Children Only 3 Years Can Succeed At Conditional "If, Then" Reasoning, Much Earlier Than Anyone Had Thought Possible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report results showing success at 3 years on conditional discrimination (CD) -- 12-18 months younger than previously reported. Three-year-olds succeeded when color was a property of the stimulus, rather than a property of the background, as in all past CD testing. Previously, we and others found children succeed on the dimensional change card sort (DCCS) test at 3 years -- 12-24 months earlier than previously reported -- by making color a property of the background, instead of a property of the stimulus, as in standard DCCS testing. Neither the change to CD or DCCS affected the rule structure or reasoning requirements of the task. This double dissociation, with 3-year-olds performing better on CD when color and shape were integrated but better on DCCS when color and shape were separated, indicates that when superficial stimulus properties are modified 3-year-olds can do conditional reasoning and grasp a hierarchical rule structure - but they seem to need perceptual boot-strapping to do that. Children of 3 years evidently have difficulty mentally separating physical dimensions (e.g., color and shape) of the same object and difficulty mentally integrating physical dimensions not part of the same object. These results provide the strongest evidence to date against conceptual accounts of why children of 3 years fail conditional discrimination or card sorting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".