Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):843-844 (1998)

Abstract
Two assertions of Halford et al. are critiqued: their claim of priority in relational complexity analysis and the sufficiency for cognitive development of their relational-complexity analysis of tasks. Critical discussion of concrete task analyses (i.e., the relational complexity of proportionality problems, of balance scale problems, and the Tower of Hanoi) serves, by way of counterexamples, to highlight problems in their method.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x98351766
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,634
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Is Relational Complexity a Useful Metric for Cognitive Development?Usha Goswami - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):838-839.
Complexity: From Formal Analysis to Final Action.Douglas Frye & Philip David Zelazo - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):836-837.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
25 ( #460,510 of 2,533,755 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #388,784 of 2,533,755 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes