Advancing Downward to the Basic Level

Abstract

In 3 experiments, we studied whether infants and young children understand various basic-level conceptual distinctions in the domains of household artifacts, animals, and vehicles. Using small replicas, we modeled events such as washing dishes in a sink for children 14, 19, and 24 months old, and then gave them an exemplar from the same basic-level concept (another sink) and an exemplar of another concept from the same domain (bathtub). We measured which object they used to imitate the event. Fourteen-month-olds did not differentiate among basic-level categories in any of these domains, for example, washing dishes in both a tub and a sink, and putting both a rabbit and a bird in a nest. By 19 months, inappropriate behavior was greatly reduced for household artifacts and for vehicles, but not for animals. By 24 months, performance was mainly appropriate for all 3 domains. It was also shown that although 14-month-olds are not making many conceptual distinctions at the basic level, they are nevertheless beginning to make some broader conceptual distinctions among artifacts.

Perceptual and Conceptual Processes in Infancy

“…Thus, our findings from the object examination task, the sequential touching task, and the generalized imitation task converge on the conclusion that infants initially form broad, relatively undifferentiated concepts of animals, vehicles, furniture, and plants (with some evidence that artifacts become differentiated earlier than animals and plants, including earlier correct assignment of basic-level properties; Mandler & McDonough, 1999). Furthermore, these tasks all indicate that these domain-level concepts are not organized around individual features or overall perceptual appearance, but rather around some (possibly quite primitive) notion of kind.…”

“…They have begun to narrow the artifact characteristics appropriately, but are still overgeneralizing the natural kind characteristics (presumably because of fewer interactions with animals and plants than with artifacts). We have since replicated these findings with other properties and shown that the overgeneralizations made do not extend beyond domain boundaries; for example, 14-month-olds use a toothbrush to groom hair but not a spoon, and they hammer with a wrench but not a cup (Mandler & McDonough, 1999). Needless to say, we do not conclude that young children cannot restrict inductions to subcategories in either natural kind or artifact domains.…”

Mother–Child Conversations About Pictures and Objects: Referring to Categories and Individuals

“…Whereas some researchers find categorization primarily limited to the global level (e.g., Mandler & McDonough, 2000), others find more extensive categorization at global, basic, and subordinate levels (e.g., Quinn, 2002). Among numerous methodological differences between the studies at issue, one key difference is that Mandler and McDonough used toy objects as stimuli, and Quinn and colleagues used photographs.…”

On the Spatial Foundations of the Conceptual System and Its Enrichment

“…So if a dog is shown being given a drink or being put to bed, when infants are given various animal models to use to imitate the events they have seen, they pick any mammal randomly, hence being as likely to use a cat or a rabbit to imitate the event as another dog (Mandler & McDonough, 1998a). Differentiation into finer conceptual categories occurs gradually over the course of the second year (Mandler & McDonough, 2000) and beyond (Bornstein & Arterberry, 2010; Mandler, Bauer, & McDonough, 1991).…”