Essay About Crayon-Candle Task And Reality Requests

Jesus Case
Essay Preview: Jesus Case
Report this essay
We conducted Experiment 4 to address an aspect of the design
used in Experiments 1 and 2 that might limit the conclusions we
can draw from the results of these experiments. Our children might
have succeeded in the nonverbal response paradigm even though
they were unable to hold a dual representation of the deceptive
objects apparent and real properties. In both experiments, the
children were not given alternative objects with which they could
reasonably choose to respond to the experimenters appearance
and reality requests. For both requests, in addition to the deceptive
object, the children were presented only with a baby training cup,
an apple, a rubber ball, and a paper tissue (or a childrens book) as
alternatives. Because most of these alternatives were so different
from what was requested, the children might have chosen the
deceptive object not because they had a dual representation of the
deceptive object but because it shared some similarities with the
requested object.
For example, in the reality request part of the rock-sponge task,
when asked to give the experimenter something with which to
wipe spilled water (the reality request), phenomenist children (i.e.,
those who thought the rock-sponge looked like and really was a
rock) might have chosen the rock-sponge for wiping not because
they thought it was a sponge but because it was one of the
alternatives that was most similar to a sponge (e.g., the rocksponges
soft tactile quality). In the reality request part of the
crayon-candle task, when asked to give the experimenter something
to put on the cake, phenomenist children (i.e., those who
thought the crayon-candle looked like and was a crayon) might
have chosen it as a candle not because they thought it really was
a candle but because it was more similar to a candle than any of the
other alternatives (e.g., both crayon and candle were elongated).
The same argument can be made about the appearance request.
In the rock-sponge task, when asked to provide an object that
looked like a rock, realist children (i.e., those who thought the
rock-sponge looked like and really was a sponge) might have
chosen the rock-sponge as their response because that alternative
was most similar to a rock on certain dimensions (e.g., the rocksponges
rugged surface). They might not have thought that the
rock-sponge actually resembled a rock at all. In the crayon-candle
task, realist children (i.e., those who thought the crayon-candle
looked like and really was a candle) might have given the experimenter
the crayon-candle in response to the appearance request
not because they thought the crayon-candle actually looked like a
crayon but because it was the only alternative that shared common
attributes with the crayon (e.g., both crayon and candle had an
elongated shape). Despite the fact that most 3-year-olds appeared
to respond correctly to both the appearance and reality requests in
Experiments 1 and 2, they might not have made these responses on
the basis of their understanding of the A-R distinction. Their
success in the nonverbal response paradigm of Experiments 1
and 2 might not have reflected their ability to hold a