ARTICLE IN PRESS
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp
Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of
cognitive flexibility in preschoolers
Daniela Kloo *, Josef Perner, Angelika Kerschhuber,
Sandra Dabernig, Markus Aichhorn
Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
Received 30 July 2007; revised 14 December 2007
Abstract
The Dimensional Change Card Sorting task frequently is used to measure extradimensional shifting abilities in preschool children. In two studies, we investigated what makes this extradimensional
shifting task difficult. In Study 1 with 61 2- to 4-year-olds, we showed that extradimensional shifts
from one dimension to another are more difficult than reversal shifts within a dimension (even with
irrelevant variation on a second dimension). Study 2 with 77 3- and 4-year-olds further confirmed
this finding using a computerized paradigm and showed that sorting instructions are critical for 3year-olds’ difficulties with extradimensional shifts. This finding is taken to suggest that 3-year-olds
have particular problems with spontaneously classifying one object in two different ways.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Executive functions; Shifting; Flexibility; Extradimensional; Reversal; Sorting
Introduction
Flexibility in thinking is a major competency in our everyday lives. It allows us to think
of alternatives and to adapt to changes in our environment. One kind of flexible thinking
that has attracted many research efforts is our ability to switch between different relevant
dimensions, that is, extradimensional shifting. In children, this ability seems to emerge at
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +43 662 8044 5126.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kloo).
0022-0965/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
around 4 years of age. The prototypical task used to measure extradimensional shifting
abilities in children is the Dimensional Change Card Sorting (DCCS) task (Zelazo, Frye,
& Rapus, 1996; Zelazo, Müller, Frye, & Marcovitch, 2003).
In the standard version of the DCCS task, children are required to sort first according
to one dimension (e.g., color) and then according to another dimension (e.g., shape). Two
target cards, each affixed to one of two sorting boxes, are used. They depict, for example, a
red apple and a blue pear. The test cards (red pears and blue apples) match one target card
on one dimension and the other target card on the other dimension. During the preswitch
phase, children are told a pair of rules, for example, the color rules; they are asked to sort
all the blue ones into the box portraying something blue and to sort all the red ones into
the box displaying something red. Typically, 3-year-olds have no problems when sorting
the cards according to one dimension, but they usually have problems during the postswitch phase when the cards should be sorted according to the contrasting dimension.
It is not until around 4 years of age that children master this extradimensional shift.
In this study, we investigated further what makes this extradimensional shifting task so
difficult. In the first experiment, we obtained evidence that only extradimensional shifts
from one dimension to another are difficult for 3-year-olds and that reversal shifts within
a dimension are not (even with irrelevant variation on a second dimension). In the second
experiment, we replicated this finding using a computerized paradigm and, more important, showed that sorting instructions are important for 3-year-olds’ difficulties with extradimensional shifts. This finding suggests that 3-year-olds have particular difficulty in
spontaneously and simultaneously confronting two descriptions of one object.
Experiment 1
In contrast to extradimensional shift tasks, within-dimension reversal shift tasks, where
rules change only within one dimension, have been found to be easy for 3-year-olds (Kloo
& Perner, 2003, Experiment 1; Perner & Lang, 2002). In these reversal shift conditions,
children needed to shift from a ‘‘normal” shape game to a ‘‘silly” shape game. For example, in the normal shape game, the cars went to the car target and the suns went to the sun
target, but in the reversed or silly shape game, the cars went to the sun target and the suns
went to the car target. Perner and Lang’s explanation for their finding was that withindimension reversal shift tasks are easier because they do not require children to ‘‘redescribe” the objects on the cards (e.g., from ‘‘a blue thing” during the preswitch phase to
‘‘an apple” during the postswitch phase).
However, in these reversal shift tasks, cards varied only in shape, whereas in the extradimensional shift tasks (standard DCCS), cards varied in shape and color. Consequently,
it is not clear whether the reversal shift tasks were easier than the standard DCCS task
because the stimuli were less complex or because no extradimensional shift was required.
Evidence that stimulus complexity may play a role came from Brooks, Hanauer, Padowska, and Rosman (2003). In their Experiment 1, they replicated the finding that 3-yearolds have no difficulties with a reversal shift task (shifting either from ‘‘same” to ‘‘silly”
rules or from silly to same rules) using unidimensional stimuli that varied only with respect
to the shape dimension (black and white line drawings of airplanes and dogs). In their
Experiments 2 and 3, however, children had some difficulty in following silly rules (e.g.,
‘‘In the ‘silly’ game, if the card has an airplane we place it next to the dog because it is
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
3
not the same”) when bidimensional stimuli (varying in shape and color) were used irrespective of whether children started with the same rules or with the silly rules.
To account for the finding that children had difficulties with their silly card sorting
game when an irrelevant dimension was added, Brooks and colleagues (2003) suggested
that preschoolers’ difficulties with selective attention, rather than the presence of an extradimensional shift, are crucial for children’s difficulties with the card sorting task. The
researchers characterized selective attention as ‘‘the ability to focus on a particular aspect
of a stimulus while defocusing other aspects of the same stimulus” (p. 199).
In fact, it has been shown repeatedly that performance in speeded classification tasks
slows down when cards to be sorted differ not only with respect to the relevant dimension
but also with respect to one or more irrelevant dimensions and that the magnitude of interference declines with age (Garner & Felfoldy, 1970; Strutt, Anderson, & Well, 1975; Well,
Lorch, & Anderson, 1980). Furthermore, Hanauer and Brooks (2003) reported severe difficulties with selective attention in young preschoolers, with 3-year-olds (but not 4-yearolds) being unable to perform a cross-modal Stroop task where they needed to name color
patches while hearing distractor words (color and noncolor words). Therefore, Brooks and
colleagues (2003) argued that Perner and Lang’s (2002) unidimensional reversal shift task
was easier than the standard DCCS task because no irrelevant dimension needed to be
ignored and not because no extradimensional shift was required. Brooks and colleagues
concluded that the 3-year-olds ‘‘appeared to have limitations in selective attention that
restricted their ability to focus on the shape dimension” (p. 210).
However, the bidimensional reversal shift tasks with cards varying on two dimensions
used by Brooks and colleagues (2003) differ from the standard DCCS task in three other
aspects. First, during the preswitch phase, correct sorting was not demonstrated (and no
feedback was given). Indeed, children had difficulty in following silly rules irrespective of
whether it was before or after the switch in sorting rules. Second, the researchers used four
different test and target cards (e.g., green and yellow socks as well as green and yellow
cups) instead of two. In their Experiment 2, half of the test cards matched the target cards
exactly, whereas the others matched each target card in only one dimension.1 In their
Experiment 3, test and target cards depicted the same shapes, but the objects on the four
different test cards were red or blue and the objects on the target cards were green or yellow. Third, new target cards were introduced at the start of each phase (Experiment 3), or
the experimenter exchanged the positions of the target cards at the beginning of the postswitch phase (Experiment 1).
Therefore, the objective of our first experiment was to clarify whether children are able
to follow silly rules during the postswitch phase if the procedure matches the standard
DCCS task.2 That is, to make the bidimensional reversal shift task directly comparable
1
However, it should be noted that Brooks and colleagues (2003) mentioned in a footnote that they replicated
the results of Experiment 2 in a follow-up experiment using only two test cards, with each test card matching each
target card in only one dimension.
2
The use of feedback during the preswitch phase differs from the standard DCCS task protocol as described by
Zelazo (2006). Although during recent years hardly any feedback is given during the preswitch phase (e.g.,
Diamond, Carlson, & Beck, 2005; Kirkham, Cruess, & Diamond, 2003), in their early work, Zelazo and
colleagues (e.g., Frye, Zelazo, & Palfai, 1995, Experiment 2; Zelazo et al., 1996, Experiment 1; see also Perner &
Lang, 2002; Perner, Lang, & Kloo, 2002) sometimes gave feedback during the preswitch phase. In our study, we
adhered to this earlier method, although it might be preferable to give no feedback during the preswitch phase to
make the two phases of the DCCS task more comparable.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
to the standard DCCS task, correct sorting was demonstrated and feedback was given
during the preswitch phase, only two different test cards were used, and the target cards
remained on their boxes throughout the task. Children’s performance on a bidimensional
reversal shift task was compared with their performance on a unidimensional reversal shift
and the standard DCCS task.
Method
Participants
A total of 61 children (27 girls and 34 boys) from four nursery schools in Carinthia and
two day care facilities in Salzburg, Austria, participated in this experiment. Children were
predominantly from middle-class backgrounds, but this information was not recorded systematically. Their ages ranged from 2 years 6 months to 4 years 10 months (M = 3 years 6
months, SD = 7.77 months).
To analyze and display age trends, we divided the children into four approximately
equal-sized age groups: 21 children ranging in age from 2 years 6 months to 3 years 0
months (M = 2 years 10 months, SD = 2.29 months), 14 children ranging in age from 3
years 1 month to 3 years 6 months (M = 3 years 3 months, SD = 1.73 months), 13 children
ranging in age from 3 years 7 months to 3 years 11 months (M = 3 years 9 months,
SD = 1.50 months), and 13 children ranging in age from 4 years 2 months to 4 years 10
months (M = 4 years 5 months, SD = 2.83 months).
Design
Each child was tested individually in one session lasting approximately 15 min. Children received two card sorting tasks: a standard extradimensional DCCS task and a reversal shift task. Children were randomly assigned to one of two reversal shift conditions: Of
the 61 children, 31 were given a unidimensional reversal shift task and the other 30
received a bidimensional reversal shift task. These two groups of children did not differ
significantly in age (unidimensional: M = 42.71 months, SD = 7.66; bidimensional:
M = 40.47 months, SD = 7.85), t(59) = 1.13, p > .25. The order of the two card sorting
tasks and the direction of shift in the standard DCCS task (from color to shape or from
shape to color) were counterbalanced.
Materials and procedure
Three sets of cards (9 7 cm) were used. Each set consisted of 2 target cards and 12 test
cards. In all conditions, each of the target cards was affixed to its target box (34 17.5 12 cm). The test cards needed to be placed into one of these boxes through a slit. Each task
involved two phases: a preswitch phase and a postswitch phase.
Standard DCCS task
In the standard DCCS task, the target cards displayed a red dog and a blue bird,
whereas the test cards showed blue dogs and red birds. First, the experimenter pointed
at the target cards and explained the two dimensions (shape and color). Next, while pointing at the appropriate boxes, she said, ‘‘Now we are playing a game, the color game. In
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
5
this game, all the red ones go to the red one. And all the blue ones go to the blue one.” The
experimenter sorted one test card (one blue and one red) into each box. After these two
demonstration trials, the children were required to sort five cards on their own. On each
trial, the experimenter randomly selected a test card, labeled the card by the relevant
dimension only (e.g., ‘‘Here is a red one”), and asked children to sort the card into one
of the boxes (‘‘Where does this card go in the color game?”). On each trial, children were
told whether they had sorted the card correctly. If a card had been sorted incorrectly, the
preswitch rules were repeated.
When the children had completed five trials, the rules changed and the postswitch phase
began. Children were told, ‘‘Okay, now we are going to play a new game, the animals
game. The animals game is different. All the dogs go to the dog. And all the birds go to
the bird.” Again, children needed to sort five cards according to the new rules. Children
were not told whether a card had been placed correctly. However, as during the preswitch
phase, every time a card had been sorted incorrectly, the experimenter repeated the postswitch rules.
Reversal shift tasks
In the unidimensional reversal shift task, the 2 target cards and 12 test cards all had the
same color (green) and differed only in shape (apple or banana). In the bidimensional reversal shift task, the same shapes were used but the fruit had different colors. The target cards
displayed a yellow apple and a green banana, whereas the test cards showed green apples
and yellow bananas.3 In both reversal shift tasks, the procedure was the same as in the
standard task except that, during the preswitch phase, the children were asked to play
the ‘‘correct” fruit game: ‘‘All the apples go to the apple. And all the bananas go to the
banana.” And during the postswitch phase, children were instructed to play the ‘‘silly”
fruit game: ‘‘Now all the apples go to the banana. And all the bananas go to the apple.”
Results
During both the pre- and postswitch phases of each card sorting task, the children were
given a score between 0 and 5 depending on the number of cards sorted correctly. During
the preswitch phase, children were nearly perfect. In the standard DCCS task, three children sorted one card incorrectly and two children4 sorted two cards incorrectly. Only one
child made one error in a reversal shift task (bidimensional).
In both experiments, alpha was set at .05. The variable of interest was the number of
correct responses during the postswitch phase. In all four card sorting versions, most children sorted either all or none of the postswitch cards correctly; specifically, 60.7% of the
children in the standard DCCS task, 58.0% of the children in the unidimensional reversal
shift task, and 50.0% of the children in the bidimensional reversal shift task did so.
3
The reader might note that correct responding in this bidimensional reversal shift task was identical to correct
responding in the standard DCCS task (matching by shape during the preswitch phase and matching by color
during the postswitch phase). That is, the main difference between the two tasks was the type of instruction
(reversal vs. extradimensional shift).
4
We also analyzed the data excluding the two children who sorted more than one card incorrectly, but the
results remained unchanged.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
Table 1
Mean numbers of postswitch cards sorted correctly on each card sorting task for the four age groups in
Experiment 1
Task
Age group
DCCS
(N = 61)
Reversal unidimensional
(n = 31)
Reversal bidimensional
(n = 30)
2;6–3;0 (n = 21)
3;1–3;6 (n = 14)
3;7–3;11 (n = 13)
4;2–4;10 (n = 13)
All ages
2.28
3.00
3.69
3.92
3.10
3.00
4.28
4.75
4.75
4.19
3.15
3.86
5.00
5.00
3.93
(1.74)
(2.00)
(2.17)
(1.85)
(1.99)
(1.41)
(1.11)
(0.71)
(0.46)
(1.19)
(n = 8)
(n = 7)
(n = 8)
(n = 8)
(1.21)
(1.57)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(1.34)
(n = 13)
(n = 7)
(n = 5)
(n = 5)
Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses immediately after the means. Maximum score = 5. In the age group
column, the number before each semicolon represents years and the number after each semicolon represents
months.
Table 1 shows the developmental trend on the standard and reversal shift tasks. Postswitch performance was analyzed with a 2 (Task Version: standard vs. reversal [within participants]) 2 (Reversal Shift Group: unidimensional reversal shift task and standard
DCCS task vs. bidimensional reversal shift task and standard DCCS task) 2 (Task
Order) 4 (Age Group [between participants]) mixed design analysis of variance
(ANOVA). This revealed a significant main effect of task version, with children performing
significantly better on the reversal shift tasks (M = 4.06 correct, SD = 1.26) than on the
standard DCCS task (M = 3.10 correct, SD = 1.99), F(1, 45) = 12.89, p = .001, partial
g2 = .22. There was also a significant main effect of age group, F(3, 45) = 7.77,
p < .001, partial g2 = .34, indicating that children’s performance improved with age on
both the standard DCCS and reversal shift tasks.
Furthermore, there was a significant main effect of task order, F(1, 45) = 4.95, p = .031,
partial g2 = .10. This main effect was qualified by a Task Version Task Order interaction, F(1, 45) = 4.81, p = .034, partial g2 = .10. This interaction was due to the fact that
task order influenced children’s performance on the standard DCCS task (first position:
M = 2.59 correct, SD = 2.08; second position: M = 3.65 correct, SD = 1.76),
t(59) = 2.14, p = .036, but not on the reversal shift tasks (first position: M = 4.10 correct,
SD = 1.14; second position: M = 4.03 correct, SD = 1.38), t(59) = 0.22, p > .80. No other
main effects or interactions reached statistical significance. A similar order effect was
reported previously by Perner and Lang (2002). In their study, the standard DCCS task
was difficult only when presented as the first task and not when given after a reversal shift
task (but see Kloo & Perner, 2003, Experiment 1, and Lang, 2001, Experiment 4, for nonreplications of this effect). That is, there is some evidence that confrontation with a reversal shift task improves performance on a subsequent standard DCCS task. Possible
explanations for this effect could be that (a) children treat the subsequent standard DCCS
task as a reversal shift task (as suggested by Phil Zelazo [see Perner & Lang, 2002, p. 102])
and (b) doing a reversal shift task may familiarize children with the fact that the cards need
to be treated differently during the postswitch phase (see Perner & Lang, 2002, p. 102, for a
discussion of this issue).
Because the slight but nonsignificant age difference between the two reversal shift
groups might have affected the between-participants effect of reversal shift group,
we also conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with task version as
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
7
within-participants factor, reversal shift version and task order as between-participants
factors, and age in months as covariate. Again, neither the between-participants effect
of reversal shift group (p > .80) nor any interaction with reversal shift group was
significant.
We also conducted separate paired-samples t tests for each reversal shift group. In both
groups, performance on the reversal shift task was significantly better than performance
on the standard DCCS task (unidimensional: t(30) = 2.60, p < .05; bidimensional:
t(29) = 2.34, p < .05). An independent samples t test further confirmed that children’s performance on the two reversal shift tasks (unidimensional: M = 4.19 correct, SD = 1.19;
bidimensional: M = 3.93 correct, SD = 1.34) did not differ, t(59) = 0.80, p > .05.
Because postswitch responses were not normally distributed, the children’s performance
was also evaluated categorically. Children were classified as passing the postswitch phase if
they sorted four (or more) of the five items correctly. A McNemar’s v2 test indicated that
children performed better on the reversal shift versions than on the standard DCCS task,
v2(1, N = 61) = 6.00, p = .023. Children’s performance on the two reversal shift tasks did
not differ (Fisher’s exact test, p = .255).
Discussion
Replicating Perner and Lang (2002) as well as Kloo and Perner (2003, Experiment 1),
card sorting tasks involving a reversal shift were much easier than the traditional DCCS
task, which involves an extradimensional shift. In contrast to Brooks and colleagues
(2003), reversal shift tasks were easy irrespective of whether or not the cards varied on
two dimensions. Evidently, the mere presence of a second irrelevant dimension does not
make shifting more difficult. The extra difficulty of the standard DCCS task seems to be
due to the extradimensional shift rather than to problems with selective attention. One
explanation for the difficulties with extradimensional shifts for 3-year-olds is that they
require children to redescribe the objects on the cards (Kloo & Perner, 2003; Kloo & Perner, 2005; Perner & Lang, 2002), for example, from ‘‘an apple” during the preswitch phase
to ‘‘a blue thing” during the postswitch phase. In contrast, reversal shift tasks do not
require such a redescription because during both phases the cards need to be sorted
according to the same dimension (shape).
Brooks and colleagues’ (2003) contrasting results may be attributable to their different
procedure. For example, in contrast to the standard DCCS task, sorting was not demonstrated during the preswitch phase, four different test and target cards were used, and new
target cards were introduced at the start of each phase (Experiment 3), or the experimenter
exchanged the positions of the target cards at the beginning of the postswitch phase
(Experiment 1). This might have complicated the procedure too much because even older
4-year-olds (who usually master the standard DCCS task) were not significantly above
chance on the silly trials in Experiment 3.
In line with our results, Carlson (2005) also found that most 3-year-olds, but not 2-yearolds, passed a reverse categorization task in which children needed to reverse a sorting rule
(see also Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004). In this task, pairs of toy animals (e.g.,
tigers, horses) consisting of large (‘‘mommy”) and small (‘‘baby”) exemplars were used.
Children first needed to sort mommy animals into a mommy bucket and baby animals into
a baby bucket. Next, in a silly game, they needed to sort the baby animals into the mommy
bucket and the mommy animals into the baby bucket.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
The 3-year-olds’ good performance on these reversal shift tasks seems to conflict
with their problems with other paradigms where they need to follow ‘‘opposite” rules,
including the day–night Stroop task (Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994; see also Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002, who even used ‘‘say the opposite” instructions) and
Luria’s tapping task (Diamond & Taylor, 1996). For example, in the day–night task,
children are instructed to say ‘‘day” when shown a picture of the moon and stars
and to say ‘‘night” when shown a picture of the sun. Young children often have difficulty in doing this and say ‘‘day” to the sun picture and ‘‘night” to the moon and
stars picture. However, Gerstadt and colleagues (1994) found that, in principle, 3½to 4½-year-olds were able to follow these opposite rules ( 70% correct). These children performed well at the beginning of the task (81% correct on the first four trials),
but their performance deteriorated over the course of testing (54.3% correct on the
final four trials). This suggests that they had difficulty in sustaining a high level of
executive control over an extended time course—especially when they did not receive
feedback. In contrast, on the DCCS task, they have difficulty in following the instructions for the switch even once. This indicates a basic difficulty in appreciating the
importance of the switch instructions and not just an executive difficulty in maintaining
an unusual rule (sun ? night, moon ? day) over time in the face of the competing
more natural combination (sun ? day, moon ? night).
Differences between intradimensional and extradimensional shifts have also been
investigated in neuropsychological work. In adults as well, shifting between dimensions
has been found to be more difficult than shifting within a dimension. For example,
Hampshire and Owen (2006) found that participants were slower on extradimensional
shifts than on intradimensional shifts. And Nagahama and colleagues (2001) reported
switch costs in an extradimensional set-shifting task but not in a within-dimension
reversal shift task.
In their functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis, Hampshire and Owen
(2006) found that activation in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex was associated with
extradimensional shifts. In contrast, intradimensional reversal shifts were associated with
activity in the orbitofrontal cortex but not with activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, Nakahara, Hayashi, Konishi, and Miyashita (2002) found that extradimensional shifts were related to activation in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in both
humans and macaque monkeys. In addition, Rogers, Andrews, Grasby, Brooks, and Robbins (2000) reported that extradimensional shifts were also associated with activity in the
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, possibly due to the requirement to actively work out the
relevant dimension in that study, as noted by Hampshire and Owen (2006).
This concurs with lesion studies in monkeys that report difficulties with extradimensional shifting after lesions of the lateral prefrontal cortex and problems with reversal learning
after orbital prefrontal lesions (Dias, Robbins, & Roberts, 1996; Dias, Robbins, & Roberts, 1997; Rolls, 2000). Robbins (1996) interpreted these results in the following way:
Identical compound stimuli can be processed at more than one site in the prefrontal
cortex, perhaps simultaneously. At one of these sites, processing allows a ‘‘reward”
tag to be shifted from one stimulus to another (‘‘affective shifting”). At the other site,
shifts are effected between responding to different dimensions (e.g., shapes rather
than colors) of complex stimuli, rather than to particular exemplars, a seemingly
higher-order cognitive process. (pp. 1468–1469)
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
9
In sum, the lateral prefrontal cortex seems to be associated with extradimensional shifts
and the orbitofrontal cortex seems to be associated with reversal shifts. In addition, anatomically, the orbitofrontal cortex develops prior to the lateral prefrontal cortex. This
could explain why reversal shifts are mastered earlier than extradimensional shifts. However, because reversal shifts often have also been associated with a shift in rewards, future
research will need to clarify the role of reward-related affective shifting in rule use so as to
construe a more integrated model of the development of hot and cool executive functions
(see also Bunge & Zelazo, 2006; Happaney, Zelazo, & Stuss, 2004; Zelazo & Müller, 2002).
The relative difficulty of reversal (intradimensional) and nonreversal (extradimensional)
shifts has also been investigated in research on discrimination shift learning (e.g., Kendler
& Kendler, 1962; for reviews, see Bolton, 1972; Esposito, 1975). In his review, Esposito
(1975) concluded that ‘‘reversal and intradimensional shifts seem to be learned faster than
nonreversal and extradimensional shifts when the irrelevant dimension is variable within
trials in the post-shift task, when subjects’ preferred dimensions are relevant, and when
subjects receive overtraining” (p. 447). Better performance on reversal shift tasks than
on extradimensional shift tasks seems to be consistently the case in older children and
adults, whereas there are some findings to the contrary in younger preschoolers. However,
in our study, there was no such interaction between age and type of shift. Even the youngest children performed better on the reversal shift task than on the extradimensional shift
task. Apart from other task differences, this might be due to the fact that the card sorting
tasks used in the current experiment, in contrast to discrimination shift learning tasks, did
not require children to extract dimensions because the relevant dimension and the specific
values are explicitly stated in the rules. Nevertheless, the extradimensional shift task, but
not the reversal shift task, required children to switch dimensions and, consequently, to
redescribe the objects on the cards. And this kind of redescription might be difficult for
the younger children, in particular, to recognize the need for such redescription from
the standard instructions.
Experiment 2
According to Experiment 1, reversal shift tasks, irrespective of whether or not the cards
vary on two dimensions, are easier than the standard DCCS task, which includes an extradimensional shift. One factor that makes extradimensional shift tasks difficult was found
by Perner and Lang (2002; see also Kloo & Perner, 2003). They provided evidence that
extradimensional versions using puppets instead of target cards are easy. Our second
experiment set out to replicate this finding using computerized task versions and to investigate whether sorting instructions are critical for the difficulty of the standard DCCS task.
In the easier puppets versions, the two target cards were replaced by a pair of target
pictures displaying familiar characters such as Donald Duck. The switch from one dimension to the other dimension was described as a change of the puppet’s preference. For
example, during the preswitch phase, Donald Duck wanted all red things and was to be
given red cars, whereas during the postswitch phase, he wanted all of the suns and, consequently, was to be given yellow suns. As in the reversal shift task, 3-year-olds had no
serious problems with this task.
To explain the finding that target cards are essential, Perner and Lang (2002; see also
Kloo & Perner, 2003; Kloo & Perner, 2005) suggested in their redescription hypothesis
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
10
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
that the target cards trigger a general rule such as the following: ‘‘Put each card with the
target that has the same thing on it.” Importantly, to follow such a rule, children need to
describe the object on the card, such as a blue apple, exclusively as ‘‘an apple” (in the preswitch fruit game), and they must suppress possible alternative descriptions of it as ‘‘a blue
thing” or ‘‘a blue apple” or else they would not know which of the targets is ‘‘the same” as
the to-be-sorted item. Next, in the postswitch color game, children need to redescribe the
object as ‘‘a blue thing” and must suppress the preswitch description. However, young
children might not have a mature conceptual understanding that objects can be described
or viewed differently under different perspectives. Therefore, they do not take the postswitch instructions as an explicit prompt to redescribe the objects (e.g., from ‘‘an apple”
to ‘‘a blue thing”).
In fact, Diamond et al. (2005) and Kloo and Perner (2005) showed that separating the
two dimensions (color and shape) as properties of a single object (e.g., a blue apple) and
having them characterize two different objects (e.g., by displaying an outline of an apple
next to a blue filled circle on the card) improves performance considerably. In these separated versions, children need not understand that one object can be described in two different ways; they just need to switch between objects, for example, switch from sorting the
line drawings during the preswitch phase to sorting the colored circles during the postswitch phase.
In sum, evidence indicates that an extradimensional shift and the use of target cards are
critical for the difficulty of the DCCS task. If the switch in dimension is avoided by using a
reversal shift instead of an extradimensional shift, or if the visual interference between target and test cards is avoided by replacing the target cards by puppets, children have no
serious problems. One aim of Experiment 2 was to replicate this finding using computerized card sorting versions that allow a more standardized task administration.
To our knowledge, there is only one study that has used a computerized DCCS task.
Bialystok and Martin (2004) presented 4- and 5-year-olds with computerized card sorting
versions. Their ‘‘color game” corresponded to a reversal shift task. Children were shown
red squares and blue squares. First, children needed to press the ‘‘X” button when the red
square appeared and press the ‘‘O” button when the blue square appeared. After 10 trials,
these response contingencies were reversed. However, in contrast to previous research, this
reversal shift task had no target boxes marked with target cards; it had only arbitrary
response keys. In any case, this reversal shift version (without target cards and without
sorting instructions) was easier than extradimensional shift tasks (using target cards and
sorting instructions). However, as can be seen, there was a confound of three relevant factors (the kind of shift, the use of target cards, and the sorting instructions), leaving open
the question of which of these factors was responsible for the difficulty of the extradimensional shift tasks. A more systematic investigation, separately manipulating each of these
three factors, is needed. Although there is evidence that an extradimensional shift and target cards are critical for the difficulty of the task, no study has investigated whether children’s difficulties are confined to sorting instructions or whether problems generalize to
nonsorting paradigms. In Experiment 2, the influence of this factor (Response Mode: sorting vs. nonsorting) was examined.
The 3- and 4-year-olds were given eight different versions of the DCCS task. Each child
received two reversal shift versions and two extradimensional shift versions—one with target items and one without target items. Because of our intention to replicate the Perner
and Lang (2002) finding, we also used unidimensional reversal shift tasks. This seemed
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
11
unproblematic because Experiment 1 had shown that reversal shift tasks are easier irrespective of the number of dimensions. Half of the children were given four DCCS task versions without sorting instructions. In these versions, the target items were affixed to
response buttons and children were told, for example, ‘‘If there is something red, then
press the button with something red on it.” The other half of the children received four
DCCS task versions with sorting instructions. In these tasks, pressing the response button
made the test item go into a box with a target item on it.
Method
Participants
A total of 89 Caucasian children between the ages of 3 years 0 months and 4 years 3
months (40 girls and 49 boys, mean age = 3 years 9 months, SD = 4.16 months) from
10 nursery schools in predominantly middle-class areas in Upper Austria and in Salzburg
participated in this experiment. Informed consent was obtained from all parents of children who participated in the experiment. Data from 8 children (2 in the sorting condition
and 6 in the nonsorting condition) were lost due to computer failure, and 4 children (all in
the nonsorting condition) were excluded because they made more than one error during
the preswitch phase of one of the tasks.5
The final sample consisted of 77 children (32 girls and 45 boys) ranging in age from 3
years 0 months to 4 years 3 months (M = 3 years 9 months, SD = 4.13 months). Initially,
children had been equally apportioned to the two conditions (sorting and nonsorting).
Finally, the two groups were unequal in numbers due to the exclusions described above,
but they did not differ significantly in age (sorting group: n = 45 [19 girls and 26 boys],
mean age = 44.18 months, SD = 4.13; nonsorting group: n = 32 [13 girls and 19 boys],
mean age = 45.22 months, SD = 4.12), t(75) = 1.09, p > .20.
To analyze age trends, we divided the children into three age groups: 26 children ranging in age from 3 years 0 months to 3 years 6 months (M = 3 years 4 months, SD = 1.93
months), 33 children ranging in age from 3 years 7 months to 4 years 0 months (M = 3
years 10 months, SD = 1.60 months), and 18 children ranging in age from 4 years 1 month
to 4 years 3 months (M = 4 years 2 months, SD = 0.70 months).
Design
Each child was tested individually in a separate room and participated in two sessions,
each lasting approximately 15 min. All children received four different tasks: one reversal
shift task with target cards and one with puppets as well as one extradimensional shift task
with target cards (standard DCCS task) and one with puppets. The order of the card sorting tasks was counterbalanced according to a Latin square design so that each version was
in each position equally often. As an additional constraint, within each session, the two
card sorting tasks were chosen so that they used two different kinds of shift (extradimensional and reversal) and two different target items (target cards and puppets). In the extradimensional shift tasks, the direction of shift always was from color to shape. In the
5
Including these four children did not change the obtained pattern of results.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
12
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
reversal shift tasks, all cards needed to be sorted according to shape (consistent with the
targets or inconsistent with the targets). In the sorting condition, test cards needed to
be sorted into the appropriate box by pressing the response button corresponding to
the box. In the nonsorting condition, target items were directly affixed to the response buttons and children were told to press the corresponding response button. After each session, children received candy for ‘‘doing so well.”
Procedure and materials
The experiment was conducted using a laptop computer equipped with the software
package Presentation 0.71 (Neurobehavioral Systems, http://www.neuro-bs.com). Children were seated in front of the computer monitor. Stimuli were presented against a black
background. Each task consisted of two demonstration trials, five preswitch trials, and five
postswitch trials. Two cardboard response buttons were affixed to the fourth key from the
left and to the third key from the right in the second row from the bottom of the keyboard.
In the sorting condition, the buttons consisted of blue circles (diameter 6.5 cm), and one
was marked by a white cross to make the buttons distinguishable from one another. In the
nonsorting condition, the response buttons (6.5 6.5 cm) displayed the target items/
puppets.
Sorting condition
Two sorting boxes displaying target cards/puppets were positioned at the bottom of the
screen throughout the task. The test cards appeared centrally located in the top half of the
screen. By pressing a response button, children made the test card move into the corresponding box. Response buttons were assigned by space (e.g., the left response button
belonged to the left box).
In the extradimensional shift task with target cards (standard DCCS task), the target
cards showed a yellow banana and a red apple, whereas the test cards displayed red bananas and yellow apples. First, the experimenter pointed at the target cards at the bottom of
the screen and explained the two dimensions (shape and color). Next, she said, ‘‘Now we
are playing a game, the color game. In this game, all the yellow ones go to the yellow one.
And all the red ones go to the red one.” Next, two demonstration trials were conducted.
Test cards (one of each kind) appeared on the screen and the experimenter stated, for
example, ‘‘Here is a yellow one. This card goes into this box. Look, this button belongs
to this box. If you press this button, the card goes into this box.” After two correct
responses, the preswitch phase started and children were required to sort five cards according to color. On each trial, a test card appeared in the top half of the screen and the experimenter said, for example, ‘‘Here is a yellow one. Where does this card go in the color
game?” On each trial, children were told whether they had sorted the card correctly.
When the children had completed five trials, the postswitch phase began. Children were
told, ‘‘Okay, now we are going to play a new game, the fruit game. The fruit game is different. All the apples go to the apple. And all the bananas go to the banana.” Next, children were required to sort five cards according to shape. Children were not told whether a
card had been sorted correctly. However, every time a card had been sorted incorrectly,
the experimenter repeated the rules.
In the extradimensional shift task with puppets, each target box was marked by a picture
of either a girl or a boy. The test cards displayed yellow birds and red mice. Next, the
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
13
procedure was the same as in the standard DCCS task except that, during the preswitch
phase, the boy was described as wanting all red things and the girl was described as wanting all yellow things. During the postswitch phase, the switch to the new dimension was
explained as a change of preference (e.g., ‘‘The girl now wants all the mice”). This resulted
in a reversal of preferred cards. For example, the girl who wanted yellow things and got
yellow birds now gets red mice because she wants mice.
In the reversal shift task with target cards, the target and test cards all had the same
color (green) and differed only in shape (pigs or fish). The procedure was the same as in
the standard task except that, during the preswitch phase, children were asked to play
the ‘‘correct” animals game: ‘‘All the pigs go to the pig. And all the fish go to the fish.”
And during the postswitch phase, they were instructed to play the ‘‘silly” animals game:
‘‘Now, all the pigs go to the fish. And all the fish go to the pig.”
In the reversal shift task with puppets, each target box was marked by a picture of either
a prince or a princess. The test cards displayed blue strawberries and blue pears. During
the preswitch phase, the prince was described as wanting pears and the princess was
described as wanting strawberries. During the postswitch phase, children were told that
the preference of the puppets had changed, with the prince now wanting the strawberries
and the princess now wanting the pears.
Nonsorting condition
On each trial, a test card appeared centrally located on the screen. No sorting boxes
were displayed, and the target pictures used in the sorting condition were affixed to the
response keys. Test and target items displayed the same color/shape combinations as in
the corresponding sorting condition. The procedure was the same as in the sorting conditions except for the wording of the rules. Instead of instructing children to sort the cards,
during the preswitch phase they were told, for example, ‘‘If there is something red, then
press the button with something red on it. And if there is something yellow, then press
the button with something yellow on it.” At the beginning of the postswitch phase, children were told, ‘‘Okay, now we are going to play a new game, the fruit game. The fruit
game is different: If there is an apple, then press the button with the apple on it. And if
there is a banana, then press the button with the banana on it.”
Results
During both the pre- and postswitch phases of each card sorting task, children were
given a score between 0 and 5 depending on the number of cards sorted correctly. Children
(n = 4) who made more than one error during the preswitch phase of one of the card sorting tasks were excluded. The variable of interest was the number of correct responses during the postswitch phase. In all four card sorting versions, the majority of children sorted
either five times correctly or five times incorrectly; specifically, 65.0% of the children in the
extradimensional shift task with target cards, 80.5% of the children in the extradimensional shift task with puppets, 67.5% of the children in the reversal shift task with target cards,
and 61.0% of the children in the reversal shift task with puppets did so.
Fig. 1 shows children’s performance in the four different card sorting versions in the
sorting and nonsorting conditions. Postswitch performance was analyzed with a 4 (Task
Version [within participants]) 2 (Condition: sorting vs. nonsorting) 4 (Task Order)
3 (Age Group [between participants]) mixed design ANOVA. This revealed a significant
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
Mean Post switch Number Correct
14
5
4
Sorting
3
Non-Sorting
2
1
0
Extra
Target
Extra
Puppet
Reversal
Target
Reversal
Puppet
Fig. 1. Mean postswitch performance in each card sorting version in the sorting and nonsorting conditions of
Experiment 2 (maximum score = 5). Vertical lines depict standard errors of the mean. Extra, extradimensional.
main effect of task version, F(3, 159) = 16.31, p < .001, partial g2 = .23. The Condition Task Version interaction was also significant, F(3, 159) = 3.22, p < .05, partial g2 = .06.
No other effects or interactions reached statistical significance.
The significant interaction between condition and task version was further analyzed by
paired t tests (with Bonferroni correction of significance levels for post hoc tests). In the
sorting condition, the extradimensional shift task with target cards (standard DCCS task)
was more difficult than the other three tasks (all ps < .001). The other three tasks did not
differ significantly from one another. In the nonsorting condition, the only significant difference was between the extradimensional shift task with target cards and the extradimensional shift task with puppets (p = .024). Furthermore, on the extradimensional shift task
with target cards, children performed significantly better in the nonsorting condition than
in the sorting condition, t(73.92) = 2.64, p = .01.
Because postswitch scores were not normally distributed, children’s performance was
also evaluated categorically. Children were classified as passing the postswitch phase if
they sorted four or more of the five items correctly. Cochran’s Q tests revealed a significant
difference among the four task versions both in the sorting condition, Q(3) = 42.39,
p < .001, and in the nonsorting condition, Q(3) = 10.81, p = .013. Separate McNemar’s
v2 tests confirmed that, in the sorting condition, the extradimensional shift task with target
cards was more difficult than the other three tasks (all ps < .001), with the other three tasks
not differing significantly from one another. In the nonsorting condition, more children
passed the extradimensional shift task with puppets than the extradimensional shift task
with target cards (p = .021). More children passed the extradimensional shift task with target cards in the nonsorting condition than in the sorting condition, v2(1, N = 77) = 4.10,
p < .05.
It should be noted that the sorting and nonsorting conditions differed not only with
respect to the type of instruction (sorting vs. nonsorting) but also with respect to the
complexity of stimulus presentation.6 In the sorting condition, target and test stimuli
appeared on the screen and spatially aligned response buttons needed to be pressed to
indicate the appropriate target. In contrast, in the nonsorting condition, only test stimuli
appeared on the screen and children needed to press the response button marked with
6
We are grateful to one of the reviewers, Ulrich Müller, for pointing this out to us.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
15
the corresponding target. This might have increased the processing load in the sorting
condition. To check for this possibility, we also analyzed children’s preswitch performance (varying between four and five correct). There were no significant differences
between the sorting and nonsorting conditions (all ps = 1.00 except for the extradimensional shift task with puppets, p = .71; however, contrary to the processing load argument, in the extradimensional shift task with puppets, 8.9% of the children made an
error in the sorting condition, whereas 12.5% of the children made an error in the nonsorting condition). Furthermore, all four children who were excluded because they made
too many preswitch errors received the nonsorting version.
Discussion
This experiment has three main findings. First, it showed that the well-documented
problems of young preschoolers during the postswitch phase of the standard DCCS task
also occur in a computerized task version. This is a good starting point for future computerized studies that could also analyze reaction time data on the DCCS task. Although one
might object by arguing that computerized task administration restricts the personal contact with the children, this did not lead to any motivational problems in the current
experiment.
Second, this experiment replicated Perner and Lang’s (2002; see also Kloo & Perner,
2003, Experiment 1) finding using computerized task versions. An extradimensional shift
and the use of target cards were critical for the difficulty of the standard DCCS task. Only
the extradimensional shift task with target cards posed problems for children. Extradimensional shift tasks with puppets as well as reversal shift tasks with target cards or puppets
were easy.
Third, the sorting instructions seem to be important. The extradimensional shift task
with target cards was significantly more difficult in the sorting condition than in the nonsorting condition. This is a new aspect that indicates something important about the nature of children’s difficulties. We suggest that sorting instructions induce children to think
of the sorting boxes in terms of designated locations: ‘‘This is the box where the red ones
belong.” In fact, in several experiments in our laboratory, we have observed children stating the following during the postswitch phase: ‘‘Now I have to put the cards in the wrong
box” or ‘‘But the horses belong in the other box.”
Sorting usually involves allocating things to distinct locations where the same sort of
things are kept. Therefore, sorting may enforce the creation of a general rule such as
the following: ‘‘Put each card with the target that has the same thing on it.” Such a general
matching rule necessitates two mutually exclusive descriptions according to the two
dimensions. To switch between these two descriptions, children might need to understand
that one and the same thing can be described or viewed differently at the same time.
Of course, even 3-year-olds know that a red apple is an apple and a red thing or that a
cat is a cat and an animal (e.g., Clark & Svaib, 1997). And they are also able to switch
between these descriptions if explicitly induced to do so. But what they are not able to
do is apply different descriptions to one thing at the same time (confront descriptions).
They have difficulty in acknowledging explicitly that something can be two things at
the same time, for example, that something can be a rabbit and a bunny or a rabbit
and an animal (Perner, Stummer, Sprung, & Doherty, 2002); therefore, they cannot
induce switches to another description on their own. In a similar vein, Flavell, Green,
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
16
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
and Flavell (1986) suggested, ‘‘Knowing relatively little as yet about subjectivity and mental representation but having learned that things are normally either this way or that but
not both at once, 3-year-olds may find . . . contradictory dual coding unnatural, perhaps
even unthinkable” (p. 57).7
In fact, even 4-year-olds seem to have severe problems with flexible switching when
strong situational cues are absent. Blaye, Bernard-Peyron, Paour, and Bonthoux (2006)
gave children a free sorting task with sets of colored pictures that could be grouped into
three different categories. Approximately half (43%) of the 4-year-olds were not able to
sort the items according to thematic or taxonomic organizations, and all of the others
(except two) were not able to use more than one correct grouping. This suggests that even
4-year-olds still have difficulties when asked to spontaneously generate multiple categories
on their own. Although they master so-called deductive sorting tasks such as the DCCS
task, in which they need to sort according to given dimensions, they still fail inductive categorization tasks, in which they need to generate sorting categories on their own (see Jacques & Zelazo, 2001; Smidts, Jacobs, & Anderson, 2004, for similar results; cf. Inhelder &
Piaget, 1964).
