No abstract

Math abilities predict children's academic achievement and outcomes in adulthood such as full-time employment and income. Previous work indicates that parenting factors (i.e., education, parent math ability, frequency of math activities) relate to children's math performance. Further, research demonstrates that both domain-general (i.e., language skills, inhibitory control) and domain-specific (i.e., approximate number system acuity, spontaneous focusing on number) cognitive predictors are related to math during early childhood. However, no work has examined all of these factors together to identify their unique contributions for early math. Here, we examine whether parent-level and child-level factors uniquely explain children's math abilities. To this end, 112 four-year-old children and one of their parents completed a battery of assessments and questionnaires. Results indicate that children's math performance is uniquely predicted by the frequency of home math activities, as well as children's own inhibitory control, approximate number system acuity, and tendency to spontaneously focus on number.

The question of how people’s preferences are shaped by their choices has generated decades of research. In a classic example, work on cognitive dissonance has found that observers who must choose between two equally attractive options subsequently avoid the unchosen option, suggesting that not choosing the item led them to like it less. However, almost all of the research on such choice-induced preference focuses on adults, leaving open the question of how much experience is necessary for its emergence. Here, we examined the developmental roots of this phenomenon in preverbal infants ( N = 189). In a series of seven experiments using a free-choice paradigm, we found that infants experienced choice-induced preference change similar to adults’. Infants’ choice patterns reflected genuine preference change and not attraction to novelty or inherent attitudes toward the options. Hence, choice shapes preferences—even without extensive experience making decisions and without a well-developed self-concept.

We explore whether training parents' math skills or playing number games improves children's mathematical skills. Participants were 162 parent–child dyads; 88.3% were white and children (79 female) were 4 years (M = 46.88 months). Dyads were assigned to a number game, shape game, parent‐only approximate number system training, parent‐only general trivia, or a no‐training control condition and asked to play twice weekly for 8 weeks. Children in the number game condition gained over 15% SD on an assessment of mathematical skill than did those in the no‐training control. After 8 additional weeks without training, effects diminished; however, children of parents in the ANS condition underperformed those in the no‐treatment control, which was partially explained by changes in the home numeracy environment.

Recent evidence suggests that infants and toddlers may recognize counting as numerically relevant long before they are able to count or understand the cardinal meaning of number words. The Give-N task, which asks children to produce sets of objects in different quantities, is commonly used to test children’s cardinal number knowledge and understanding of exact number words but does not capture children’s preliminary understanding of number words and is difficult to administer remotely. Here, we asked whether toddlers correctly map number words to the referred quantities in a two-alternative forced choice Point-to-X task (e.g., “Which has three?”). Two- to three-year-old toddlers (N = 100) completed a Give-N task and a Point-to-X task through in-person testing or online via videoconferencing software. Across number-word trials in Point-to-X, toddlers pointed to the correct image more often than predicted by chance, indicating that they had some understanding of the prompted number word that allowed them to rule out incorrect responses, despite limited understanding of exact cardinal values. No differences in Point-to-X performance were seen for children tested in-person versus remotely. Children with better understanding of exact number words as indicated on the Give-N task also answered more trials correctly in Point-to-X. Critically, in-depth analyses of Point-to-X performance for children who were identified as 1- or 2-knowers on Give-N showed that 1-knowers do not show a preliminary understanding of numbers above their knower-level, whereas 2-knowers do. As researchers move to administering assessments remotely, the Point-to-X task promises to be an easy-to-administer alternative to Give-N for measuring children’s emerging number knowledge and capturing nuances in children’s number-word knowledge that Give-N may miss.