Assessing “Generative” Forms of Future Thought and Their Underlying Mechanisms in Young Children

• In Event: 2-214 - Mechanisms Supporting the Development of Future-oriented Thinking

Integrative Statement

A popular method to assess children’s foresight is to show them a problem (e.g., locked box with no key) in one room and, later, in another room, give them the opportunity to solve it (i.e., select a key amongst a set of distractors to bring back with them). Although children as young as 3-4 typically select the correct item on what Tulving (2005) has coined the “spoon test,” whether they would pass a more stringent version in which they must verbally generate (versus passively select) the correct item without explicit cues (i.e., items presented to them) is unknown. This is an important point given that humans often make decisions about the future without being provided with the future-oriented option. In two experiments, we used an adapted version of Suddendorf et al.’s (2011) spoon test. In a first room, children discovered that a toy animal liked a particular food (e.g., apple) that was unavailable. After a short delay in a second room, children were presented with three items (including the apple) and were asked to select one to bring back with them. We labeled this standard version of the task the “cued” condition. In the “generate-category” condition, children were not presented with the items but, instead, were asked, “What would be a good fruit to bring back with you?” And, in the “generate-object” condition, children were asked the even more open-ended, “What would be a good thing to bring back with you?” A second task involving another food was also used. In Experiment 1, we show that as the “generative” requirements of the task increased 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds’ (N = 99) performance significantly decreased, F(2, 90) = 19.62, p < .001, ηp2 = .30 (see Figure 1). We replicated this effect in Experiment 2 (N = 48 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) and also show that the capacity to “generate” the correct item is related to category fluency. In a third study, we will further explore preschoolers’ (projected N = 90) ability to select the correct item without explicit prompting. After being shown the problem, children will be told that before returning to the second room, they will go “grocery-shopping.” They will be presented with items (e.g., fruits, vegetables, cereal) and will be told that they can choose an item to place in their shopping baskets. Of interest will be whether children – without being prompted – select the item (e.g., apple) needed in the second room. This condition is meant to test the ability to remember and plan for the future when the context in which a need was encountered changes. For example, while grocery-shopping for that night’s meal, I may, upon seeing light bulbs, remember that several lights in my house are burned out and thus buy some. We will also include measures of working memory and cognitive flexibility to determine whether these predict children’s performance. Our experiments underscore the importance of examining more generative forms of future thought in young children and the mechanisms that underlie this capacity.

Authors

• Cristina M. Atance, University of Ottawa
  Presenting Author

• Seyda Nur Celebi, University of Ottawa
  Non-Presenting Author

• Sarah Mitchinson, Laurier University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Caitlin E. V. Mahy, Brock University
  Non-Presenting Author