Conceptual relationships: comparison between Children, Young Adults and Older Adults
Relaciones conceptuales: comparación entre Niños, Adultos Jóvenes y Adultos Mayores
Article Sidebar
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Los autores que publican en la Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
- El Autor o los autores, desde que presenta(n) a consideración de esta revista su manuscrito, esta(n) informado(s) acerca de la política de Acceso Abierto, como condición indisociable de publicación, lo que significa que ni él(los), ni la revista han de percibir ingreso alguno por concepto de la lectura de resúmenes o del artículo completo, tampoco por su uso o explotación para generar nuevo conocimiento o para desarrollar aprendizajes alrededor de la obra.
- Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo, al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacionalque permite que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado, siempre que se haga mención a la autoría del trabajo y la primera publicación en esta revista, no se utilice con fines comerciales y que las obras que se deriven del artículo se compartan en iguales condiciones.
- Los conceptos y opiniones expresados en los artículos son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y no comprometen a la Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología ni a la Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana. Los contenidos de esta revista se distribuyen bajo licencia de tipo Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional, la cual exige el debido reconocimiento de las obras y cuyos términos se encuentran en: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
- La Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología es una revista de acceso abierto, por lo que tanto el proceso editorial como los contenidos publicados están disponibles para todos los usuarios sin cargo alguno: la Revista no realiza cobro alguno por acceso, lectura o descarga de contenidos ni por procesos o actividades de la editorial con fines de publicación.
Main Article Content
The general aim of this paper was to study what types of conceptual relations are used by school-age children, young adults and old adults, since it is presumed that throughout development the preference for the types of conceptual relations varies, but studies on the subject are scarce, and their results are divergent. For this, 226 children aged 6 to 12 years, 300 adults aged 20 to 40, and 300 adults over 60, performed a feature production task of concepts from the living and the non-living domains. In this task, participants provided attributes from concepts such as "ant" and "pyramid”. The attributes were coded according to whether they were taxonomic ("it is an animal"), perceptual ("it is long") or thematic ("it is found in Egypt"). The results from the analysis of variance indicate that the production of taxonomic attributes was significantly higher for young adults than for older adults and children, whose taxonomic production was even. In terms of thematic production, it was high and homogeneous in all three age groups. Finally, for the non-living things domain, the attributes were mostly thematic and perceptive, and for the living beings, mostly perceptive. It is argued that the use or preference for conceptual relations varies throughout development, with taxonomic relations being more inaccessible to children and older adults, and less prevalent for living and non-living things.
Downloads
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles N/A
Author statements
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
- Publisher
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
Article Details
American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, Washington D.C.: American Pychological Association. Recuperado de: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf
Beste, C., Willemssen, R., Saft, C., & Falkenstein, M. (2010). Response inhibition subprocesses and dopaminergic pathways: Basal ganglia disease effects. Neuropsychologia, 48, 366-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.023
Blaye, A. & Jacques, S. (2009). Categorical flexibility in preschoolers: contributions of conceptual knowledge and
executive control. Developmental Science, 12(6), 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00832.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00832.x
Borghi, A. M. & Caramelli, N. (2003). Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: from action to spatial relations. Cognitive Development, 18, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2014(02)00161-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00161-2
Cicirelli, V. (1976). Categorization behavior in aging subjects. Journal of Gerontology, 31(6), 676-680. Clarke, A., Taylor, K., Devereux, B., Randall, B., & Tyler L. (2013). From perception to conception: How meaningful objects are processed over time. Cerebral Cortex, 23(1), 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs002
Coane, J. H., Monahan, K., & Termonen, M. (2015). Hunts, Heinz, and Fries priming ketchup: The effects of lexicality on brand name-product associations and brand memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 455-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3124
Constantinescu, A., O’Reilly, J., Behrens, T. (2016). Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a grid-like code. Science, 352, 1464-1468. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0941 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0941
Cycowicz, Y., Friedman, D., Rothstein, M., & Snodgrass, J. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 171-237. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2356 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.2356
Di Giorgio, E., Lunghi, M., Simon, F., & Vallortigara, G. (2017). Visual cues of motion that trigger animacy perception at birth: The case of self-propulsion. Developmental Science, 20, e12394. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12394 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12394
Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. (pp. 249-294). En B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 54. Burlington: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00008-5
