Recently in the sister blog:
An object’s mental representation includes not just visible attributes but also its nonvisible history. The present studies tested whether preschoolers seek subtle indicators of an object’s history, such as a mark acquired during its handling. Five studies with 169 children 3–5 years of age and 97 college students found that children (like adults) searched for concealed traces of object history, invisible traces of object history, and the absence of traces of object history, to successfully identify an owned object. Controls demonstrated that children (like adults) appropriately limit their search for hidden indicators when an owned object is visibly distinct. Altogether, these results demonstrate that concealed and invisible indicators of history are an important component of preschool children’s object concepts.
Is that the right link?
The name should be a clue!
Sister blog. O.k. Get it.
Try: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12453 for a direct link to the paper.
What the heck? Susan Gelman is using ANOVAs and p-values for inference? I’m rubbing my eyes in disbelief.
Andrew, do you want me to send her your email? I know people in Michigan Psychology and am happy to help out (in fact, my PhD advisor is a professor there).
I assume this is from an article published in the Journal of Used Car Sales.
(Coincidentally, I had just picked up a book on childhood thought by Alison Gopnik (sister of the NYer writer). Your sister is in the bibliography.)
Recently while walking in Prospect Park, I noticed that an old tennis ball that a dog was playing with rolled under a high fence to a position where neither dog nor owner could recover the ball. After walking a short distince, the owner gave the dog a new tennis ball which the dog carried for about 10 feet, then dropped. The dog went back to the place where it lost the old ball and gazed at a for a while before returning to the owner. Concern for object history is not confined to humans.