Theory/Objective Explore relative accuracy of “cognitive maps”

1. Kosslyn, S.M., Pick, H.L., Fariello, G.R. Cognitive Maps in Children and Men. Child Development, 1974, 45. • Theory/Objective • Explore relative accuracy of “cognitive maps” • Explore what guides spatial representation: physical distance vs functional distance vs visible distance • If physical, presence of barrier will not influence cognitive mapping • If functional, barrier may influence perceived distance between objects • If visible, expect having an opaque barrier (as opposed to transparent or no barrier) will distort perceived distance • Methodology • 28 participants: 14 preschoolers (4-1 to 5-5) + 14 adults (18-26yrs) • 4-part experiment (17-ft square space, 4 quadrants, 10 objects) Key Insight • Strengths • Acknowledge barriers might have caused organization of visual percepts in memory • Looks at child vs adult • Weaknesses • Experiment “explores” too much • Not sure how they chose age groups • Test not designed appropriately for two different age groups • Not enough subjects for tw1o age groups. Subjects not greatest sample • Do not describe whether square has 4 “walls”, or just 1 • No description of toys used (are they the same size? Same type?) • Findings • Subjects made systematic distance judgments from location to location, which supports theory of cognitive mapping (distortions were not random) • For ADULTS, visible distance seems most important: good at integrating adjacent & visible quadrants, opaque barriers lead to augmented distortion of distance • For CHILDREN, functional distance seems most important: not able to integrate quadrants, equivalent effects of both types of barriers (increasing distance)