Smith1983 PDF
Smith1983 PDF
Indiana University
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (BNS 78-13019 and
BNS 81-09888). 1 thank Melanie Lockyear, Mary Martin, Rachel Ann Day, and Carol
McCord for their assistance and the children and staffs of the Heatherwood Day Care
Center, Penny Lane Nursery School, and Stinesville Elementary School for their participation.
The comments of Margaret Intons-Peterson, Rebecca Treiman, and the reviewers on earlier
versions of this manuscript are gratefully appreciated. Requests for reprints should be sent
to Linda B. Smith, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405.
150
0022-0965/83 $3.00
Copyright 0 1983 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 151
3. a
l b(25) c(lS)* l b(25)
*a(141 l c(14)
.d (22) .d (22)
l C(lll efll). l f(21)
.,I
a
l b(25551 l b (2535)
o(lsb4)
.O (1444)
.C (1455)
l d (2213)
l d (2222)
FIG. 1. Schematic illustrations of stimulus sets employed in the three experiments: (A)
Sets 4, two dimensions; (B) Sets 6. two dimensions; (C) Sets 4, four dimensions; and (D)
Sets 6, four dimensions. Individual objects in the stimulus sets are represented as dots
such that the overall dissimilarity of objects within a set are approximated by the distances
of the dots. Examples of specific orderable values on the two (XY) or four (XYZW)
dimensions that combine to form unique objects are given in parentheses.
152 LINDA B. SMITH
in five steps from light to dark green; in Coloraid notation the five colors
were YG-T,, YG-TI, GYG-T, , GYG-H, G-S. The five sizes or diameters
of the circles were 3.5, 4.0, 4.75, 5.75, and 6.75 cm. The specific values
on the two dimension were chosen from similarity scaling data generated
by four adults such that the range of similarities on the two dimensions
were comparable for the adults. Further, the discriminability of all one-
step differences on each dimension were tested via a same-different
oddity task in which four preschoolers participated. All one-step differences
were highly discriminable for the children.
Values of color and size were combined to form eight unique Sets 4
structured as shown in Fig. IA and eight unique Sets 6 structured as
shown in Fig. 1B. These unique sets were selected from various parts
of the two-dimensional space such that within each set all items within
a potential similarity group were judged by four adults to be more similar
overall to each other than all potential items within a Dimensional group.
For half the Sets 4 and half the Sets 6, the Dimensional classification
into two groups was possible by color (i.e., Dimension X in the figure
was color); for the other half of the sets such a Dimensional classification
was possible by size.
Procedure and design. Half the children at each age level classified
the 16 unique sets in one random order and half in a second random
order. Each child was tested individually in two sessions approximately
20 min each. To introduce the task, the child classified two demonstration
sets at the beginning of each session. The two demonstration sets each
contained five objects. One set was composed of triangles that varied
only in size, three small and two large triangles. The second demonstration
set consisted of squares that varied only in color, three yellow and two
red squares. The experimenter put the first demonstration set (for half
the children the color set, for the other half the size set) before the child
and told the child to “make groups, put the ones together that belong
together.” If the child did not spontaneously classify the identical objects
together (only two did not), the experimenter showed the child the correct
classification. All children correctly classified their second demonstration
set.
After the classification of the demonstration sets, the experimenter
told the child that there were more pictures and the child was again to
“make groups and put together the ones that go together.” The classification
sets were then, one at a time, given to the child to classify. The child
was allowed as much time as desired to classify a set. No specific feedback
was given to the child about his or her classification.
A second experimenter, the scorer, recorded the sequence of steps
through which the child progressed to complete a classification, that is,
the sequence of the behaviors of touching individual objects and of
moving one object close to another. The scorer drew schematic figures,
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 155
making a new drawing each time an object was moved, added or taken
away from a group.
