80 children (40 three-yr.-olds, 23 boys and 17 girls, and 40 five-yr.-olds, 22 boys and 18 girls) were presented pairs of quadrangles (square vs rectangle) and triangles (two isosceles triangles) and asked to select the bigger one. The pairs were varied on the area ratio of paired stimuli and magnitude in differences between height and width. Although 3-yr.-olds tended to rely on area in making their judgments and also occasionally relied on height, almost all 5-yr.-olds relied on height. These results were discussed in relation to the tasks used in the previous studies, the basis in judgment of bigness, and the Japanese word for “big.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ColeyJ. D.GelmanS. A. (1989) The effects of object orientation and object type on children's interpretation of the word big. Child Development, 60, 372–380.
2.
GathercoleV. C. (1982) Decrements in children's responses to big and tall: a reconsideration of the potential semantic causes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 156–173.
3.
HarrisP. L.MorrisJ. E.TerwogtM. M. (1986) The early acquisition of spatial adjectives: a cross-linguistic study. Journal of Child Language, 3, 335–352.
4.
MaratsosM. P. (1973) Decrease in the understanding of the word “big” in preschool children. Child Development, 44, 747–752.
5.
RavnK. E.GelmanS. A. (1984) Rule usage in children's understanding of “big” and “little.”Child Development, 55, 2141–2150.
6.
SenaR.SmithL. B. (1990) New evidence on the development of the word big. Child Development, 61, 1034–1052.
7.
SmithL. B.EvansP. (1989) Similarity, identity, and dimensions: perceptual classification in children and adults. In SheppB. E.BailesterosS. (Eds.), Object perception: structure and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 325–356.
8.
WardT. B. (1989) Analytic and holistic modes of processing in category learning. In SheppB. E.BailesterosS. (Eds.), Object perception: structure and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 387–419.
