2011
DOI: 10.1080/15248372.2011.563482
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are U-Shaped Developmental Trajectories Illusory?

Abstract: Without criteria for what counts as a U=N-shaped developmental trajectory, it is not clear how many legitimate Us really exist. Many, if not all, Us may turn out to be illusions borne out of our sampling methods, task construal, and blurry lenses of description.Rakison and Yermolayeva (this issue) consider whether knowledge is acquired with domain-general or domain-specific learning mechanisms and make a bold proposal: that U=N-shaped curves are products of domain-general learning. Specifically, they propose t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is in contrast to previous work using natural faces, which found young infants outperformed older infants, and even adults, by discriminating natural human, monkey, and sheep faces (e.g., Pascalis et al, ; Simpson et al, ). Thus, though others have documented declines in animal face discrimination with development (e.g., McKone et al, ; Scott & Monesson, ), the present results suggest this is not the case, and apparent declines in performance should be reconsidered, because they may be due to the way in which a task is perceived differently by different age groups (Cashon, Ha, Allen, & Barna, ; Vouloumanos, ). A functionalist approach, which considers an individual's changing goals across development, may be especially helpful (Scherf & Scott, ).…”
Section: General Conclusioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…This finding is in contrast to previous work using natural faces, which found young infants outperformed older infants, and even adults, by discriminating natural human, monkey, and sheep faces (e.g., Pascalis et al, ; Simpson et al, ). Thus, though others have documented declines in animal face discrimination with development (e.g., McKone et al, ; Scott & Monesson, ), the present results suggest this is not the case, and apparent declines in performance should be reconsidered, because they may be due to the way in which a task is perceived differently by different age groups (Cashon, Ha, Allen, & Barna, ; Vouloumanos, ). A functionalist approach, which considers an individual's changing goals across development, may be especially helpful (Scherf & Scott, ).…”
Section: General Conclusioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…Here our results show quite distinctly that successes in such cases do not correspond to real understanding of the function of the rake as a tool, but to the fact that because of its spatial proximity, playing with the rake will likely cause the toy to move. Evidence that the infant had no notion that the rake would bring the toy closer is first: when the child moves the toy with the rake but not far enough to grasp it, the child will often not continue using the rake but stretch out with its hand to try to get the toy; and second, after a successful trial, in a subsequent trial an infant will often grasp the tool and move it around the toy before pointing to the toy (see Voulomanos, 2011 , for other examples of u-shape developmental curves).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Trajectories with unusual shapes (U, N, W, and so on) are of particular interest to developmental theorists—witness the recent collection of 15 articles published in this journal debating the theoretical implications of U-shaped developmental curves (Zelazo, 2004) and a subsequent target article focusing on U- and N-shaped development (Rakison & Yermolayeva, in press). Our point is not to question or support any theoretical perspective, but simply to ask whether such theories are built upon a firm empirical foundation (Adolph, Robinson, et al, 2008; Vouloumanos, in press). If the path of change has not been sampled with sufficient resolution, then what evidence do we really have that the developmental transition is step-like, U-shaped, or any other shape?…”
Section: Conclusion: Why Bother?mentioning
confidence: 99%