Do children need reminders on the Day-Night task, or simply some way to prevent them from responding too quickly?

Daphne Sue Ling, Cole Davies Wong, Adele Diamond, Daphne Sue Ling, Cole Davies Wong, Adele Diamond

Abstract

We previously reported better performance on the Day-Night task when a ditty was chanted between stimulus presentation and when children could respond (Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002). Here we investigated competing hypotheses about why the ditty helps. Does it help because it imposes a brief waiting time (the child waits while the ditty is chanted before responding)? Or, does the ditty help because of its content, providing information helpful to performing the task? One-third of the 72 children (age 4) were tested with the ditty previously used which reminds them: "Think about the answer; don't tell me." Another 24 children were tested with a ditty with no task-relevant content: "I hope you have a nice time; I like you." One-third received the standard condition. Performance in both ditty conditions was comparable and better than in the standard condition. That indicates that a factor common to both ditties (that chanting them took time, allowing the prepotent response to subside and the more-considered answer to reach response threshold) likely accounts for their benefit. Whether a ditty reminded children what to do or not did not affect the results. The challenge of the Day-Night task for preschoolers is not its working memory demands but the need to inhibit a dominant response, making a different response instead.

Keywords: executive functions; impulsivity; inhibitory control; self-regulation; working memory.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results from the Ditty and standard Conditions of Diamond et al. (2002)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of Correct Responses by Condition

References

    1. Diamond A, Kirkham N, Amso D. Conditions under which young children CAN hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response. Developmental Psychology. 2002;38:352–362. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.38.3.352.
    1. Gerstadt C, Hong Y, Diamond A. The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of 3½-7 year old children on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition. 1994;53:129–153.
    1. Heberle JF, Fletcher R. Taking time to answer: Improved performance on an appearance-reality task.. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development; Albuquerque, NM.. Mar, 1999.
    1. Jones LB, Rothbart MK, Posner MI. Development of executive attention in preschool children. Developmental Science. 2003;6:498–504. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00307.
    1. McAuley T, Christ SE, White DA. Mapping the development of response inhibition in young children using a modified day-night task. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2011;36:539–551. doi: 10.1080/87565641.2010.549871.
    1. Montgomery DE, Koeltzow TE. A review of the day-night task: The stroop paradigm and interference control in young children. Developmental Review. 2010;30:308–330. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.201.07.001.
    1. Montgomery DE, Fosco W. The effect of delayed responding on Stroop-like task performance among preschoolers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development. 2012;173:142–157. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2011.583699.
    1. Munakata Y. Society for Research in Child Development. Vol. 18. Seattle, WA.: Apr, Talk in an invited symposium. Building on theory to improve executive function: The case of inhibitory control. p. 2013.
    1. Riviere J, Lecuyer R. The C-not-B error: A comparative study. Cognitive Development. 2003;18:285–297. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(03)00003-0.
    1. Simpson A, Riggs KJ. Inhibitory and working memory demands of the day-night task in children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2005;23:471–486. doi: 10.1002/icd.1871.
    1. Simpson A, Riggs KJ, Beck SR, Gorniak SL, Wu Y, Abbott D, Diamond A. Refining the understanding of inhibitory control: How response prepotency is created and overcome. Developmental Science. 2012;15:62–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01105.x.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner