The acuity of reasoning on Raven’s Progressive Matrices is strongly influenced by strategic determinants. Building on metamemory studies that highlight the influence of study-time allocation on memory development, we investigated children’s allocation of study time while solving these matrices. A total of 170 children aged 6–12 years completed a computerized short-form version of the standard matrices featuring items selected to represent a broad range of difficulties. Beyond analyzing changes in mean latencies and performances with age, we used generalized additive mixed models to explore within-participant variability in response times as a function of both item complexity and overall individual efficiency. Results revealed that individual differences in performances were significantly associated with children’s adaptive modulation of response times. Mediation analysis further indicated that response-time modulation contributed to age-related changes in performance. Taking account of study-time allocation in reasoning tasks may open up new avenues for the study of reasoning development and the assessment of intellectual functioning.

Omnipresent in human thought, inductive reasoning consists in (a) detecting regularities, (b) abstracting relations, and (c) deriving general rules. In the first part of this article, I attempt to identify the basic mechanisms underpinning inductive reasoning and the reasons why it is so central to the workings of intelligence. I then go on to describe several factors that researchers in developmental psychology believe may contribute to the development of inductive reasoning. Each factor’s influence is illustrated by its potential contribution to the resolution of Raven’s Progressives Matrices. In the third and final part, I examine the issue from an educational perspective, showing how developmental hypotheses can inform different types of interventions designed to foster inductive reasoning in children.

International audienceDempster (Dempster; 1995; Dempster & Corkill, 1999) proposed that developmental changes in performance on Piagetian tasks could be related to changes in inhibitory efficiency more than to logical development. In this study, the negative priming paradigm was adapted to the class inclusion task in order to investigate the role of inhibition and knowledge levels in the development of class inclusion. Participants were pre-tested on two inclusion tasks, the standard Piagetian task and Markman's modification task, and assigned to different knowledge levels: empirical, and logical necessity. Children were then tested on a priming version of the class inclusion task. Results showed a negative priming effect, indicating that the irrelevant `subclass comparison strategy' it-as actively inhibited during the processing of the class inclusion task. This effect was found to vary as a function of knowledge levels, indicating that the need for inhibition was reduced when children had attained logical necessity

No abstract

Only one previous developmental study of Stroop task performance (Schiller, 1966) has controlled for differences in processing speed that exist both within and between age groups. Therefore, the question of whether the early developmental change in the magnitude of Stroop interference actually persists after controlling for processing speed needs further investigation; work that is further motivated by the possibility that any remaining differences would be caused by process(es) other than processing speed. Analysis of data from two experiments revealed that, even after controlling for processing speed using z‐transformed reaction times, early developmental change persists such that the magnitude of overall Stroop interference is larger in 3rd‐ and 5th graders as compared to 1st graders. This pattern indicates that the magnitude of overall Stroop interference peaks after 2 or 3 years of reading practice (Schadler & Thissen, 1981). Furthermore, this peak is shown to be due to distinct components of Stroop interference (resulting from specific conflicts) progressively falling into place. Experiment 2 revealed that the change in the magnitude of Stroop interference specifically results from joint contributions of task, semantic and response conflicts in 3rd‐ and 5th graders as compared to a sole contribution of task conflict in 1st graders. The specific developmental trajectories of different conflicts presented in the present work provide unique evidence for multiple loci of Stroop interference in the processing stream (respectively task, semantic and response conflict) as opposed to a single (i.e. response) locus predicted by historically – favored response competition accounts.