Favarotto, V., García Coni, A., Magani, F. & Vivas, J. (2014). Semantic memory organization in children and young adults. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 92-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.391
Fisher, A., Godwin, K., & Matlen, B. (2015). Development of inductive generalization with familiar categories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1149-1173. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0816-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0816-5
García Coni, A., Ison, M., & Vivas, J. (2019). Conceptual flexibility in school children: Switching between taxonomic and thematic relations. Cognitive Development, 52, 100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100827 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100827
García Coni, A. & Vivas, J. (2018). Diferencias en la categorización de seres vivos y objetos. Estudio en niños de edad escolar. Suma Psicológica, 25, 62-69. https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2018.v25.n1.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14349/sumapsi.2018.v25.n1.7
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198700302.001.0001
Gelman, S. & Meyer, M. (2011). Child categorization. WIREs Cognitive Science, 2(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.96 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.96
Golonka, S. & Estes, Z. (2009). Thematic relations affect similarity via commonalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1454-1464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017397 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017397
Grasso, L. & Peraita, H. (2011). Adaptación de la batería de evaluación de la memoria semántica en la demencia tipo Alzheimer (EMSDA) a la población de la ciudad de Buenos Aires. Interdisciplinaria, 28 (1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/t07253-000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t07253-000
Hashimoto, N., McGregor, K., & Graham, A. (2007). Conceptual organization at 6 and 8 years of age: Evidence from the semantic priming of object decisions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 161-176. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/014) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/014)
Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Callado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación (6a
edición). México: MacGraw-Hill.
Horner, A.J., Bisby, J.A., Bush, D., Lin, W.-J., Burgess, N. (2015). Evidence for holistic episodic recollection via hippocampal pattern completion. Nature Communication, 6, 7462. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8462 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8462
Jouravlev, O. & McRae, K. (2016). Thematic relatedness production norms for 100 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1349-1357. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0679-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0679-8
Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. Neuroimage, 44, 1152-1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043
Landrigan, J. & Mirman, D. (2017). The cost of switching between taxonomic and thematic semantics. Memory & Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0757-5
Lawson, R., Chang, F., & Wills, A. J. (2017). Free classification of large sets of everyday objects is more thematic than taxonomic. Acta Psychologica, 172, 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.001
Lewis, G., Poeppel, D., & Murphy, G. (2015). The neural bases of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: An MEG study. Neuropsychologia, 68, 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.011
Ley N° 25.326. Protección de datos personales. Dirección Nacional de Protección de datos personales, Ministerio
de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos humanos, 29 de noviembre de 2001.
Lin, E. & Murphy, G. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.1.3
General, 130, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.1.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.1.3
Maguire, M., White, J. & Brier, M. (2011). How semantic categorization influences inhibitory processing in middle-childhood: An Event Related Potentials study. Brain & Cognition, 76(1), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.02.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.02.015
Maguire, M., Brier, M., & Ferree, T. (2010). EEG theta and alpha responses reveal qualitative differences in processing taxonomic versus thematic semantic relationships. Brain & Language, 114, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.03.005
Maintenant, C., Blaye, A., & Paour, J. (2011). Semantic categorical flexibility and aging: Effect of semantic relations on maintenance and switching. Psychology and Aging, 26(2), 461-466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021686 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021686
Merck, C., Noël, A., Jamet, E., Robert, M., Hou, C., Salmon, A., ... Kalénine, S. (2019). Identification of taxonomic and thematic relationships: do the two semantic systems have the same status in semantic dementia? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(9), 946-964. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1641186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1641186
Mirman, D., Landrigan, J.-F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499-520. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092
Mudar, R. A. & Chiang, H. S. (2017). Categorization and aging. En H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science (2nd Edition) (pp. 673-686). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-101107-2.00011-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101107-2.00011-7
Mudar, R. A., Chiang, H. S., Maguire, M. J., Spence, J. S., Eroh, J., Kraut, M. A., Hart, J. Jr. (2015). Effects of age on cognitive control during semantic categorization. Behavioral Brain Research, 287, 285-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.03.042 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.03.042
Murphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Massachussets: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001
Muthivhi, A. E. (2010). Piaget, Vygotsky, and the cultural development of the notions of possibility and necessity: An experimental study among rural South African learners. South African Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/008124631004000203
Nelson, K. (1985). Event knowledge. Structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Connor, C., Cree, G., McRae, K. (2009). Conceptual hierarchies in a flat attractor network: Dynamics of learning and computations. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 665-708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01024.x
Paxton, J. L., Barch, D. M., Racine, C. A., & Braver, T. S. (2008). Cognitive control, goal maintenance, and prefrontal function in healthy aging. Cerebral Cortex, 18(5), 1010-1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm135
Pennequin, V., Fontaine, R., Bonthoux, F., Scheuner, N., & Blaye, A. (2006). Categorization deficit in old age: Reality or artefact? Journal of Adult Development, 13, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-006-9000-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-006-9000-5
Pluciennicka, E., Coello, Y., & Kalenine, S. (2016). Development of thematic and functional similarity relation processing during manipulable artifact object identification: Evidence from eye-tracking in the Visual World Paradigm. Cognitive Development, 38, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.001
Popp, E. Y. & Serra, M. J. (2018). The animacy advantage for free-recall performance is not attributable to greater mental arousal. Memory, 26, 89-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2017.1326507
Rogers, T. & Patterson, K. (2007). Object Categorization: Reversals and Explanations of the Basic-Level Advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.451 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.451
Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
Roversi, C., Borghi, A., & Tummolini, L. (2013). A marriage is an artefact and not a walk that we take together: An experimental study on the categorization of artefacts. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0150-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0150-7
Sachs, O., Weis, S., Krings, T., Huber, W., & Kircher, T. (2008). Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations. Neuropsychologia, 46, 409-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.08.015
Sadeghi, Z., McClelland, J., & Hoffman, P. (2015). You shall know an object by the company it keeps: An investigation of semantic representations derived from object co-occurrence in visual scenes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 52-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.031
Salthouse, T. (2017). Shared and unique influences on age-related cognitive change. Neuropsychology, 31. https://doi.org/11-19. 10.1037/neu0000330 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000330
Schwartz, M., Kimberg, D. Walker, G., Brecher, A., Faseyitan, O., Dell, G.... Coslett, H. (2011). Neuroanatomical dissociation for taxonomic and thematic knowledge in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 8520–8524. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014935108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014935108
Simon, J., Gilsoul, J., & Collette, F. (2015). The executive functioning in normal aging: Impact of the cognitive reserve. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/2268/185655
Sloutsky, V. (2010). From perceptual categories to concepts: What develops? Cognitive Science, 34, 1244-1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01129.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01129.x
Smiley, S. & Brown, A. (1979). Conceptual preference for thematic or taxonomic relations: A nonmonotonic age trend from preschool to old age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(79)90087-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(79)90087-0
Sormaz, S., Jefferies, E. Bernhardt, B., Karapanagiotidis, T., Mollo, G., ... Smallwooda, J. (2017). Knowing what from where: Hippocampal connectivity with temporoparietal cortex at rest is linked to individual differences in semantic and topographic memory. Neuroimage, 152, 400-410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.071
Taylor, K., Moss, H., & Tyler, L. (2007). The conceptual structure account: A cognitive model of semantic memory and its neural instantiation. En J. Hart Jr. & M. Kraut (eds.), Neural basis of Semantic Memory (pp. 265-301). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511544965.012
Unger, L. & Fisher, A. (2019). Rapid, experience-related changes in the organization of children’s semantic knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 179, 1-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.10.007
Unger, L., Fisher, A., Nugent, R., Ventura, S., & MacLellan, C. (2016). Developmental changes in semantic knowledge organization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.005
Vivas, L. & García Coni, A. (2013). Relaciones conceptuales: definición del constructo, bases neuroanatómicas y formas de evaluación. Actualidades en Psicología, 27(114), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v27i114.2852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v27i114.2852
Vivas, J., Vivas, L., Comesaña, A., García Coni, A., & Vorano, A. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1095-1106. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2
White, A., Storms, G. Malt, B., & Verheyen, S. (2018). Mind the generation gap: Differences between young and old in everyday lexical categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001
Wright, K., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Kelley, E. (2015). The animate-inanimate distinction in preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33, 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12068
Wu, L. & Barsalou, L. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002
Zortea, M., Menegola, B., Villavicencio, A. & Salles, J. F. (2014). Graph analysis of semantic word association among children, adults, and the elderly. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-79722014000100011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722014000100011
