Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:58:03.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More than one way to skin a cat: Addressing the arbitration problem in developmental science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2022

Denis Tatone Open the ORCID record for Denis Tatone [Opens in a new window]
Denis Tatone*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, 1100Vienna, Austria TatoneD@ceu.edu; denis.tatone@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

David Pietraszewski's theory of social groups offers a developmentally plausible account of how we reason about group membership, as it delineates clear boundaries to the hypothesis space that children must navigate. Merits notwithstanding, the account remains silent with respect to the arbitration problem: It does not explain how children can appropriately select among competing frames when interpreting social interactions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e123
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. 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.)

References

Boseovski, J. J., & Lee, K. (2006). Children's use of frequency information for trait categorization and behavioral prediction. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geraci, A. (2021). Toddlers’ expectations of corporal third-party punishments against the non-defender puppet. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 210, 105199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, J. K. (2013). Moral judgment and action in preverbal infants and toddlers: Evidence for an innate moral core. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanakogi, Y., Inoue, Y., Matsuda, G., Butler, D., Hiraki, K., & Myowa-Yamakoshi, M. (2017). Preverbal infants affirm third-party interventions that protect victims from aggressors. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(2), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazem, A. J., & Aureli, F. (2005). Redirection of aggression: Multiparty signalling within a network. Animal communication networks, 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaro, O., & Csibra, G. (2014). Human infants’ learning of social structures the case of dominance hierarchy. Psychological Science, 25(1), 250–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, L. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2013). Preverbal infants expect members of social groups to act alike. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41), E3965–E3972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, M., Hetherington, C., Brink, K., & Wellman, H. M. (2015). Infants’ use of social partnerships to predict behavior. Developmental Science, 18(6), 909–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, L., & Carey, S. (2013). Core cognition of relational models. In Banaji, M. R., & Gelman, S. A. (Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species teach us (pp. 16–22). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar