[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study compared Greeks with Chinese, from 8 to 14 years of age, on measures of processing efficiency, working memory, and reasoning. All processes were addressed through three domains of relations: verbal/propositional, quantitative, and visuo/spatial. Structural equations modelling and rating scale analysis showed that the architecture and developmental patterning of the various processes are basically the same in the two ethic groups. The Chinese clearly outperformed the Greeks in all tasks addressing visuo/spatial processing, from processing efficiency through working memory and reasoning, but neither in g nor in processes where the two groups have equivalent experience. This advantage was associated to the massive practice in visuo/spatial processing that is required to learn the Chinese logographic writing system. The implications for general theory of intelligence and intellectual development are discussed.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A model of the Stroop phenomenon is proposed which postulates that the classic effect is an additive function of three parameters, that is, dimension selection (decision making about which dimension to respond to), dimension identification (encoding and identification of the relevant dimension), and interference control (filtering out of interference from non-relevant dimensions). The study used stimuli addressed to three symbol systems (verbal, numerical, and figural), two types of stimulus composition (compatible vs. incompatible), and two types of dimension selection (decision needed about the to-be-identified dimension vs. no decision needed). Participants were 9, 11, 13, and 15 years old and they were tested twice. The model was found to hold under all stimulus and presentation conditions. Moreover, it was found that the three parameters are differentially related to age. The implications of the model for general theories of cognition and cognitive development are discussed.
Cognitive Development 08/2002; 16(4):987-1005. DOI:10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00069-2 · 1.73 Impact Factor