Socioeconomic Differences in Parental Communication About Location
In: Journal of Cognition and CultureSearch for other papers by María del Rosario Maita in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Daniela Jauck in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Seamus Donnelly in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Olga Peralta in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
This study explored whether parental directions about location differ by socioeconomic status (SES) and whether children’s performance is associated with parental spatial directions. We designed a task in which parents hid a toy in one of five identical boxes in a small-scale space, and then verbally guided their children’s search. Middle-SES (MSES) parents employed more language in general than low-SES (LSES) parents. However, groups used the same amount of spatial terms, suggesting that providing effective spatial directions is probably a matter of quality than quantity. Parents differed in the use of frames of reference; with LSES parents scarcely using them, which resulted in ambiguous reference. MSES parents showed a higher rate of person frames of reference and proximity terms, and their children performed better in the task. Our results suggest that spatial communication including person frames of reference combined with proximity information might be an effective strategy to communicate location.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Acredolo, L. P. (1976). Frames of reference used by children for orientation in unfamiliar spaces. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research, and Methods (pp. 165–172). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
-
Acredolo, L. P. & Evans, D. (1980). Developmental changes in the effects of landmarks on infant spatial behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 16, 312–318.
-
Alonqueo, B. P. & Silva, C. E. (2012). Diferencias culturales en el uso de marcos de referencia espacial: el caso de los niños mapuche. Universitas Psychologica, 11, 839–852.
-
Alonqueo, P., Silva, E., & Orellana, L. (2013). ¿ Izquierda o derecha? El desarrollo de las relaciones espaciales proyectivas en escolares mapuche y no mapuche. Revista de Psicología, 22,85–96.
-
Báez, F. & Gómez, J. (2000). Los equilibrios del cielo y de la tierra. Cosmovisión de los Nahuas de Chicontepec. Revista Desacatos, 5, 79–94.
-
Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B. M., Walker, S. C. (2014) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.5823v1.pdf.
-
Blades, M. & Cooke, Z. (1994). Young Children’s Ability to Understand a Model as a Spatial Representation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155, 201–218.
-
Boudon, P. A., & Cid, E. S. (2012). Diferencias culturales en el uso de marcos de referencia espacial: el caso de los niños mapuche. Universitas Psychologica, 11, 839–852.
-
Cannon, J., Levine, S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). A system for analyzing children and caregivers’ language about space in structured and unstructured contexts. Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (SILC) technical report.
-
Cartmill, E. A., Pruden, S., Levine, S., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). The role of parent gesture in children’s spatial language development. In K. Franich, K. M. Iserman, & L. L. Keil (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.70–77). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
-
Casasola, M., Bhagwat, J., & Burke, A. S. (2009). Learning to form a spatial category of tight-fit relations: how experience with a label can give a boost. Developmental Psychology, 45, 711–723.
-
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-
Craton, L. G., Elicker, J., Plumert, J. M., & Pick, H. L., Jr. (1990). Children’s use of frames of reference in communication of spatial location. Child Development, 61, 1528–1543.
-
Dasen, P. & Mishra, R. (2010). Developmental of Geocentric Spatial Language and Cognition. An Eco-Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Dessalegn, B., & Landau, B. (2008). More than meets the eye: the role of language in binding and maintaining feature conjunctions. Psychological Science, 19, 189–195.
-
Dollins, F. & Mitchell, R. (2010). Spatial Cognition, Spatial Perception. Mapping the Self and the Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). London: Cambridge University Press.
-
Hart, B., Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences inEeverydayEexperience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
-
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development 74, 1368–1378.
-
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology 49, 4–14.
-
Hund, A. M., & Plumert, J. M. (2007). What counts as by? Young children’s use of relative distance to judge nearbyness. Developmental Psychology, 43, 121–133.
-
Huttenlocher, J., Newcombe, N., & Sandberg, E. H. (1994). The coding of spatial location in young children. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 115–148.
-
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H. R., Vevea, J. L. & Hedges, L. V. (2007). The varieties of speech to young children. Developmental Psychology 43, 1062–1083.
-
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos — INDEC http://www.indec.gov.ar.
-
Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797–2822.
-
Loewenstein, J. & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315–353.
-
Lovell, K. (1986). Desarrollo de los Conceptos Básicos Matemáticos y Científicos en los Niños. Madrid: Morata.
-
Newcombe, N. & Huttenlocher, J. (2003). Making Space: The Development of Spatial Representation and Reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.
-
Newcombe, N. S., Huttenlocher, J., Drummey, A. B., & Wiley, J. G. (1998). The development of spatial location coding: Place learning and dead reckoning in the second and third years. Cognitive Development, 13, 185–200.
-
Newcombe, N. S., Uttal, D. H., & Sauter, M. (2013). Spatial development. Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology, 1, 564–590.
-
Peralta, O. (1995). Developmental changes and socioeconomic differences in mother-infant picturebook reading. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10, 261–272.
-
Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
-
Pizzinato, A. (2010). Psicología cultural. Contribuciones teóricas y fundamentos epistemológicos de las aportaciones de Vygotsky hacia la discusión lingüística de Bakhtin. Universitas Psychologica, 9, 255–261.
-
Plumert, J. M., Haggerty, K. A., Mickunas, A., Herzog, L. & Shadrick. C. (2012) Mother — child communication about location: Giving and following directions for finding hidden objects. Developmental Psychology, 48, 956–968.
-
Pruden, S., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter? Advance online publication. Developmental Science, 14, 1417–1430.
-
Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Rowe, M. L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science 323(5916), 951–953.
-
Sluzenski, J., Newcombe, N. S., & Satlow, E. (2004). Knowing where things are in the second year of life: Implications for hippocampal development. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1443–1451.
-
Szechter, L. E., & Liben, L. S. (2004). Parental guidance in preschoolers’ understanding of spatial-graphic representations. Child Development, 75, 869–885.
-
Torres Cuevas, H., & Quilaqueo Rapimán, D. (2011). Conceptos de tiempo y espacio entre los mapuches: racionalidad educativa. Papeles de Trabajo del Centro de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Etnolingüística y Antropología Socio-Cultural, 22, 13–27.
-
Wagner, D. A. (2010). Literacy. In. H. Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of cultural developmental psychology (pp. 161–174). New York: Psychology Press.
-
Wassman, J. & Dasen, P. (1998). Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence of moderate linguistic relativity. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 4, 689–711.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 325 | 43 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 91 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 19 | 5 | 1 |
Socioeconomic Differences in Parental Communication About Location
In: Journal of Cognition and CultureSearch for other papers by María del Rosario Maita in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Daniela Jauck in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Seamus Donnelly in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Olga Peralta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
This study explored whether parental directions about location differ by socioeconomic status (SES) and whether children’s performance is associated with parental spatial directions. We designed a task in which parents hid a toy in one of five identical boxes in a small-scale space, and then verbally guided their children’s search. Middle-SES (MSES) parents employed more language in general than low-SES (LSES) parents. However, groups used the same amount of spatial terms, suggesting that providing effective spatial directions is probably a matter of quality than quantity. Parents differed in the use of frames of reference; with LSES parents scarcely using them, which resulted in ambiguous reference. MSES parents showed a higher rate of person frames of reference and proximity terms, and their children performed better in the task. Our results suggest that spatial communication including person frames of reference combined with proximity information might be an effective strategy to communicate location.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 325 | 43 | 7 |
| Full Text Views | 91 | 3 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 19 | 5 | 1 |