TABLE I
MEAN PROWRTIONS OF SIMILARITY (S) AND DIMENSIONAL (D) CLASSIFICATIONS OF SETS 4
AND MEAN PROPORTIONS OF SIMILARITY 6). DIMENSIONAL (D), AND PAIR (P)
CLASSIFICATIONS OF SETS 6 IN EXPERIMENT I
Classification set
Sets 4 Sets 6
Age level s D s D” P
spatial proximity and then moving the remaining two objects close together.
Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Kemler, 1982b; L. Smith & Kemler,
1977), young children construct overall similarity categories at least when
each category contains only two objects.
Sets 6. As shown in the right-hand portion of Table 1, Similarity
classifications were rarely constructed with Sets 6. The predominant
classification involved the construction of Pairs-three groups of two
objects each. In their formation of Pairs, the children proceeded quite
systematically, forming first one pair, then a second, and finishing a
classification by putting the remaining two objects together. The structure
of these Pair constructions and their implications concerning the children’s
level of classificatory skill is clarified by considering the kinds of pairs
that could be formed from Sets 6. Fifteen unique pairs of four types
were possible: (1) S + D pairs-four possible pairs in which objects
share a value on one dimension and are highly similar overall (e.g., Pairs
a, b and e, fin Fig. 1B); (2) S pairs-two possible pairs in which objects
do not share a value on either dimension but are highly similar on both
(Pairs b, c and d, e); (3) D pairs-four possible pairs in which the objects
share a value on one dimension but are not similar on the other (e.g.,
pairs a, e and b, f); and (4) Other pairs-five possible pairs in which the
objects neither share a value on one dimension nor are similar overall.
On 88% of all constructions, the first two pairs of objects formed by
the children were S + D or S pairs. Both S + D and S pairs are good
overall similarity pairings and thus the children’s Pair classifications appear
to be partial Similarity classifications. This interpretation of Pair clas-
sifications as incomplete Similarity classifications rather than incomplete
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 157
Method
Subjects. Forty-eight preschoolers (M age, 4 years, 2 months: range,
3-8 to 4-6) and 48 kindergarteners (M age, 5 years, 7 months: range, 5-
3 to 6-O) who had not participated in Experiment I served as subjects.
The children attended one of several preschools or kindergartens serving
a middle-class population. Twelve children at each age level were randomly
assigned to one of four experimental conditions such that at least five
males and at least five females at each age level participated in each
condition.
Stimuli. Two types of stimuli were employed-stimuli which varied
on four dimensions and stimuli derived from the four-dimensional set
that varied on two of the four dimensions. Figure 2 shows examples of
the objects that comprised the four-dimension set. The four variable
dimensions were height of the rectangle, shape of the trapezoid on top
of the rectangle, color of the rectangle, and the orientation of an arrow
superimposed on the rectangle. As in Experiment 1 the specific values
on the dimensions were chosen from similarity-scaling data generated
by adults. The discriminability of specific values for the children was
confirmed via a same-different oddity task.
In the Four-Dimension conditions,‘the specific values were as follows:
(1) The Height of a rectangle of a constant l-in. width was one of the
following five values: 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00, or 2.25 in. (2) The Color of
the rectangle varied from a purplish-red to a bluish-violet, Coloraid notation:
RVR, RV, VRV, V, VBV. (3) The Shape which sat on the top of the
rectangle was a black trapezoid of constant height, 0.50 in., and constant
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 159
FIG. 2. Examples of the stimulus objects varying on four dimensions (Height of rectangle,
Color of rectangle, Shape of trapezoid, Orientation of angle) employed in Experiments 2
and 3.
base width, 1.75 in. The shape was varied by varying the top width:
0.12, 0.38, 0.62, 1.00 and 1.38 in. (4) A white Arrow of constant 0.75
in. length was superimposed on the bottom left of the rectangle, and
rotated about a point 0.12 in. from the left side and 0.25 in. from the
base of the rectangle. The orientations of the arrow were 5, 25, 45, 65,
and 85” counterclockwise from horizontal.
The Two-Dimension condition was composed of six subconditions
resulting from all pairwise combinations of the four dimensions. In each
of these subconditions only two of the dimensions varied across the five
values listed above. The remaining two dimensions were “not present.”
When Height did not vary, it was constant at 1.25 in. When Color did
not vary, the rectangle was black. When Arrow or Shape did not vary,
they were literally not present.
For the Four-Dimension condition and each of the 6 Two-Dimension
subconditions, 20 unique Sets 6 were constructed. These unique sets
were selected from various areas in the multidimensional space such that
within a set all potential members of the similarity category were judged
more similar to each other by adults than potential members of separate
similarity categories. A sample Two-Dimension set is shown in Fig. 1B
and a sample Four-Dimension set is shown in Fig. ID. The relative
160 LINDA B. SMITH
TABLE 2
MEAN PROPORTIONS OF SIMILARITY (S), DIMENSIONAL (D), AND PAIR (P) CLASSIFICATIONS IN
EXPERIMENT 2
Task
Free Restricted
” Includes Dimensional classifications into two groups by Dimension X and into four or
five groups by Dimensions Y, Z, and W. The latter classifications occurred rarely, less
than 1% of the time.
significant main effects of Age (F(1, 88) = 31.61, p < .OOl), Stimulus
condition (F(1, 88) = 151.18, p < .OOl) and Task (F(1, 88) = 72.22,
p < .OOl). No interaction approached significance. As is evident in Table
2, the older children produced more Similarity classifications than the
younger children; more Similarity classifications were constructed when
four dimensions varied than when two dimensions varied, and Similarity
classifications were more frequent in the Restricted task in which the
children were explicitly instructed to form two groups than in the Free
task in which the children were simply told to “make groups.”
The results suggest that young children can, at least in some situations,
construct complete overall-similarity classifications. When children are
given the instructional clue to form two groups and when the stimuli
vary on relatively many dimensions such that the holistic similarity relations
are perceptually strong, the majority of all classifications are Similarity
classifications. Similarity classifications were produced with high con-
sistency by the kindergarteners when the stimuli varied on four dimensions.
The younger children, also, constructed Similarity classifications (and
not just pairs of objects) but the tendency to do so was considerably
weaker than that evident in the kindergarteners. Similarity classifications
constituted the majority of all preschoolers’ classifications (and just barely)
only when the perceptual relation was strong and when the children were
explicitly told to form two groups.
Pair classrjications. As in Experiment 1, the major alternative means
of classifying the sets was to construct Pairs. A substantial proportion
of the younger subjects’ classifications in all conditions were of this kind
(see Table 2).
The structure of the Pair classifications in the Free-classification task
was similar to those observed in Experiment 1. Pair classifications of
162 LINDA B. SMITH
the two-dimensional sets were begun with either S + D pairs, .61 of all
first two-formed pairs, or S pairs, . 27 of all first two-formed pairs. The
relative proportions of S + D and S pairs suggests, as in Experiment
1, the construction of partial overall similarity classifications. Also con-
sistent with this view is the relative infrequency of Pair classifications
that included two S + D pairs (.40 of all Pair classifications) that were
organized by the same dimension (.19 of all Pair classifications). The
structure of the Pair classifications of the four-dimensional sets is also
consistent with the characterization of these constructions as incomplete
Similarity classifications. All possible pairs within a Similarity group in
the four-dimensional condition shared a value on one of the four dimensions
and thus were S + D pairs. However, the children rarely formed two
S + D pairs by the same dimension (.08 of all Pair classifications).
The instructions of the Restricted-classification task were meant to
preclude the construction of three groups each containing two objects.
Nevertheless, the younger children in particular tried to construct such
pairings. These Pair classifications in the Restricted task were begun in
the same manner as those observed in Experiment 1 and in the Free-
classification condition of this experiment. On the two-dimensional sets
the two initial pairs were primarily S + D (.63) and S (.31) pairs and
constructions containing two S + D pairs organized by one dimension
occurred rarely (. 17 of all Pair constructions). On the four-dimensional
sets, the children began these classifications with two S + D pairs (the
only overall similarity pairs possible) on .95 of all trials; however, these
two pairs were organized by the same dimension on only .09 of all Pair
classifications. In other words, the children again formed two initial pairs,
the members of which were holistically similar to each other and proper
members of a, perhaps, ultimate overall similarity group. After these
beginnings, many children in the Restricted task protested that the remaining
two objects “don’t go.” When told that each object had to go on one
side of the line or the other, most children put the remaining two objects
on one side of the black line but spatially separated this “other” pair
from the earlier formed overall similarity pair. This type of 2 vs 2 + 2
classification was scored as a Pair classification.
The children did not appear to be happy with their “compromise”
Pair classifications in the Restricted classification task. Several children
throughout the experiment tried after first constructing two Similarity
pairs to hide the remaining two objects by sitting on them. When reminded
of the instructions, these children did complete the classification into a
2 vs 2 + 2 structure. One ingenious and diplomatic I-year-old in the
Restricted task constructed two similarity pairs, and then readily added
the remaining two objects to one pair. However, she ended every clas-
sification by laying her arm across the table such that the extra, unrelated,
two objects in the group of four were obscured. An equally ingenious
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 163
TABLE 3
THE CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY 01; A FINAL COMPLETE SIMILARITY CLASSIFICATION GIVEN
A CLASSIFICATION BEGUN WITH Two SIMILARITY PAIRS FOR PRESCHOOLERS
AND KINDERGARTENERS UNDER FREE AND RESTRICTED INSTRUCTIONS
AND WHEN 2 AND 4 DIMENSIONS VARIED
.~~__ ~,.
Task
A. B,
00
00 bo (IIll) z4,
(1112) (4135)
do
X45) (5512)
de e. 10
c (7444, (4421) (1523) (5555)
FIG. 3. Schematic illustration of the Dimension Sets 4 (A) and Sets 6 (B) employed in
Experiment 3. Individual objects are represented as in Fig. I.
children met the criteria for being labeled a Preferrer on the Dimension
sets. On the Dimension Sets 4, six preschoolers and seven kindergarteners
classified these sets primarily by one dimension. On the Dimension Sets
6, three preschoolers and six kindergarteners classified by primarily one
of the four dimensions. Across children no one of the four dimensions
appears dominant; each of the four dimensions was “preferred” by at
least one child at each age level. These results alone suggest that young
children have some ability to organize objects into groups according to
identity on a dimension. Preference for one dimension over another
strongly implies the analysis of object comparisons into component di-
mensions (see, e.g., Cunningham & Odom, 1978; Garner, 1974).
The major question of this experiment is the relative ease by which
children construct overall-similarity classifications of the Similarity sets
and dimensional classifications of the Dimension sets. Therefore, in the
primary analyses, Similarity classifications of the Similarity sets are com-
pared with the Dimensional classifications of the Dimension sets. Di-
mensional classifications of the Similarity sets, which occurred relatively
infrequently (less than 12% of all classifications of Similarity sets) are
omitted from these analyses. Since only one of the two possible complete
classifications of the Similarity sets but both of the possible complete
classifications of the Dimension sets are included in these analyses. sup-
plementary analyses were also conducted. These secondary analyses
compared number of complete, coherent, classifications of the Similarity
sets (Similarity plus Dimensional classifications) with number of Dimen-
sional classifications of the Dimension sets.
