Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-5zjcf Total loading time: 0.39 Render date: 2022-08-17T11:40:48.269Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

3 - Interpreting Asymmetries of Projection in Children's Inductive Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2010

Aidan Feeney
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Evan Heit
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Like adults, children use categories as a basis for inductive inference. Having learned that some property is true of some individual (e.g., “My dog, Magic, likes marshmallows”), a child might assume both that other members of the same category (dogs) share this property and that members of other, similar categories (e.g., cats) might also share this property. In short, inductive inference may be guided by and reflect categorical relationships, hence the term “category-based induction” or CBI. Cognitive and developmental researchers have used a category-based induction paradigm not only to study the use of categories in reasoning, but also to draw inferences from patterns of reasoning about the nature of conceptual structures themselves (Atran et al., 2001; Carey, 1985; Gelman & Markman, 1986; Gutheil, Bloom, Valderrama, & Freedman, 2004; Gutheil, Vera, & Keil, 1998; Hatano & Inagaki, 1994; Inagaki, 2002; Johnson & Carey, 1998; Medin & Smith, 1981; Ross, Medin, Coley, & Atran, 2003; Waxman, Lynch, Casey, & Baer, 1997).

One of the most influential examples of the use of inductive projections to draw inferences about conceptual organization comes from research in the domain of folk biology involving categories of living things, including humans, nonhuman animals, and plants. Developmental evidence has revealed, in particular, certain systematic asymmetries in inductive strength among these categories. For example, researchers have found that children are more willing to project properties from humans to dogs than from dogs to humans.

Type
Chapter
Information
Inductive Reasoning
Experimental, Developmental, and Computational Approaches
, pp. 55 - 80
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

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.)
6
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×