A Tale of Two Flexibilities Development of and Effects of Labels on Consecutive and Concurrent Cognitive Flexibility Gal Podjarny Carleton University Agenda !  What is cognitive flexibility? !  Cognitive flexibility in preschoolers !  Consecutive and concurrent cognitive flexibility !  Inductive and deductive tasks (labels) !  Study 1: development of two flexibilities !  Study 2: examining effects of labels !  Bonus: what kids say !  Summary and Open Questions 2 Cognitive Flexibility The ability to think about something in more than one way 3 Why Study Cognitive Flexibility? ! Nonverbal intelligence (Siegler & Svetina, 2002) ! Academic achievements (Blair & Razza, 2007) ! Creativity (Diamond, 2006) ! Perspective taking (Perner et al., 2002) 4 Why Study Preschoolers? ! Preschoolers: 3-5 years old (before 1st grade) ! Significant developments during preschool years (e.g., Cragg & Chevalier, 2012; Garon et al., 2008). 5 The Classic Task: DCCS ! Target Cards ! ! Post-Switch: Pre-Switch: Colour Shape ! 6 Aspects of Cognitive Flexibility 7 Two Factors ! Type of cognitive flexibility ! Consecutive ! Concurrent ! Type of Task ! Inductive ! Deductive 8 Cognitive Flexibility Type ! Consecutive cognitive flexibility ! Considering several dimensions one at a time ! Also termed switching or set-shifting ! Concurrent cognitive flexibility ! Considering several dimensions simultaneously (based on Perner et al., 2002) ! Very little research with preschoolers 9 Type of Task: Inductive vs. Deductive !  Jacques and Zelazo (2005) !  Deductive tasks: all information is given !  Inductive tasks: an inference step is required !  Essential difference: dimensions identified !  General Findings: deductive tasks easier than inductive tasks. !  BUT almost only consecutive tasks. 10 Some Examples 11 Modified Object Classification Task for Children (M-OCTC) Based on Smidts et al. (2004) 12 Multidimensional Card Selection (MCS) !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! 13 Summary: What Do We Know? ! Research with preschoolers focused on consecutive cognitive flexibility ! Concurrent cognitive flexibility assumed to develop later ! Deductive tasks are easier than inductive tasks: labels help children succeed on cognitive flexibility tasks (Doebel & Zelazo, 2013). 14 Study 1 15 Study 1: Questions ! Are consecutive and concurrent cognitive flexibility distinct skills? How do they relate? ! What develops first? ! What is the relation to type of task (inductive/ deductive)? 16 Methods ! Participants: 121 preschoolers. ! 3-Year-Olds (N = 59) ! 37-47 months (M = 43.5, SD = 2.4) ! 34 girls ! 4-Year-Olds (N = 62) ! 47-59 months (M = 52.4, SD = 3.4) ! 30 girls 17 Cognitive Flexibility Tasks Consecutive Inductive M-OCTC, M-FIST Deductive DCCS Concurrent Matrix sort Matrix completion, MCS Participant’s Score: Number of tasks performed above chance. 18 What We Found 19 Cognitive Flexibility Type Comparison By Age 3 * 2.5 * 2 Average Number of 1.5 Tasks Passed 1 3-Year-Olds 4-Year-Olds 0.5 0 Consecutive Cognitive Flexibility Concurrent Cognitive Flexibility 20 Task Type Comparison By Age 3 2.5 2 * Average Number of 1.5 Tasks Passed * 3-Year-Olds 4-Year-Olds 1 0.5 0 Deductive Tasks Inductive Tasks 21 Task Type By Cognitive Flexibility Type Interaction 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Proportion of 0.5 Tasks Passed 0.4 3-Year-Olds 4-Year-Olds 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Consecutive Consecutive Concurrent Concurrent Inductive Deductive Inductive Deductive 22 What does it mean? ! Concurrent cognitive flexibility ≠ consecutive cognitive flexibility in preschoolers. ! Interesting area ! Three-Year-Olds did well on consecutive cognitive flexibility ! Interaction between type of cognitive flexibility and type of task ! But… ! Different inductive and deductive tasks ! 3-year-olds not very good at concurrent cognitive flexibility 23 Study 2 Effects of Labels 24 Type of Task: The Effects of Labels ! Generally, labels help children on cognitive flexibility tasks. ! Inhibitory control explanation: Labels help direct attention to the relevant dimension (Kirkham et al., 2003). ! Representational change explanation: Labels help reflect on the hierarchical structure of the embedded rules (Zelazo et al., 2003). ! Both theories apply to consecutive cognitive flexibility, but what about concurrent cognitive flexibility? 25 Study 2 – Purpose and Method ! Examine effects of labels on concurrent cognitive flexibility performance. ! Experimental manipulation of labels ! Two concurrent cognitive flexibility tasks: ! Preschool Matrix Completion Task ! Matrix Sort Task ! Order counterbalanced. 26 Preschool Matrix Completion Task: Labeled 27 Matrix Completion Task: Unlabeled 28 Matrix Sort Task: Labeled 29 Matrix Sort Task: Unlabeled 30 Participants ! 4-year-olds (N = 84) ! 48-59 months old (M = 53.5; SE = .37) ! 42 girls ! 43 (17 girls) received labeled condition ! 5-year-olds (N = 76) ! 60-71 months old (M = 65.3; SE = .35) ! 45 girls ! 41 (24 girls) received labeled condition 31 What We Found 32 Results – Matrix Sort 100 90 80 Percentage of 70 children performing 60 above chance 4-Year-Olds 50 5-Year-Olds 40 30 20 10 0 No Labels Labels 33 4-Year-Olds' performance on Matrix Completion 6 5 4 Number of 3 Correct Trials Matrix Completion First Matrix Sort First 2 1 0 No Labels Labels 34 5-Year-Olds' performance on Matrix Completion 6 5 4 Number of 3 Correct Trials Matrix Completion First Matrix Sort First 2 1 0 No Labels Labels 35 What does it mean? ! Labels interfered with 5-year-olds’ performance on the Preschool Matrix Completion Task, unless they saw the Matrix Sort Task first. ! Matrix Sort Task performance was unaffected. ! Segmentation? ! Complexity difference 36 Bonus Condition ! Do children focus on one dimension? ! Another 36 preschoolers (12 5YOs and 24 4YOs) ! Preschool Matrix Completion Task first ! Labeled condition ! Examining children’s labels 37 Preschool Matrix Completion Task 38 What We Found 39 Children's Labels By Age 6 5 4 Bi-dimensional (correct) Label Average Number of 3 Labels Uni-dimensional Label, Column Dimension Uni-dimensional Label, Row Dimension 2 1 0 4-Year-Olds 5-Year-Olds 40 Performance on Preschool Matrix Completion Task By Age 6 5 4 Number of Trials 3 Correct 4-Year-Olds 5-Year-Olds 2 1 0 Regular Labeled Labeled with Delay 41 Findings Summary ! Labels seem to hinder children’s performance on concurrent cognitive flexibility tasks ! Labels seem to direct child’s attention to one dimension (consistent with inhibitory control theory) ! When we get 5-year-olds to produce a verbal label themselves, they do better (consistent with representational change theory). 42 Open Questions ! Is concurrent cognitive flexibility an extension of consecutive cognitive flexibility? ! What is the role of other cognitive skills? ! How does this map onto later developmental outcomes? ! How can we help children figure this out? 43 Thanks to… ! Hundreds of children, parents, daycare coordinators, principals, and teachers who generously participated in the studies ! Dr. Deepthi Kamawar ! My lab-mates ! Katherine Andrews ! Corrie Vendetti ! Andrea Astle 44 Thank You! Questions? 45 References Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2), 647-63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019. Cragg, L., & Chevalier, N. (2012). The processes underlying flexibility in childhood. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 65(2), 209-32. doi:10.1080/17470210903204618 Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In E. Bialystok & F. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (pp. 70-95). Oxford, England: University Press. Doebel, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2013). Bottom-up and top-down dynamics in young children’s executive function: Labels aid 3-year-olds’ performance on the dimensional change card sort. Cognitive Development, 28, 222-232. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.12.001 Garon, N., Bryson, S., & Smith, I. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 31-60. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31 Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. (2005). On the possible roots of cognitive flexibility. In B. Homer & C. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), The development of social cognition and communication (pp. 53-81). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kirkham, N. Z., Cruess, L., & Diamond, A. (2003). Helping children apply their knowledge to their behavior on a dimension-switching task. Developmental Science, 6(5), 449-467. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00300 Perner, J., Stummer, S., Sprung, M., & Doherty, M. (2002). Theory of mind finds its piagetian perspective: Why alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development, 17(3-4), 1451-1472. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00127-2 Siegler, R., & Svetina, M. (2002). A microgenetic/cross-sectional study of matrix completion: Comparing short-term and long-term change. Child Development, 73(3), 793-809. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00439 Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), 1-151. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.2003.06803002.x 46