Sets 4. The left-hand side of Table 4 shows the mean proportions of
final Similarity classifications of the Similarity Sets 4 and final Dimensional
classifications of the Dimension Sets 4. An analysis of variance for a
2 (Age) x 2 (Set) mixed design revealed no main effects or interactions
in these data (F < 1.00 in all cases). Evidently, both the younger and
the older children were well able to systematically classify objects into
TABLE 4
MEAN FROWRTIONS OF SIMILARITY CLASSIFICATIONS OF SIMILARITY SETS AND DIMENSIONAL
CLASSIFICATIONS OF DIMENSIONAL SETS AT THE Two AGE LEVELS IN EXPERIMENT 3
Stimulus set
Sets 4 Sets 6
Age level Similarity Dimension Similarity Dimension
groups of two by both overall similarity and, when there were no competing
overall similarity relations, by a component identity. Inclusion of Di-
mensional classifications of the Similarity set (mean proportions, .09 and
.I9 for the preschoolers and kindergarteners, respectively) does not alter
this conclusion. The numbers of complete coherent classifications of the
Similarity sets (Similarity plus Dimensional) and of the Dimension sets
(Dimensional) do not differ reliably at either age level (t( I I) < 1.OO in
both cases).
Sets 6. All the children classified the Identity sets into two groups of
three by absolute identity. The mean proportions of such classifications
were .97 for the preschoolers and 1.OOfor the kindergarteners. This result
corroborates the earlier suggestion that the children did understand the
instructions to “put together the ones that go together” and were able
to do so when the possible relation for classifying was completely
determined.
In contrast to the results on the Sets 4 and the Identity Sets 6, marked
developiental differences did emerge on the Similarity and Dimension
Sets bthe sets well classified only by forming two groups of three
nonidentical objects. The mean proportions of Similarity classifications
of the Similarity Sets 6 and the mean proportions of the Dimensional
classifications of Dimension Sets 6 are shown in the right-hand side of
Table 4.
Performances on the Similarity and Dimension Sets 6 were analyzed
first by submitting each child’s number of Similarity classifications on
the Similarity sets and each child’s number of Dimensional classifications
on the Dimension sets to an analysis of variance for a 2 (Age) by 2 (Set)
mixed design. The analysis yield only a main effect of age, F(1, 22) =
8.75, p < .Ol; older children formed Similarity and Dimensional categories
of three objects each more often than the younger children. Contrary to
possible predictions from the hypothesis that perception proceeds from
being organized by holistic similarity to being organized by dimensional
relations, coherent Similarity classifications were not more prevalent than
Dimensional ones. Neither the effect of Set (F(1, 22) = 2.09) nor the
interaction between Age and Set (RI, 22) = 1.06) was reliable. Analyses
comparing the number of coherent classifications (Similarity and Di-
mensional) of the Similarity sets with the number of Dimensional clas-
sifications of Dimension sets did yield a reliable Set effect for preschoolers.
Dimensional classifications of the Similarity sets occurred infrequently,
mean proportions .08 and .10 at the two age levels, respectively. None-
theless, when these infrequent dimensional classifications are taken into
account, the number of coherent classifications of the Similarity sets is
reliably greater than that of the Dimension sets for preschoolers (I( I I)
= 3.58, p < .Ol) but not for kindergarteners (HI I) = 1.57. p < .lO).
This correction for number of possible coherent classifications in the two
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 169
sets is consistent with the view that the perceptual primacy of similarity
over dimensional relations decreases with age. Still, the developmental
increase in complete classifications does not appear to be dependent on
the particular kind of perceptual relation by which objects might be
classified. Older children are better able than younger children to form
coherent categories containing more than two objects regardless of the
relation.
The claim that there is a general ability to form groups of more than
two objects that is independent of kind of perceptual relation is bolstered
by considering the relation between an individual’s performance on the
Similarity Sets 6 and the Dimension Sets 6. The children who constructed
systematic categories by overall similarity tended to be the same ones
who constructed systematic categories by an identity on one dimension.
The correlation (Pearson Y) between Similarity classifications of the Sim-
ilarity Sets 6 and Dimensional classifications of the Dimension Sets 6
was .86 for the preschoolers and .71 for the kindergarteners. The strong
relationship between the use of these two distinct category organizations
suggests the importance of a third factor, the general ability to relate
more than two objects at once.
Again, the primary alternative classification of Sets 6 was the construction
of pairs. The structure of the Pairs formed on the Similarity sets was
identical to that observed under Restricted instructions in Experiment
2; .40 of the preschoolers’ and .20 of the kindergarteners’ classifications
of Similarity Sets 6 were three pairs of objects with two of those pairs
joined to form one group. Analogous pair classifications were formed
with the Dimension Sets bmean proportion .66 and .3 1 for preschoolers
and kindergarteners, respectively. The structure of these pairs is discussed
more fully in the next section.
Steps in the construction of classiJcations. As in the first two exper-
iments, the children rarely altered a begun classification by separating
objects that had been previously grouped together. Such alterations oc-
curred less than 2% of the time and are therefore omitted from the
following analyses. Table 5 summarizes the nature of classification be-
ginnings of the various Sets 6.
As in Experiment 2, a substantial proportion of classifications of the
Similarity Sets 6 began with the formation of two similarity pairs. Thus,
both the younger and the older children appear to have attended to the
overall similarity relations in these sets. However, the older children
were much more likely than the younger children to systematically use
this relation to add a third object to an initial similarity pair. The conditional
probability of a final similarity classification given a classification begun
with two similarity pairs was .31 for the preschoolers and .63 for the
kindergarteners (t(17) = 1.77, p < .05). The older children also tended
more than the younger children to begin a classification by forming one
170 LlNDA B. SMITH
TABLE 5
PROPORTIONS OF CLASSIFICATIONS OF SETS 6 IN
EXPERIMENT 3 BEGUN BY FIRST FORMING
Two PAIRS OR BY FIRST COMPLETING
ONE GROUP OF THREE
Age level
Similarity
Similarity pairs .64 .50
Similarity
group of 3 .19 .34
Dimension
Dimensional
pairs .68 .58
Dimensional
group of 3 .I3 .39
Identity
Identity pairs .60 .41
Identity group
of 3 .39 .59
of the time. In other words, the older children more than the younger
children strategically formed complementary dimensional pairs (t(20) =
2.21, p < .02). A second area in which the older children’s use of
dimensional relations appears more systematic than that of the younger
children’s is in the extension of initial pairs to form the final classification.
Given two formed pairs governed by the same dimension, younger children
appropriately added the remaining objects to these pairs to form a final
dimensional classification only 45% of the time whereas the older children
did so 67% of the time (t(20) = 1.75, p < .05). Finally, and as in the
classification of the Similarity sets, the older children more than the
younger children began their classifications by completing a group of
three before starting a second group (t(22) = 3.40, p < .Ol ; see Table
5); 10 kindergarteners began a dimensional classification in this manner
at least once, whereas only five preschoolers did so. Interestingly, these
five preschoolers are precisely the same children who began at least one
Similarity classification with an initial group of three.
Similar differences in the younger and older children’s classifications
of the Identity Sets 6 were also observed. Although both the younger
and older children were well able to classify these sets into groups of
three objects each, children at the two age levels differed somewhat in
the procedures they used to achieve such a classification. The younger
children more than the older children tended to construct these classi-
fications by first forming two pairs and then adding the remaining objects
rather than by completing one group of three objects before beginning
the second group (r(22) = 2.48, p < .02; see Table 5).
Summary and conclusion. The developmental differences in the clas-
sification of the Dimension sets and the Similarity sets correspond closely.
