Abstract
For various domains in proportional reasoning cognitive development is characterized as a progression through a series of increasingly complex rules. A multiplicative relationship between two task features, such as weight and distance information of blocks placed at both sides of the fulcrum of a balance scale, appears difficult to discover. During development, children change their beliefs about the balance scale several times: from a focus on the weight dimension (Rule I) to occasionally considering the distance dimension (Rule II), guessing (Rule III), and applying multiplication (Rule IV; Siegler, 1981). Because of the detailed empirical findings the balance scale task has become a benchmark task for computational models of proportional reasoning.
In this article, we present a large empirical study (N = 420) of which the findings provide a challenge for computational models. The effect of feedback and the effect of individually adapted training items on rule transition were tested for children using Rule I or Rule II. Presenting adapted training items initiates belief revision for Rule I but not for Rule II. The experience of making mistakes (by providing feedback) induces a change for both Rule I and Rule II. However, a delayed posttest shows that these changes are preserved after 2 weeks only for children using Rule I. We conclude that the transition from Rule I to Rule II differs from the transition from Rule II to a more complex rule. Concerning these empirical findings, we will review performance of computational models and the implications for a future belief revision model.
It is one Thing, to show a Man that he is in an Error, and another, to put him in possession of Truth.
John Locke
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boden M.A. (1994). Piaget. London, Fontana Press
Chletsos P.N., De Lisi R., Turner G., McGillicuddy-De Lisi A.V. (1989). Cognitive assessment of proportional reasoning strategies. Journal of Research and Development Education 22(4): 18–27
Dawson R.W., Zimmerman C. (2003). Interpreting the internal structure of a connectionist model of the balance scale task. Brain and Mind 4, 129–149
Dolan C.V., Jansen B.R.J., van der Maas H.L.J. (2004). Constrained and unconstrained multivariate normal finite mixture modeling of Piagetian data. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39(1): 69–98
Elman J.L., Bates E.A., Johnson M.H., Karmiloff-Smith A., Parisi D., Plunkett K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MIT Press
Gärdenfors P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press
Gärdenfors P., Rott H. (1995). Belief Revision. In: Gabbay D.M., Hogger C.J., Robinson J.A., (eds), Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming, Vol 4. Epistemic and temporal reasoning. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 35–132
Gilmore R. (1981). Catastrophe theory for scientists and engineers. New York, Wiley
Halford G.S., Andrews G., Dalton C., Boag C., Zielinski T. (2002). Young children’s performance on the balance scale: The influence of relational complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 81, 417–445
Inhelder B., Piaget J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, Basic Books
Jansen B.R.J. (2001). Development of reasoning on the balance scale task: Psychometric assessment of cognitive strategies. Dissertation Series/Faculty of Psychology University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jansen B.R.J., Van der Maas H.L.J. (1997). Statistical test of the rule assessment methodology by latent class analysis. Developmental Review 17, 321–357
Jansen B.R.J., van der Maas H.L.J. (2001). Evidence for the phase transition from Rule I to Rule II on the balance scale task. Developmental Review 21(4): 450–494
Jansen B.R.J., van der Maas H.L.J. (2002). The development of children’s rule use on the balance scale task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 81, 383–416
Klahr D., Siegler R.S. (1978). The representation of children’s knowledge. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 12, 61–116
Langeheine R. (1994). Latent variables Markov models. In: Von Eye A., Clogg C.C. (eds), Latent variables analysis. Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage Publications
Langley P. (1987). A general theory of discrimination learning. In: Klahr D., Langley P., Neches R. (eds), Production system models of learning and development. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 99–161
Lazarsfeld P.F., Henry N.W. (1968). Latent structure analysis. Boston, Houghton Mifflin
McClelland J.L. (1989). Parallel distributed processing: Implications for cognition and development. In: Morris M.G.M. (eds), Parallel distributed processing, implications for psychology and neurobiology. Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 8–45
McClelland J.L. (1995). A connectionist perspective on knowledge and development. In: Simon T.J., Halford G.S. (eds), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 157–204
Normandeau S., Larivée S., Roulin J.-L., Longeot F. (1989). The balance-scale dilemma: Either the subject or the experimenter muddles through. Journal of Genetic Psychology 150, 237–250
Paglieri F. (2004). Data-oriented belief revision: Towards a unified theory of epistemic processing. In: Onaindia E., Staab S., STAIRS 2004: 2nd Starting AI researchers’ symposium (pp. 179–190). Amsterdam: IOS Press
Quinlan P.T., van der Maas M., Jansen B.R.J., Booij O., & Rendell H.L.J. (in press). Rethinking stages of cognitive development: An appraisal of connectionist models of the balance scale task. Cognition. DOI 10.106/j.cognition.2006.02.004
Rabiner L.R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of IEEE 77(2): 267–295
Raijmakers M.E.J., van Koten S., Molenaar P.C.M. (1996). On the validity of simulating stagewise development by means of PDP networks: Application of catastrophe analysis and an experimental test of rule-like network performance. Cognitive Science 20, 101–136
Reese H.W. (1989). Rules and rule-governance: Cognitive and behavioristic views. In: Hayes S.C. (eds), Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control. New York, Plenum Press, pp. 3–84
Rindskopf D. (1987). Using latent class analysis to test developmental models. Developmental Review 7, 66–85
Sage S. & Langley P. (1983). Modeling cognitive development on the balance scale task. In A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the eight international joint conference on artificial intelligence (vol. 1, pp. 94–96). Karlsruhe, Germany
Schmidt W.C., Ling C.X. (1996). A decision-tree model of balance scale development. Machine Learning 24, 203–230
Shultz T.R. (2003). Computational developmental psychology. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Shultz T.R., Mareschal D., Schmidt W.C. (1994). Modeling cognitive development on balance scale phenomena. Machine Learning 16, 57–86
Shultz T.R., & Schmidt W.C. (1991). A cascade-correlation model of balance scale phenomena. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 635–640). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Shultz T.R., Schmidt W.C., Buckingham D., Mareschal D. (1995). Modeling cognitive development with a generative connectionist algorithm. In: Simon T.J., Halford G.S. (eds), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 205–261
Siegler R.S. (1976). Three aspects of cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology 8, 481–520
Siegler R.S. (1981). Developmental sequences within and between concepts. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(2, Serial No. 189)
Siegler R.S. (1996). Unidimensional thinking, multidimensional thinking, and characteristic tendencies of thought. In A. J. Sameroff, & M. M. Haith (Eds.), The five to seven year shift: The age of reason and responsibility. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on mental heath and development (pp. 63–84). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press
Siegler R.S. (1998). Children’s thinking, third edition. New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall, Inc
Siegler R.S., Chen Z. (1998). Developmental differences in rule learning: A microgenetic analysis. Cognitive Psychology 36, 273–310
Siegler R.S., Chen Z. (2002). Development of rules and strategies: Balancing the old and the new. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 81, 446–457
Siegler R.S., Stern E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127(4): 377–397
Van der Maas H.L.J., Jansen B.R.J. (2003). What response times tell of children’s behavior on the balance scale task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 85, 141–177
Van der Maas H.L.J., Molenaar P.C.M. (1992). Stagewise cognitive development: An application of catastrophe theory. Psychological Review 99, 395–417
Van der Maas H.L.J., Molenaar P.C.M. (1996). Catastrophe analysis of discontinuous development. In: von Eye A., Clogg C.C. (eds), Categorical variables in developmental research Methods of analysis. San Diego, CA, Academic Press
Van Maanen L., Been P.H., Sijtsma K. (1989). The linear logistic test model and heterogeneity of cognitive strategies. In: Roskam E.E. (eds), Mathematical psychology in progress. Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, pp. 267–288
Van Rijn H., van Someren M., van der Maas H.L.J. (2003). Modeling developmental transitions on the balance scale task. Cognitive Science 27(2): 227–257
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Jansen, B.R.J., Raijmakers, M.E.J. & Visser, I. Rule transition on the balance scale task: a case study in belief change. Synthese 155, 211–236 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9142-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9142-9