Representations
Our Symbol Tasks Continued
Results
Representations are things that stand for, or symbolize, something
else. They can vary in terms of how they pick out their referents. They
can:
In the match symbol task, the color of the symbol was matched to the
sticker it represented.
Symbol Tasks.
a)  resemble their referents (e.g., a blue wavy line to indicate a river);
b)  be arbitrary (e.g., ‘X’ marks the location of a dog park); or even
c)  be in conflict with their referents (e.g., a picture of a cat could
indicate the location of a dog park).
Previous Research
Few researchers have varied the way a symbol picks out its referent or
considered the role of cognitive skills when investigating children’s
understanding of symbols. Those who have looked at the cognitive
demands have used one of two approaches:
(1)  False representations (e.g., Sabbagh, Moses, & Shiverick, 2006)
(2)  Reverse contingencies (e.g., Carlson, Davis, & Leach, 2005).
An investigation of various symbols tasks, including a standard control
condition, would highlight the cognitive skills required for
representational understanding.
The present study varies the degree to
which symbols resemble their referents to
examine factors that impact four-yearolds’ performance.
Our Symbol Tasks
Inspired by the use-a-map task from Myers and Liben (2008).


In the arbitrary symbol task, the color of the symbol matched neither
sticker choice.


(1) a matched symbol task and
(2) a non-matched symbol task (either arbitrary or conflict).
•  Performance on the arbitrary symbol task (77% passed) was not
significantly different from the match version.
• The conflict symbol task was most difficult for children (only 60%
passed): performance was significantly poorer than on the match and
arbitrary versions, t(35) = 3.75, p < .01, and, F(1, 66) = 6.51, p < .05,
respectively.
Cognitive Demands (after controlling for receptive vocabulary):
In the conflict symbol task, the color of the symbol conflicted with the
sticker it represented and instead matched the other referent.


Match symbol task performance was related to spatial WM:
•  Corsi Span, pr = 39., p < .01
Arbitrary task performance was related to verbal and spatial WM:
• 
• 
Counting and Labeling, pr = .45, p < .05
Corsi Span, pr = .48, p < .05
Conflict task performance was related to verbal WM and inhibitory
control :
•  Counting and Labeling, pr = .35, p < .05
•  DCCS, pr = .41, p < .05
To be successful on our symbols tasks, we predicted that children would
be required to rely upon specific cognitive skills:
Importantly, the correlations with the arbitrary and conflict tasks remained
Verbal Working Memory:
significant after including the match version as a control.
•  To remember the relation between the symbol and the referent
and to remember the location of interest
Discussion
•  Measured using the Counting & Labeling task
Cognitive Skills
Spatial Working Memory:
•  To remember the spatial layout of the location to differentiate
among areas within the space
•  Measured using the Corsi Span task
Four-year-olds (N = 69) received two symbol tasks (counter-balanced
across two sessions; 8 trials each):
• As predicted, most children were successful on the match symbol
task (87% passed, scoring at least 7/8).
Inhibitory Control:
•  To overcome the belief that a symbol matches its referent
•  Particularly relevant for conflict symbol tasks when a conflicting
symbol represents the referent
•  Measured using the Dimensional Change Card Sort task
We also measured receptive vocabulary (PPVT-III) as a control.
Children were to use the appropriate dot on the map to locate the
sticker hidden in the model room.
Children’s Representational!
Development Lab!
Our results show that spatial working memory plays a role in even the
basic version of the symbol task. Beyond the basic demands of the task,
specific cognitive skills were also related to the different versions of the
task. As such, the skills required to succeed on a symbol task are
dependent on the nature of the symbol-referent relation.
Future research should test younger children’s performance on the
match task to better track the developmental progression and underlying
skills needed for basic symbol understanding.
Taken together, our findings highlight children’s
understanding of various levels of the symbolreferent relation and how they differentially
recruit cognitive skills involved in this
understanding.