Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-tqxhq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-25T14:05:42.567Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

A cognitive developmental approach is essential to understanding cumulative technological culture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Emily Rachel Reed Burdett
University of Nottingham, School of Psychology, NottinghamNG7 2RD,
Samuel Ronfard
University of Toronto, Psychology UTMCCT4059, Mississauga, OntarioL5L1C6, Canada.samuel.ronfard@utoronto.ca


Osiurak and Reynaud argue that children are not a good methodological choice to examine cumulative technological culture (CTC). However, the paper ignores other current work that suggests that young children do display some aspects of creative problem-solving. We argue that using multiple methodologies and examining how technical-reasoning develops in children will provide crucial support for a cognitive approach to CTC.

Open Peer Commentary
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)


Beck, S. R., Cutting, N., Apperly, I. A., Demery, Z., Iliffe, L., Rishi, S. & Chappell, J. (2014) Is tool-making knowledge robust over time and across problems? Frontiers in Psychology 5:1395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, S. R., Williams, C., Cutting, N., Apperly, I. A. & Chappell, J. (2016) Individual differences in children's innovative problem-solving are not predicted by divergent thinking or executive functions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1690):20150190. Available at: ScholarPubMed
Carr, K., Kendal, R. L. & Flynn, E. G. (2015) Imitate or innovate? Children's innovation is influenced by the efficacy of observed behaviour. Cognition 142:322–32. Available at: ScholarPubMed
Carr, K., Kendal, R. L. & Flynn, E. G. (2016) Eureka!: What is innovation, how does it develop, and who does it? Child Development 87(5):1505–19. Available at: Scholar
Chappell, J., Cutting, N., Apperly, I. A. & Beck, S. R. (2013) The development of tool manufacture in humans: What helps young children make innovative tools? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368:20120409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z. & Klahr, D. (1999) All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of control of variables strategy. Child Development 70:10981120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutting, N., Apperly, I. A., Chappell, J. & Beck, S. R. (2014) The puzzling difficulty of tool innovation: Why can't children piece their knowledge together? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 125:110–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cutting, N., Apperly, I. A., Chappell, J. & Beck, S. R. (2019) Is tool modification more difficult than innovation? Cognitive Development 52:100811. Available at: Scholar
Ebel, S. J., Hanus, D. & Call, J. (2019) How prior experience and task presentation modulate innovation in 6-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 180:87103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D., Levine, S. C., Ping, R., Isaia, A., Dhillon, S., Bradley, C. & Honke, G. (2016) Rapid learning in a children's museum via analogical comparison. Cognitive Science 40:224–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A. (2012) Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science (New York, N.Y.) 337:1623–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A., Griffiths, T. L. & Lucas, C. G. (2015) When younger learners can be better (or at least more open-minded) than older ones. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24:8792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A., O'Grady, S., Lucas, C. G., Griffiths, T. L., Wente, A., Bridgers, S., Aboody, R., Fung, H. & Dahl, R. E. (2017) Changes in cognitive flexibility and hypothesis search across human life history from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:7892–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, A. J., Burdett, E. R., Burgess, V., McGuigan, N., Wood, L. A., Harris, P. L. & Whiten, A. (2017) Children's selective copying of their mother versus an expert. Child Development 88:2026–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuigan, N., Burdett, E., Burgess, V., Dean, L., Lucas, A., Vale, G. & Whiten, A. (2017) Innovation and social transmission in experimental micro-societies: Exploring the scope of cumulative culture in young children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 372:1735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reindle, E., Apperly, I. A., Beck, S. R. & Tennie, C. (2017) Young children copy cumulative technological design in the absence of action information. Scientific Reports 7:1788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reindle, E. & Tennie, C. (2018) Young children fail to generate an additive ratchet effect in an open-ended construction task. PLoS ONE 13:e0197828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tecwyn, E. C., Thorpe, S. K. S. & Chappell, J. (2014) Development of planning in 4- to 10-year-old children: Reducing inhibitory demands does not improve performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 125:85101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, B., Pauen, S. & Bechtel-Kuehne, S. (2019) Getting the mouse out of the box: Tool innovation in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 184:6581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whalley, C. I., Cutting, N. & Beck, S. R. (2017) The effect of prior experience on children's tool innovation. Journal of Child Experimental Psychology 161:8194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed