|
Gelman, S.A., & Bloom, P. (2000). Young children are sensitive to how an object was created when deciding to name it. Cognition, 76, 91-103. Purpose The purpose of the experiment described in this article was to study the effect of perceived creator intentionality in the naming of artifacts by adults and children. The results supported a theory that perceived intention of the artifact plays a determining function in naming artifacts. Prior research has led to apparently contradictory results with some studies indicating that extending the name of artifacts, such as knife, is based on appearance while others claim that naming occurs according to function. That is, an object is called a knife because it looks like one, or because it has the function of a knife. Gentner (1978) found that naming practices follow a developmental trend with young children and adults naming according to appearance, and older children relying on function. Gelman and Bloom explain this apparent conflict by pointing out that for many basic level objects, form and function are extremely difficult to tease apart. It is difficult to judge whether the appearance of an object, such as a knife (long and thin) is more salient than its function (cutting). The authors claim that the way objects are named may be due more to the perceived creator’s intention of the objects than either its form or function. For example, chairs do not have a common appearance (beanbag chairs look different from dining room chairs), nor are all chairs created for the purpose of being a seat. Also, although being a seat may be the primary purpose of most chairs, there are other objects, such as couches, that are also designed for people to sit on. In a similar way, we can look at naming art. A drawing does not have the function of the object it represents, and it does not even have to have the appearance of the object in order to be named. For example a rectangle can represent a dog if the artist intended the picture to represent a dog. Children as young as three or four will label two drawings that look almost identical, as either a lollipop or a balloon depending on what they intended the object to be when they drew it. Clearly, they are not using shape of the drawn object to name the drawing. Experimental work Participants in the study included 30 children with a mean age of 3;6 (3-year olds), 19 children with a mean age of 5;3 (5-year olds), and 17 undergraduates. Approximately equal numbers of participants in each group were randomly assigned to each of the two conditions, the Intentional condition and the Accidental condition. Materials for this study were eight control objects and nine experimental objects. The control objects consisted of four in each condition (Intentional or Accidental). The nine experimental objects consisted of four artifacts (newspaper hat, suede belt, Plexiglas knife, and stick paintbrush) and five art items. Each experimental object was described by a story that indicated that it was either intentionally or accidentally created. The artifacts were pretested to determine that they could plausibly be either intentionally or accidentally created. Participants were first shown the four control objects created for the appropriate condition, in the context of a cover story. Using these control objects, two ways of describing the objects were demonstrated. The artifact could be named (spoon) or a description of a material given (metal). The four control objects were followed by the experimental objects, all presented in the context of a story that explained the existence of the object as intentionally or accidentally created, according to the condition. All responses were coded into one of four categories, viz., Naming (the name of the object, e.g., hat), Material (the material the object was made from, e.g., newspaper), Don’t know, or Other (unclear or no response). Most responses were either Naming or Material. The analysis focused on the difference between Naming and Material responses and a larger difference occurred in the Intentional condition than in the Accidental condition. That is, objects that were perceived to be intentionally created were described by name significantly more often than the materials they were made of, compared to objects believed to have been accidentally created. Conclusions When naming art and artifacts, both adults and young children are more likely to use an object name when they believe the object was intentionally created. This focus on intentionality takes priority over the perceptual information provided. These results are consistent with the theory that appearance and function are perceived as cues to the creator’s intention. The reasons children go beyond shape and function in naming objects may be due to their language experience because adults name diverse items with the same name, e.g. chair, and shape and function are unreliable indicators of category membership. Alternatively, children may be attempting to understand the more essential aspects of their nature through the superficial properties of objects. Also children are hardwired to be interested in the goals and desires of others. Thus, neither shape nor function is necessary or sufficient in naming objects. Points for discussion Under what circumstances would you definitely name an object by shape or function rather than intent? How could you design a study to test this? How would adults name art objects that are intentioned, but may lack artistic merit? Often adults allow for the artistic efforts of children, but are forceful in condemnation of adult art that does not fit their understanding of art. The article focused on naming the object. How would you expect the results to differ if the child was asked how he/she would use the object? How would you design a similar study to find out how children and adults name natural objects? Is it obvious that we don’t use shape to categorize objects? If we use a wheelbarrow as a planter, is it a wheelbarrow or a planter? If you see a giant statue of a clothespin, is it still a clothespin even if the intention was to create art?
|
|
This page was last updated: |