Was The Main Question Identified Correctly Article Review Example

Psychology

Article Summary

Yes, the question was if preschoolers, in comparison to non-human primates experienced difficulties in making inferences when it came to higher order relational reasoning tasks. A minimal amount of evidence is available on the ways in which children’s abilities develop when it came to data that involved their inferring of higher-order relational causal patterns.
The article states that no evidence is available that shows how infants are able to use patterns in making causal inferences, or to guide their subsequent actions. Studies have shown that even preschoolers had experienced difficulties in making inferences when it came to higher-order relational tasks. They only succeeded when they were shown the patterns of similarity.

Was the hypothesis identified correctly (when applicable)

Yes, I do believe that the hypothesis was correctly identified with each experiment.
What type of research design was used
There were two experiments, 1a, in which 21-24 months old toddlers, to which three toys that played music were introduced, as well as three pairs of blocks that were identical. Namely AA’, BB’ and CC’. The person who conducted the experiment put the blocks on top of the toy to either activate it, or not. Individual blocks were not able to activate the toy, but blocks of identical pairs were able to.
This experiment was done to see if the relational property of “same” was done with the activation of the toy by the children. The second experiment, the blocks were placed on top of the toy in pairs. In the same type of experiment, the machine was activated with identical pairs of objects, instead of the same objects.
In a different type of experiment, the different pairs of objects were used to activate the machine. The participants observed two casual training trials and two inert trials and on each test trial, pairs of similar and different blocks were presented and the child asked to make a selection to activate the toy.

Who were the participants

The participants were twenty three children aged 21 to 24 months old for experiment 1a. There were thirteen girls and ten boys, along with three additional children who were tested, but excluded, because they were fussy, or failed to respond. The children were recruited from museums and day care centers, as well as different ethnicities that represented the diversity of the population.
For the second experiment there were thirty eight participants, aged 18 to 30 months old. There were 21 girls and 17 boys of which nineteen were assigned randomly to each experiment. Seven other children were also tested and excluded because four failed to complete the study and three were as a result of error on the experimenter’s part. The same procedures for recruitment and demographic testing were used for both experiments.

How did the researchers attempt to answer their research question

The researchers attempted to answer their research question by using the toy with music and without, while the children listened to the instructions and observed to see if they were able to activate the toy afterwards, by each method. After each attempt and subsequent feedback, they repeated the procedure in a second test, with new blocks for testing. If the toddler was able to associate the block and the effect that it caused, then they were supposed to choose a familiar block.
If they decided to try completely new blocks, then they would have picked a new distractor, namely D’, as often as they chose the paired block. If they had the ability to learn the higher order relation, they would have chosen the paired block. The results were recorded and the toy would have been activated if the child had chosen the new paired block, instead of the familiar, or distractor block, which could not activate the toy.

What tasks or measures were used

An opaque cardboard box which contained a wireless doorbell was used. When the toy was activated by a pair of blocks, a melody was played by the doorbell. The toy could be activated by a remote, there were six wooden blocks painted in a variety of shapes and colors. There were three pairs of two blocks that were identical, which were placed on top of the toy for the training, before the experiment. An additional six blocks, two identical and two different, were used for testing.

Was the hypothesis supported or rejected? Explain.

The hypothesis was rejected on the basis that the primates that were tested were unable to perform the tasks that the toddlers were able to and there were additional tests that should have been conducted as the experimenters could not base an informed decision on just these two experiments. The findings showed that toddlers were able to succeed on the task of relational causal match to the samples after a few trials and without any reward, cues or instructions as the primates required, to perform similar tasks.

What do the results add to the field

The results showed that human children were more advanced than primates, not only in the assigned tasks, but on another level. It showed that humans are different from primates in their ability to learn quickly, the relational causal concept. This advantage, studies show, can reflect a broader evolution of higher order relational or causal cognition.

How do these results fit with course material

The results are right in line with the course materials. The studies that were conducted showed a broad understanding of the theories, concepts and principles that underlie the discipline of this course.
Did the investigators make any poor recruitment, methodological, or analytical decisions?
Yes, I think they made a poor decision in inferring that toddlers and non-human primates were on the same level intellectually. I don’t think that they needed to do these experiments to come to those conclusions. It is a known fact that humans are intellectually superior to other beings.
Did they do anything incorrectly in your opinion?
Yes, apparently the tests that they conducted could have been more in-depth and involved more variables, for them to come to the conclusions that they did. They also failed to test the reasoning capabilities in non-human primates and toddlers.

Explain and support your argument

The article states that other Blicket-Detector studies would have resulted in the toddlers’ inferences going beyond their association. It further stated that for the possibility to be ruled out, those studies would have had to be replicated with the current relational-design. Also, those experimenters would need to examine both of the reasoning capacities of toddlers and primates.

What questions are still unanswered?

The questions that are left unanswered are if the causal nature of the task was critical, or if the fact that it included actions that were goal oriented, had made it easier for the toddlers to complete the tasks, as opposed to other studies that involved relational tasks. If the tests were conducted in a different way, the toddlers would have still been successful. It is also still not known if non-human primates would show greater success at other tasks, or still find it difficult, if they were assigned.