Both the younger and the older children attend to and try to classify by
both holistic similarity and component dimensional relations. However,
the younger children seem generally unable to contemplate relations
between more than two objects at a time. Thus they often fail to form
a complete classification. The older children are more able to classify
strategically. Their ability to compare more than two objects at a time
is applied both when the primary relation is holistic and when it is a
component dimensional identity. The parallel results observed with the
Similarity and Dimension sets strongly suggests a developmental increase
in the general ability to classify that is not strictly dependent on advances
in perceptual development.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
By traditional accounts, the young child is a deficient classifier-unable
to impose an overriding organization and limited to piecemeal and suc-
cessive comparisons (e.g., Bruner & Olver, 1963; Inhelder & Piaget,
1964; Vygotsky, 1962). This traditional account has been challenged (Nel-
172 LINDA B. SMITH
son, 1974; Rosch. Mervis, Gray, Johnson & Boyes-Braem, 1976; Sugarman,
1982; L. Smith, 1979). A major criticism is that the traditional view
focused on only certain kinds of category organizations and ignored other
kinds of systems such as holistic similarity. A reasonable alternative
hypothesis to the traditional view thus emerged (see, L. Smith, 1979).
Young children might be competent classifiers by holistic relations; the
developmental trend in classification might not involve increasing clas-
sification skill per se but only an increase in the ability to use certain
kinds of category structure.
My results do not support the alternative hypothesis. There is remarkably
similar developmental growth in the ability to classify by overall similarities
and by dimensional identities. Apparently, classifying requires more than
attention to a potential organizing relation, Overall similarity comparisons
are clearly primary for young children; my results replicate numerous
others in this regard (e.g., Mervis & Crisafi, 1982; Kemler, 1982b; L.
Smith & Kemler, 1977). However, the greater perceptual primacy of
overall similarity over dimensional relations does not lead to more complete
similarity than dimensional classifications. This result, though somewhat
backhandedly, supports the notion that overall similarity classifications
are not a deficient, “nonstrategic,” form of classification. The construction
of overall similarity categories apparently involves some of the same
organizational abilities as the construction of dimensional classifications-
abilities that are not well established in the young child. Whatever the
precise specification of the critical ability, it is not simply attention to
potential organizing relations. All the children in the present experiments
attended to and indeed grouped objects (albeit incompletely) by overall
similarity and by dimensional attributes. Nevertheless, many of these
children often failed to construct systematic complete classifications.
Thus, the ability to classify systematically appears independent of the
kind of perceptual relation and perceptual development.
My results also are not fully compatible with the traditional claims
although aspects of them are reminiscent of earlier descriptions. The
younger children were well able to form pairs-to group objects on a
one-to-one basis-but were generally unable to impose an organization
that related three objects. Consistent with Piaget’s (1962; Inhelder &
Piaget, 1964) theorizing about the limits of preschool thought, it is as if
these children could conceptualize only one relation per object. Other
aspects of the younger children’s performances, for example, the fluctuating
dimensional criteria used by the preschoolers in classifying the Dimension
Sets 6 of Experiment 3 and the general tendency of all the children not
to break apart any already formed group, also fit with earlier descriptions
of the deficient nature of young children’s classifications (e.g., Denney,
1972; Inhelder & Piaget, 1964; Vygotsky, 1962).
The results also indicate, however, that even the youngest children
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 173
add an object. The third and most advanced level of skill observed in
the experiments consisted of the formation of a complete classification
without shifting between incomplete groups. All potential members of
one group were found and grouped together before the second group
was formed.
This developmental trend, from pairs to successive pairs with addition
to the initial formation of complete groups, seems to contrast with the
developmental trend reported by Sugarman (1982) in her study of the
classification behavior of It- to 2&-year-olds. The I$-year-olds in Sugarman’s
study tended to form only one group; for example, in “classifying” a
particular set, these children might look for and group together only the
dolls, ignoring everything else. The 2-year-olds, in contrast, tended to
successively form complete groups; for example, they might look for
and then group together dolls and then look for and group together circles.
Finally, the 2+-year-olds classified by shifting back and forth between
groups-for example, putting together two dolls, then two circles, then
adding a third doll to the first group, and so on. On the surface, then,
the developmental trend reported by Sugarman seems to be the inverse
of that observed in the present experiments-Sugarman’s 2-year-olds
classified in a manner like that evident primarily in the kindergarteners
(forming one complete group before beginning the second) and Sugarman’s
2+-year-olds classified in a manner most like that of the 4-year-old pre-
schoolers in the present experiment (forming successive pairs and then
adding objects).
There are several methodological differences between Sugarman’s study
and the present one. These differences notwithstanding, the seemingly
opposite directions of the developmental trends may be compatible. Very
young children may form successive final (but perhaps incomplete) groups
because they are not (other than behaviorally) classifying objects into
two or more groups. As Sugarman suggests, very young children may
not be partitioning objects into categories when they select all the dolls
and leave other objects aside. These children may only be focusing on
and finding dolls. As Sugarman argues, shifts between two or more
incomplete groups in the construction of a classification implies an aware-
ness of the potential existence of several groups of related objects. All
the children in the present study appear to have possessed such an
awareness. The lowest level of classification observed-the construction
of pairs-consisted of the explicit formation of two groups of two related
objects and the children avoided grouping unrelated objects together.
The procedure sometimes used by the kindergarteners of forming complete
groups without shifting (the same behavior characteristic of Sugarman’s
youngest subjects) may indicate a further advancement in classification-
the use of a prior, global, plan. The formation of one complete group
followed by the formation of a second reluted and complete group suggests
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 175
Thus, young children are able to analyze objects dimensionally and indeed
are able to strategically use these relations in classifications tasks as well
as they use holistic ones.
In conclusion, classification by overall similarity appears to depend
on the development of general classification skills that are also prerequisite
for dimensional classifications. Developmental differences in classification
do not reduce simply to the differential use of overall similarity by
younger subjects and dimensional relations by older subjects. There are
classification skills-independent of the organizing relation-that them-
selves change with age. The specific limits observed on young children’s
ability to classify by overall similarity are both reminiscent of traditional
accounts of the growth of classification and distinct from those accounts.
In their execution of a classification, young children often do appear to
have difficulty going beyond one-to-one object comparisons. However,
even the youngest children-and those with the least classification skill-
seemed to know that the purpose of a classification is to organize related
objects into separate groups.
REFERENCES
Baron, J. Intelligence and general strategies. In G. Underwood (Ed.). Sfrutegies in informution
processing. New York/London: Academic Press. 1978.
Brooks, L. Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch &
B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorizufion. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 1979.
Bruner, J. S., & Olver, R. R. Development of equivalence transformations in children.
Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963. No. 28.
Bruner. J. S., Olver, R. R., & Greenfield. P. M. Studies in cognitive growth. New York:
Wiley, 1966.
Cunningham, J. G.. & Odom. R. D. The role of perceptual salience in the development
of analysis and synthesis process. Child De\Belopment, 1978. 49, 815-823.
Denney. N. W. A developmental study of free classification in children. Child De~~elopment,
1972. 43, 221-232.
Denney, N. W.. & Acito, M. A. Classification training in two and three year old children.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1974, 17, 37-48.
Garner, W. R. The processing of itzformation and structure. Potomac. Md.: Erlbaum, 1974.
Gibson, E. J. Principles qf perceptual learning and developmenr. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1969.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. The ear/y growth of logic in fhe child. New York: Norton, 1964.
Johnston, J. R. Cognitive prerequisites: The evidence from children learning English. In
D. Slobin (Ed.), Universals of language acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. in press.
Kemler, D. G. Wholistic and analytic modes in perceptual and cognitive development. In
T. Tighe & B. G. Shepp (Eds.), Inferactions: Perception, cognition, und development.
A second Dartmouth-multiperspective conference. Hillsdale. N.J.: Erlbaum, 1982. (a)
Kemler, D. G. Classification in young and retarded children: The primacy of overall
similarity relations. Child Development. 1982. 53, 768-779. (b)
Kemler, D. G. The ability for dimensional analysis in preschool and retarded children:
Evidence from comparison, conservation and prediction tasks. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 1982, 34, 469-489. (c)
DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSIFICATION 177