The Nature of Preschoolers’ Concept of Living and Artificial Objects

Abstract

This study investigated preschoolers' living kinds conceptualization by employing an extensive stimulus set and alternate indices of understanding. Thirty-four 3- to 5-year-olds and 36 adult undergraduates completed 3 testing phases involving 4 object classes: plants, animals, mobile, and immobile artifacts. The phases involved inquiries participants generated, what biological properties they attributed and their assignment of "alive" to the 4 classes. The study also focused on preschoolers' conceptual coherence by examining their responding across indices. Results revealed both competence and confusion in preschoolers' living kinds conceptualization relative to adults'. In addition, demonstrations of coherence across testing situations suggest that the beginnings of an abstract, biologically organized framework for understanding of living and nonliving kinds are in place in the preschool period.

The animate–inanimate distinction in preschool children

“…At the A–I level, 5‐year‐olds’ performance was above chance, but not as well developed as adults. Our results are consistent with the body of literature, showing that children as young as 5 years of age possess an emerging conceptual understanding of ontological kinds (Erickson, Keil, & Lockhart, ; Gottfried & Gelman, ; Jipson & Gelman, ; Margett & Witherington, ; Rhodes & Gelman, ).…”

“…Other studies investigating how preschoolers reason about ontological kinds have asked children to generate questions about different A–I classes or determine whether various properties should be extended to animates or inanimates (i.e., an inferential categorization task). Margett and Witherington () found that 4‐year‐old children asked more biological questions about plants and animals, compared with immobile artefacts. However, for the class of mobile artefacts, fewer functional questions and more biological questions were asked, suggesting that 4‐year‐olds overgeneralize the ability to move to be consistent with the category of living things.…”

Environmental judgment in early childhood and its relationship with the understanding of the concept of living beings

“…These thoughts are certainly in line with recent research which confirms that young children demonstrate not only a basic biological framework for differentiating living and nonliving kinds, but also a more sophisticated understanding of plants as living beings than previously thought (Margett & Witherington, 2011). …”

“…Regarding the earliest educational levels, a wide area of research has been conducted to examine young children’s grasp of the basic biological concepts and, especially, how the notion of living being evolves during childhood (see for instance: Inagaki & Hatano, 2008; Margett & Witherington, 2011; Leddon et al 2011; Lee & Kang, 2012 and Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Moreover, from another separate perspective, profuse research activity has been undertaken in the study of young children’s judgment on the environment (Ergazaki & Andriotou, 2010; Hussar & Horvath, 2011; Severson & Kahn, 2010).…”

How semantic category modulates preschool children’s visual memory

“…Children as young as 3 years old can distinguish living beings from artifacts (Gelman, 2003). They can also understand that stimuli, such as animals and living beings, are related by abstract biological principles (Erickson, Keil, & Lockhart, 2010;Margett & Witherington, 2011 ) and that they can develop and grow (Gelman & Wellman, 1991;Inagaki & Hatano, 1996). Instead, artifacts are the way they are because humans built them that way (Gelman & Bloom, 2000), and, as a consequence, children have different expectations about the types of information that characterize living things and artifacts (Greif, Kemler Nelson, Keil, & Gutierrez, 2006).…”