Other studies using match-to-sample tasks, in which children are asked to choose an
item or item pairs that ‘‘go best with” a target, seem to speak against this finding. For
example, Blaye and Bonthoux (2001); see Nguyen, 2007, Experiment 1, for similar results)
found that 3-year-olds changed their response for approximately half of the targets. However, this is not too surprising because the two confrontations with one and the same target were separated by a considerable delay. And as noted above, 3-year-olds have
particular difficulty in confronting two descriptions at the same time, but they do not have
difficulty in applying different descriptions at different time points.
In the DCCS task, as Perner and Lang (2002) suggested, children might not interpret
the postswitch instructions as cues to switch to another description: ‘‘From the child’s
point of view there is no explicit mention that the same old cards have to be treated differently” (p. 103). In line with this, explicit feedback or a demonstration sort during the
postswitch phase enables 3-year-olds to switch their sorting criterion. However, successful
performance with feedback does not improve performance on a subsequent DCCS task
(Bohlmann & Fenson, 2005; Towse, Redbond, Houston-Price, & Cook, 2000). That is,
3-year-olds seem to need strong switching cues that help them to switch their descriptions
to the new dimension.
General discussion
The two main findings of the reported experiments are that (a) reversal shift sorting
tasks are easier than extradimensional shift sorting tasks and (b) sorting instructions are
7
In her research on dual representations, Judy DeLoache (for a review, see DeLoache, 2004) has shown that
between 2 and 3 years of age, children understand the nature of symbol–referent relations; that is, they
understand that a symbolic object (e.g., a picture) ‘‘is both a concrete object and a representation of something
other than itself” (p. 69). Interestingly, however, even 3-year-olds do not yet understand that one and the same
object can be represented by different symbols. They deny that photographs of the same scene, taken from
different viewing angles, differ (see Liben, 2003, as cited in DeLoache, 2004). This suggests that at 3 years of age,
children may understand that a symbol can represent something other than itself, but they do not yet understand
that the same thing can be described or represented differently at the same time.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
17
important for the difficulty of extradimensional shift tasks. These findings seem to be in
accord with the redescription hypothesis, which states that (a) reversal shift tasks do
not require children to redescribe the objects on the cards and therefore should be easier
and (b) sorting instructions enforce the creation of a general matching rule that requires
mutually exclusive descriptions. Sorting implies that only one kind of thing belongs to a
certain category. Therefore, to sort correctly, children need to exclusively describe the
horses as ‘‘horses” and not as ‘‘red things.” And 3-year-olds may have difficulty in switching to the other description when strong switching cues are absent because without strong
cues they still assume that all of the horses belong in the box with all of the horses in it. In
the nonsorting condition, children may also employ a kind of matching rule, but due to the
more arbitrary character of the nonsorting instruction (‘‘If there is something red, then
press the button with something red on it”), they might be more inclined to switch to
the other matching criterion, whereas in the sorting condition they might be more reluctant to do so because a switch would violate the idea of sorting all items of a kind into
the same box.
In addition to the redescription hypothesis, three other major theories have been proposed to explain existing evidence on children’s DCCS task performance. All of these theories are consistent with 3-year-olds’ good performance on reversal shift tasks. But how
could these theories explain that sorting instructions play an important role?
The traditional account of children’s difficulties with the DCCS task is the cognitive
complexity and control (CCC) theory (Zelazo & Frye, 1997; Zelazo et al., 2003). This theory posits that the DCCS task requires a higher order rule that integrates two conflicting
pairs of rules (e.g., ‘‘If we are playing the color game, then if I give you a red pear, then put
it into the box with the red apple target; but if we are playing the shape game, then if I give
you a red pear, then put it into the box with the blue pear target”). That is, a single antecedent condition (e.g., ‘‘If I give you a red pear”) must be treated differently depending on
a particular setting condition. According to the revised CCC theory (CCC-r), withindimension reversal shift tasks should be easy because a higher order rule is required only
in cases ‘‘where at least two rules apply to a single stimulus with respect to different dimensions” (Zelazo et al., 2003, p. 102). However, the importance of sorting instructions seems
to be more difficult to explain by CCC-r theory, according to which the conflict among the
rules is essential. CCC-r theory could argue that sorting instructions reinforce the conflict
among the pre- and postswitch rules because sorting implies that one particular box is designated for one sort of thing only. And due to this, sorting instructions make the task more
difficult.
Another prominent account came from Diamond and colleagues (Diamond et al., 2005;
Kirkham et al., 2003), who attributed children’s difficulty to ‘‘attentional inertia.” They
posited that ‘‘3-year-old children’s difficulty lies in disengaging from a mind-set (a way
of thinking about the stimuli) that is no longer relevant” (Kirkham et al., 2003, p. 451).
That is, similar to the redescription hypothesis, the attentional inertia account posits that
3-year-olds have difficulty in thinking about one object in different ways. However,
whereas Diamond and colleagues argued that flexible switching requires sufficient inhibitory control, Kloo and Perner (2005) argued that flexible switching requires a mature conceptual understanding that objects can be described or viewed differently. Attentional
inertia theory would predict that reversal shift tasks are easy because the mind-set about
the objects does not change; throughout the tasks, children can think of the objects in
terms of their shapes. Attentional inertia theory could also explain the influence of the
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
18
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
sorting instructions by assuming that sorting, due to its mandatory character, makes the
preswitch mind-set particularly salient and, thus, difficult to inhibit.
Furthermore, recent data (Müller, Dick, Gela, Overton, and Zelazo, 2006) suggest that
negative priming plays a major role in the DCCS task. Negative priming may occur
because of the conflict between two different possibilities of sorting the cards. Therefore,
the values of the irrelevant dimension need to be inhibited during the preswitch phase so as
to sort correctly. Next, during the postswitch phase, this inhibition needs to be cancelled
when the previously irrelevant dimension becomes relevant. Negative priming can account
for the finding that reversal shift tasks are easy because these tasks do not involve a change
of the relevant dimension. Similar to CCC-r theory, this executive account may explain the
importance of sorting instructions by assuming that sorting instructions strengthen the
conflict between the two possible sorting dimensions because Müller and colleagues
(2006) found that conflict is essential for eliciting negative priming.
To conclude, these experiments indicate that 3-year-olds have particular difficulty in
confronting two descriptions of one thing at the same time. Consequently, in the DCCS
task, sorting instructions play an important role because sorting inherently requires mutually exclusive descriptions. However, it remains an open question as to what is needed for
self-initiated switching of descriptions to occur. Does it require a conceptual understanding that things can be described differently under different perspectives, or an ability to use
higher order rules, or sufficient executive control to overcome attentional inertia and negative priming, respectively?
Acknowledgments
These experiments are part of a research project (T251-G04) financed by the Austrian
Science Fund. The data reported in Experiment 1 were presented as part of a poster,
‘‘Reversal Shifts vs. Extra-dimensional Shifts in Preschoolers: Evidence Against a Selective
Attention Account,” at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, March–April 2007, Boston.
