Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
10453071 | Journal of Experimental Child Psychology | 2013 | 4 Pages |
Abstract
In response to Cummins's report that comments on our article (Dack & Astington, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2011, Vol. 110, pp. 94-114), this article clarifies our perspective on what constitutes the deontic advantage, and notes similarities and differences between Cummins's perspective and our own. Like Cummins, we believe that young children are capable of deontic reasoning and that methodological factors alone cannot explain this ability. However, we maintain that it is important to be precise about methodology in order to facilitate investigation of how the deontic advantage changes over developmental time, and this question is our main interest, although as yet incompletely answered. Contrary to Cummins, we do not think that existing data can speak to the issue of the potential innateness of deontic reasoning. We also disagree with Cummins's perspective on norm versus normative proposition and with some of her comparisons between deontic and epistemic phenomena.
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities
Psychology
Developmental and Educational Psychology
Authors
Janet Wilde Astington, Lisa Ain Dack,