Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 4/2019

05-09-2018 | Original Article

Children’s behavior and spontaneous talk in a future thinking task

Auteurs: Julian S. Caza, Cristina M. Atance

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

We explored 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds’ (N = 120) “explicit” and “spontaneous” future-oriented cognition. Specifically, children had to think ahead to meet a future physiological need (desire for food) or psychological need (avoiding boredom). One group of children alternated between a room with candy and a room without candy, spending 3 min per visit. Children were explicitly asked which room they wanted to put extra candy in for a future visit to the lab (correct answer: room without candy). A second group of children underwent the same procedure but with toys as the resource instead of food (a replication of Atance et al. in J Exp Child Psychol 129:98–109, 2015). In the food condition, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds all placed candy in the correct room above chance, but only 4- and 5-year-olds were above chance in the toy condition. Overall, 4- and 5-year-olds outperformed 3-year-olds, and children performed better in the food condition than the toy condition. Children’s spontaneous (or “involuntary”) future thinking was assessed by coding their utterances while in the two rooms. Children who solved the explicit task uttered more task-relevant future and past statements than children who failed. Examining spontaneous talk also allowed us to explore children’s spontaneous “solving” of the task before being asked an explicit test question. This research highlights the importance of varying stimuli in future thinking tasks and developing methods to capture spontaneous/involuntary future thinking in young children.
Voetnoten
1
Without the 12 children who experienced slight variations from the standard protocol (see “Participants”), the pattern of results remained the same (17/23 = 74% vs. 14/19 = 74% of 3-year-olds placed candy in the correct room); however, for the binomial test, p = 0.064, reflecting the decrease in power due to smaller cell size.
 
2
51/60 = 85% of children selected the correct room in the food condition and 42/60 = 70% of children selected the correct room in the toy condition. Without the 12 children who experienced slight variations from the standard protocol, the pattern of results between conditions remained very similar (46/54 = 85% correct in the food condition; 39/54 = 72% in the toy condition). However, the effect of condition is no longer significant reflecting lower power, OR 2.37, 95% CI [0.86, 6.51], p = 0.094.
 
3
Although we did not predict an Age × Condition interaction, we ran a second, exploratory, binary logistic regression with age, condition, and the Age × Condition interaction included in the model. However, since 5-year-olds in the food condition were at ceiling (no variability), the interaction statistics and resulting model were uninterpretable.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Atance, C. M., & Mahy, C. E. V. (2016). Episodic future thinking in children. In: K. Michaelian, S. B. Klein, & K. K. Szpunar (Eds.), Seeing the future (pp. 367–386). Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRef Atance, C. M., & Mahy, C. E. V. (2016). Episodic future thinking in children. In: K. Michaelian, S. B. Klein, & K. K. Szpunar (Eds.), Seeing the future (pp. 367–386). Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRef
go back to reference Hudson, J. A., Mayhew, E. M. Y., & Prabhakar, J. (2011). The development of episodic foresight: Emerging concepts and methods. In: J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 40, pp. 95–137). Cambridge: Academic Press.CrossRef Hudson, J. A., Mayhew, E. M. Y., & Prabhakar, J. (2011). The development of episodic foresight: Emerging concepts and methods. In: J. B. Benson (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 40, pp. 95–137). Cambridge: Academic Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Michaelian, K., Klein, S. B., & Szpunar, K. K. (Eds.). (2016). Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Michaelian, K., Klein, S. B., & Szpunar, K. K. (Eds.). (2016). Seeing the future: Theoretical perspectives on future-oriented mental time travel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 123, 133–167. Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 123, 133–167.
go back to reference Tulving, E. (2005). Episodic memory and autonoesis: Uniquely human? In H. S. Terrace & J. Metcalfe (Eds.), The missing link in cognition: Origins of self-reflective consciousness (pp. 3–56). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Tulving, E. (2005). Episodic memory and autonoesis: Uniquely human? In H. S. Terrace & J. Metcalfe (Eds.), The missing link in cognition: Origins of self-reflective consciousness (pp. 3–56). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Children’s behavior and spontaneous talk in a future thinking task
Auteurs
Julian S. Caza
Cristina M. Atance
Publicatiedatum
05-09-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1089-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2019

Psychological Research 4/2019 Naar de uitgave