References
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence from the
Dimensional Change Card Sort task. Developmental Science, 7, 325–339.
Blaye, A., Bernard-Peyron, V., Paour, J-L., & Bonthoux, F. (2006). Categorical flexibility in children:
Distinguishing response flexibility from conceptual flexibility. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
3, 163–188.
Blaye, A., & Bonthoux, F. (2001). Thematic and taxonomic relations in preschoolers: The development of
flexibility in categorization choices. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 395–412.
Bohlmann, N. L., & Fenson, L. (2005). The effects of feedback on perseverative errors in preschool aged children.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 119–131.
Bolton, N. (1972). The psychology of thinking. London: Methuen.
Brooks, P. J., Hanauer, J. B., Padowska, B., & Rosman, H. (2003). The role of selective attention in preschoolers’
rule use in a novel dimensional card sort. Cognitive Development, 18, 195–215.
Bunge, S. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2006). A brain-based account of the development of rule use in childhood. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 118–121.
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
19
Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J., & Williams, L. (2004). Executive function and theory of mind: Stability and
prediction from ages 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1105–1122.
Clark, E. V., & Svaib, T. A. (1997). Speaker perspective and reference in young children. First Language, 17,
57–74.
DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 66–70.
Diamond, A., Carlson, S. M., & Beck, D. M. (2005). Preschool children’s performance in task switching on the
Dimensional Change Card Sort task: Separating the dimensions aids the ability to switch. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 28, 689–729.
Diamond, A., Kirkham, N. Z., & Amso, D. (2002). Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in
mind and inhibit a prepotent response. Developmental Psychology, 38, 352–362.
Diamond, A., & Taylor, C. (1996). Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the abilities to
remember what I said and to ‘‘Do as I say, not as I do. ” Developmental Psychobiology, 29, 315–334.
Dias, R., Robbins, T. W., & Roberts, A. C. (1996). Dissociation in prefrontal cortex of attentional and affective
shifts. Nature, 380, 69–72.
Dias, R., Robbins, T. W., & Roberts, A. C. (1997). Dissociable forms of inhibitory control within prefrontal
cortex with an analog of the Wisconsin Card Sort Test: Restriction to novel situations and independence from
‘‘on-line” processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 9285–9297.
Esposito, N. J. (1975). Review of discrimination shift learning in young children. Psychological Bulletin, 82,
432–455.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1986). Development of knowledge about the appearance-reality
distinction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(1, Serial No. 212).
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D., & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based reasoning. Cognitive Development, 10,
483–527.
Garner, W. R., & Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information
processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance
of children 3. 5–7 years old in a Stroop like day–night test. Cognition, 53, 129–153.
Hampshire, A., & Owen, A. M. (2006). Fractionating attentional control using event-related fMRI. Cerebral
Cortex, 16, 1679–1689.
Hanauer, J. B., & Brooks, P. J. (2003). Developmental change in the cross-modal Stroop effect. Perception &
Psychophysics, 65, 359–366.
Happaney, K. R., Zelazo, P. D., & Stuss, D. T. (2004). Orbitofrontal function: A developmental perspective.
Brain & Cognition, 55, 1–10.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Harper & Row.
Jacques, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2001). The Flexible Item Selection Task (FIST): A measure of executive function in
preschoolers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 573–591.
Kendler, H. H., & Kendler, T. S. (1962). Vertical and horizontal processes in problem solving. Psychological
Review, 69, 1–16.
Kirkham, N. Z., Cruess, L., & Diamond, A. (2003). Helping children apply their knowledge to their behavior on
a dimension-switching task. Developmental Science, 6, 449–476.
Kloo, D., & Perner, J. (2003). Training transfer between card sorting and false belief understanding: Helping
children apply conflicting descriptions. Child Development, 74, 1823–1839.
Kloo, D., & Perner, J. (2005). Disentangling dimensions in the Dimensional Change Card Sorting task.
Developmental Science, 8, 44–56.
Lang, B. (2001). Die ‘‘Dimensional Change Card Sorting Task” als eine Aufgabe zur Überprüfung der Executive
Functions und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Entwicklung einer Theory of Mind. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Salzburg, Austria.
Müller, U., Dick, A. S., Gela, K., Overton, W. F., & Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The role of negative priming in the
Dimensional Change Card Sort task. Child Development, 77, 395–412.
Nagahama, Y., Okada, T., Katsumi, Y., Hayashi, T., Yamauchi, H., Oyanagi, C., Konishi, J., Fukuyama, H., &
Shibasaki, H. (2001). Dissociable mechanisms of attentional control within the human prefrontal cortex.
Cerebral Cortex, 11, 85–92.
Nakahara, K., Hayashi, T., Konishi, S., & Miyashita, Y. (2002). Functional MRI of macaque monkeys
performing a cognitive set-shifting task. Science, 295, 1532–1536.
Nguyen, S. P. (2007). Cross-classification and category representation in children’s concepts. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 719–731.
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003
ARTICLE IN PRESS
20
D. Kloo et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology xxx (2008) xxx–xxx
Perner, J., & Lang, B. (2002). What causes 3-year-olds’ difficulty on the Dimensional Change Card Sorting task?
Infant and Child Development, 11, 93–105.
Perner, J., Lang, B., & Kloo, D. (2002). Theory of mind and self control: More than a common problem of
inhibition. Child Development, 73, 752–767.
Perner, J., Stummer, S., Sprung, M., & Doherty, M. (2002). Theory of mind finds its Piagetian perspective: Why
alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development, 17, 1451–1472.
Robbins, T. W. (1996). Dissociating executive functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences, 351, 1463–1470.
Rogers, R. D., Andrews, T. C., Grasby, P. M., Brooks, D. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2000). Contrasting cortical and
subcortical activations produced by attentional-set shifting and reversal learning in humans. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 142–162.
Rolls, E. T. (2000). The orbitofrontal cortex and reward. Cerebral Cortex, 10, 284–294.
Smidts, D. P., Jacobs, R., & Anderson, V. (2004). The Object Classification Task for Children (OCTC): A
measure of concept generation and mental flexibility in early childhood. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26,
385–401.
Strutt, G. F., Anderson, D. R., & Well, A. D. (1975). A developmental study of the effects of irrelevant
information on speeded classification. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 127–135.
Towse, J. N., Redbond, J., Houston-Price, C. M. T., & Cook, S. (2000). Understanding the Dimensional Change
Card Sort: Perspectives from task success and failure. Cognitive Development, 15, 347–365.
Well, A. D., Lorch, E. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1980). Developmental trends in distractibility: Is absolute or
proportional decrement the appropriate measure of interference? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
30, 109–124.
Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in
children. Nature Protocols, 1, 297–301.
Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1997). Cognitive complexity and control: A theory of the development of deliberate
reasoning and intentional action. In M. Stamenov (Ed.), language structure, discourse, and the access to
consciousness (pp. 113–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zelazo, P. D., Frye, D., & Rapus, T. (1996). An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them.
Cognitive Development, 11, 37–63.
Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive functions in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami
(Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 445–469). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early
childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3, Serial No. 274).
Please cite this article in press as: Kloo, D. et al., Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of ...,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.003