In Scale Errors, Practice Doesn’t Make Perfect

• In Event: 3-184 - Integrating Perception, Cognition, and Action: The Case of Scale Errors

Integrative Statement

Children sometimes make “scale errors,” attempting to interact with tiny object replicas as though they were full size. Although unusual in appearance, scale errors appear to be a natural developmental phenomenon reflecting a temporary coordination breakdown between planning and action. Interestingly, two recent investigations have provided evidence of factors that may influence scale error commission: object labels (Hunley & Hahn, 2016) and individual differences in perception (Grzyb, Cangelosi, Cattani, & Floccia, 2017). These findings contrast with earlier work finding scale errors robust across children, relatively impervious to manipulation (e.g., DeLoache, LoBue, Vanderborght, & Chiong, 2013).

The present pair of experiments further explored the extent to which specific types of hands-on experience with objects may impact children’s commission of scale errors. Given the ubiquity and importance of tool use in human development and culture, a tool paradigm was employed (e.g., Casler, Eshleman, Greene, & Terziyan, 2011; Hunley & Hahn, 2016).

In Experiment 1, the goal was to explore, with greater fidelity than in the past, the role of object familiarity in scale errors. Twenty-eight 2-year-olds participated. Half were assigned to a pre-exposure condition. On four separate occasions during the week prior to testing, they played with novel stimuli sets that would be used at test. Each set involved a tool and an apparatus on which it operated. Toddlers in a control condition also saw the experimenter on four occasions, but they read a book with her, receiving no stimuli exposure. At test, all children completed a free-play scale error task where tools sometimes were removed surreptitiously and replaced with too-large replicas. Results showed no differences in the rate, persistence, or seriousness of scale errors between conditions.

Given that familiarity did not enhance or diminish a child’s likelihood of committing a scale error, Experiment 2 targeted a more specific type of experience: direct size comparison. A new group of 48 two-year-olds participated in a single session protocol. They were assigned to one of three familiarization conditions. In the simultaneous condition, toddlers interacted with two sizes of tools and apparatuses at the same time, i.e., both big and little versions. In the sequential condition, toddlers interacted with the two sizes sequentially. In the control condition, children had two identical sets of the small stimuli (no size comparison, but a total of eight sets as in the other conditions). All children completed a scale error test. Again, results showed no differences in the rate, persistence, or seriousness with which children made scale error attempts across conditions. Seeing and physically employing both big and little object versions did not make size information more salient or useful.

These outcomes depict scale errors as little influenced by immediate experience or demonstration. Instead, scale errors appear to derive from a cognitive bias for prioritizing identity or function information above size information, with errors showing a high degree of resilience across manipulations. The discussion will address reasons for why practice does not make perfect when it comes to scale errors.

Author

• Krista Casler, Franklin & Marshall College
  Presenting Author