Does the Number of Available Strategies Change How Children Perform Cognitive Tasks? Insights from Arithmetic

Lemaire, Patrick; Luwel, Koen; Brun, Fleur

doi:10.5539/jedp.v7n2p43

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, being able to choose among finger-based and non-finger strategies helped children's performance of all age groups, either on accuracy (younger children) or on latency (older children). This result has been found in numerous previous arithmetic studies in children of different age groups, with different sets of available strategies for different arithmetic operations and tasks (e.g., Lemaire et al, 2017;Lemaire & Brun, 2016;Lemaire & Callies, 2009;Luwel et al, 2005). Like in previous studies, the choice benefits found here are the result of children's being able to select each strategy when it works best (i.e., when it yields either more accurate or faster performance, or both) on each problem.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Age-Related Changes in How 5- to 8-Year-Old Children Use and Execute Finger-Based Strategies in Arithmetic

Ollivier,

Lemaire

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine how young children use and execute finger-based strategies, five- to eight-year-olds were asked to solve simple addition problems under a choice condition (i.e., they could choose finger-based or non-finger strategies on each problem), and under two no-choice conditions (one in which they had to use finger-based strategies on all problems and one in which they could not use finger-based strategies). Results showed that children (a) used both finger-based and non-finger strategies to solve simple addition problems in all age groups, (b) used fingers less and less often as they grew older, especially while solving smaller problems, (c) calibrated their use of finger-based strategies to both problem features and strategy performance, and (d) improved efficiency of both finger-based and non-finger strategy execution. Moreover, (e) strategy performance was the best predictor of strategy selection in all age groups, and (f) when they had the possibility to use fingers, children of all age groups obtained better performance relative to when they could not use fingers, especially on larger problems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Age-Related Changes in How 5- to 8-Year-Old Children Use and Execute Finger-Based Strategies in Arithmetic

Ollivier,

Lemaire

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Switch costs, or deficits in response time or accuracy, occur when switching from one familiar strategy to another (Brass, Derrfuss, & von Cramon, 2007). They are thought to arise from the shift in neural activity associated with how each strategy guides behavior (Lemaire, Luwel, & Brun, 2017; Luwel et al, 2009; Meiran, 1996). Both human children and adults exhibit switch costs on trials that require them to switch from one familiar strategy to another (Arrington & Logan, 2004; Ionescu, 2012; Rogers & Monsell, 1995; Zelazo, 2008), even after extensive practice (Stoet & Snyder, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optional-switch cognitive flexibility in primates: Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) intermediate susceptibility to cognitive set.

Pope¹,

Fagot²,

Meguerditchian³

et al. 2020

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within human problem-solving, the propensity to use a familiar approach, rather than switch to a more efficient alternative is pervasive. This susceptibility to “cognitive set” prevents optimization by biasing response patterns toward known solutions. In a recent study, which used a nonverbal touch screen task, baboons exhibited a striking ability to deviate from their learned strategy to use a more efficient shortcut. Humans, on the other hand, displayed the opposite response pattern and almost exclusively used a less efficient, but familiar, response. In the current study, we sought to further explore variation in susceptibility to cognitive set within the primate lineage by conducting the Learned Strategy–Direct Strategy task with 10 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Using multilevel multinomial modeling, we found that chimpanzees’ shortcut use was intermediate to baboons’ and humans’. However, unlike either baboons or humans, there was pronounced inter- and intraindividual variability in chimpanzees’ shortcut use. Additionally, a subset of chimpanzees employed a unique solution, wherein they switched strategies midtrial. Further, we found that chimpanzees did not exhibit switch costs when switching between the learned strategy and the shortcut, but humans did. We propose that differences in abstract rule encoding may underlie differences in susceptibility to cognitive set on the Learned Strategy–Direct Strategy task within the primate lineage.

show abstract

“…Similarly, cued-switch tasks assess subjects’ ability to shift between known strategies by comparing trials that require subjects to either repeat their previous strategy ( stay trials) or switch to another strategy ( switch trials) within their repertoire (Stoet & Snyder, 2008; Zelazo, 2008). Indeed, on cued-switch tasks, both children and adults exhibit pronounced deficits in response time and/or accuracy on switch compared with stay trials (Diamond & Kirkham, 2005; Ionescu, 2012; Lemaire, Luwel, & Brun, 2017; Luwel, Schillemans, Onghena, & Verschaffel, 2009; Stoet & Snyder, 2008). Termed “switch costs,” these deficits are thought to be associated with disengaging from one strategy and initiating another (Meiran, 1996; Rogers & Monsell, 1995; Stoet & Snyder, 2007); however, they are not exhibited by some nonhuman primates ( Macaca mulatta ; Stoet & Snyder, 2003, 2008), suggesting that they may be a byproduct of human rule-encoding (however, see Caselli & Chelazzi, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced Cognitive Flexibility in the Seminomadic Himba

Pope

Fagot

Meguerditchian

et al. 2018

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through codified rule-use humans can accurately solve many problems. Yet, mechanized strategies can also be costly. After adopting a solution strategy, humans often become blind to alternatives, even when those alternatives are more efficient. Termed cognitive set, this failure to switch from a familiar strategy to a better alternative has been considered universally human.Yet, our understanding of this phenomenon is derived almost exclusively from Western subjects.In this study, we used the nonverbal Learned Strategy-Direct Strategy (LS-DS) touch screen task in which subjects are presented with an opportunity to either use a learned strategy or a more efficient, but novel, shortcut. We found that the remote, seminomadic Himba of northern Namibia exhibited enhanced shortcut-use on the LS-DS task, challenging the claim that cognitive set affects humans universally. Additionally, we found that altering subjects' conceptualization of the shortcut as a viable option significantly enhanced its subsequent use in Western but not Himba participants. We discuss how other aspects of cultural variation, namely environmental uncertainty and educational background, might contribute to the observed crosscultural differences in flexible strategy-use.

show abstract

Does the Number of Available Strategies Change How Children Perform Cognitive Tasks? Insights from Arithmetic

Cited by 7 publications

References 21 publications

Age-Related Changes in How 5- to 8-Year-Old Children Use and Execute Finger-Based Strategies in Arithmetic

Age-Related Changes in How 5- to 8-Year-Old Children Use and Execute Finger-Based Strategies in Arithmetic

Optional-switch cognitive flexibility in primates: Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) intermediate susceptibility to cognitive set.

Enhanced Cognitive Flexibility in the Seminomadic Himba

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About