Horobin, K. & Acredolo, L. (1986) The role of attentiveness, mobility history, and separation of hiding sites on stage IV search behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 41:114–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plumert, J. M. (2008) Children's thinking is not just about what's in the head: Understanding the organism and environment as a unified system. In: Advances in child development and behavior, ed. Kail, R. V., pp. 373–417. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., Schutte, A. R. & Horst, J. S. (2009) The dynamic nature of knowledge: Insights from a dynamic field model of children's novel noun generalizations. Cognition 110:322–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, L. K. & Smith, L. B. (1998) Memory and attention make smart word learning: An alternative account of Akhtar, Carpenter, and Tomasello. Child Development 69:94–104.Google Scholar
Sandhofer, C. M. & Doumas, L. A. A. (2008) Order of presentation effects in the learning of color categories. Journal of Cognition and Development 9:194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandhofer, C. M. & Thom, E. E. (2006) Taking the task seriously: Reflections on measures of color acquisition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 94:344–48.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1994) Cognitive variability: A key to understanding cognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science 3:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloutsky, V. M. & Fisher, A. V. (2008) Attentional learning and flexible induction: How mundane mechanisms give rise to smart behaviors. Child Development 79:639–51.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Thelen, E., Titzer, R. & McLin, D. (1999) Knowing in the context of acting: The task dynamics of the A-not-B error. Psychological Review 106:235–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, J. P. & Schöner, G. (2003) Bridging the representational gap in the dynamic systems approach to development. Developmental Science 6:392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Geert, P. & van Dijk, M. (2002) Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development 25:340–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlach, H. A., Sandhofer, C. M. & Kornell, N. (2008) The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition 109:163–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed