View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effect of Symbolic Distancing on Delay Tolerance across the Preschool Period

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effect of Symbolic Distancing on Delay Tolerance across the Preschool Period
Language: English
Authors: Pecora, Giulia, Bellagamba, Francesca, Chiarotti, Flavia, Paoletti, Melania, Castano, Maria Letizia, Addessi, Elsa
Source: Journal of Cognition and Development. 2020 21(1):92-103.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Delay of Gratification, Rewards, Food, Stimuli, Young Children, Preschool Children, Age Differences, Foreign Countries, Visual Stimuli, Toys, Preschool Education, Symbolic Learning, Inhibition, Child Behavior
Geographic Terms: Italy (Rome)
DOI: 10.1080/15248372.2019.1693374
ISSN: 1524-8372
Abstract: We aimed to longitudinally examine how symbolic distancing affects preschool children's delay tolerance in a delay choice task. We presented children with choices between a smaller immediate reward and a larger delayed reward in conditions with either symbolic stimuli or edible rewards. Overall, symbolic distancing modulated children's delay tolerance. In particular, whereas in the first phase (T1: 3- and 4-year-olds) children presented with edible rewards chose the larger option more often than children presented with symbolic stimuli, in the second phase (T2: 5- and 6-year-olds), there was no significant difference between children presented with symbolic stimuli and those presented with edible rewards. These results are discussed by examining how children's delay tolerance changes during the development and comparing children to adult humans in a similar task.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1241297
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGTNkYiIm2lVWpY2pu-aYaCAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNjoSTJ2dE7e9_e2FQIBEICBm18uLFnUTlOo6iOEqnKIHx8LmhiF4Pt46XvOubEIdIeB7oBmStxdsgJSqLQPFePE3VuOhtGIsn-opEo7GaKMvoac9l2S_knMTuyDwk_NOUS_u-47ESpb9SAHEcuWzbT_P_QutnKDZsMrxUA7LR0ArEOFek3QifHqFNNkL3bNb8memvO5QE48PliwDfZvXxk-fNLGfQOv9E2Llytr
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0141395502;7m701jan.20;2020Jan28.01:38;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0141395502-1">The Effect of Symbolic Distancing on Delay Tolerance across the Preschool Period </title> <sbt id="AN0141395502-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>We aimed to longitudinally examine how symbolic distancing affects preschool children's delay tolerance in a delay choice task. We presented children with choices between a smaller immediate reward and a larger delayed reward in conditions with either symbolic stimuli or edible rewards. Overall, symbolic distancing modulated children's delay tolerance. In particular, whereas in the first phase (T1: 3- and 4-year-olds) children presented with edible rewards chose the larger option more often than children presented with symbolic stimuli, in the second phase (T2: 5- and 6-year-olds), there was no significant difference between children presented with symbolic stimuli and those presented with edible rewards. These results are discussed by examining how children's delay tolerance changes during the development and comparing children to adult humans in a similar task.</p> <p>Delay tolerance, defined as the ability to defer an immediate gratification in order to gain more benefits in the future (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]), is an early indicator of behavior regulation and a milestone of children's development. Children start to regulate behavior early, between 12 and 18 months, when they develop the ability to voluntarily control conduct and begin to comply with caregivers' demands (Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref2">12</reflink>]). From then on, but especially around 24 months of age, children start to flexibly adapt behavior according to situations and to delay gratification upon request. However, important improvements in the development of delay tolerance occur during the preschool period, between 3 and 6 years of age (e.g., Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>To test children's delay tolerance, Mischel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]) in their seminal study introduced the delay of gratification paradigm, consisting of two types of task: (i) the delay maintenance task, in which children are required to wait for a delay to obtain something pleasant, and (ii) the delay choice task, in which children have to choose between a less valuable and immediate reward (e.g., one candy now) and a more valuable and delayed reward (e.g., two candies later). The peculiarity of the delay choice task is that the subject cannot reevaluate her initial choice after having performed it; thus, after choosing the larger delayed option, she cannot do anything else but wait. On the contrary, in the delay maintenance task, the subject has to sustain her choice to wait for the larger reward during the whole delay and can reverse her choice at any time. Moreover, whereas in the delay choice task the subject has both options in front of her when choosing and the non-chosen option disappears after choosing, in the delay maintenance task the immediate, not preferred option remains visible and available during the whole delay.</p> <p>Interestingly, research carried out in the last few decades has shown that representing rewards by using symbols may help individuals to better tolerate delay. Sigel ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]) introduced the term "psychological distancing" to refer to the feature that some things, thoughts, or events may have to cognitively separate individuals from the salient characteristics of appetitive stimuli. Mischel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]) investigated the effects of distancing on delay tolerance in a delay maintenance task by asking children to wait to obtain two marshmallows instead of one immediately available. During the delay, some participants were given a distractor, either material (i.e., a toy) or cognitive (i.e., thinking about something different from the reward), whereas some others were asked to think about the reward while waiting. Results revealed that children could tolerate longer delays when rewards were not visible. Moreover, cognitive distractions helped children to wait more, whereas performance was poorer when children thought about the reward during the delay. More recently, Carlson, Davis, and Leach ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]) investigated symbolic representation using a reverse-reward contingency task called "Less is more", in which participants had to point at the smaller reward to obtain the larger one, in conditions with symbolic and edible treats. These authors found that 3-year-old children performed better when presented with symbols (i.e., two cards depicting a mouse and an elephant, respectively) than when presented with edible treats (i.e., two and five candies). However, the same effect did not hold true when less abstract representations of the treats (i.e., multiple rocks) were used. Thus, only highly abstract representations of the reward helped children to refrain from impulsive responses and make more optimal decisions.</p> <p>In a previous comparative study (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]), we evaluated the role of symbolic distancing in a delay choice task. We presented capuchin monkeys (<emph>Sapajus</emph> spp.), 3- and 4-year-old children, and adult humans with choices between a smaller immediate option and a larger delayed option. Both monkeys and children preferred the larger delayed option more when presented with edible treats rather than when facing highly abstract symbols (we used two types of "high-symbolic" tokens for monkeys, each corresponding to the small and to the large food quantity, respectively, and mouse/elephant cards for children, as in Carlson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]). We argued that the high attractiveness of edible treats may have led individuals to respond impulsively toward the larger option, thus pushing the costs of the choice (i.e., waiting) into the background. This is in agreement with the observation of other authors, who recommend prudence when interpreting preference for the more valuable and postponed option in the delay choice task as tolerance to delay when using visible edible rewards as stimuli (Bramlett, Perdue, Evans, & Beran, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]; Genty, Karpel, & Silberberg, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]; Labuschagne, Cox, Brown, & Scarf, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]). Indeed, choices for the larger option may in part be due to an impulsive response toward the visible food rather than to delay tolerance (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]). The same effect did not occur in children presented with cards depicting arrays of dots, likely because symbolic representations that are perceptually similar to the quantity of edible treats they represent are similarly likely to elicit an impulsive response toward the quantity (Boysen, Berntson, Hannan, & Cacioppo, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]), although to a lesser extent than the food. Nonetheless, our finding was confined to 3- and 4-year-old children. Adult humans' performance did not differ significantly between conditions with edible and symbolic stimuli, probably because their superior symbolic representation abilities made symbols very closely associated to their referents and thus less effective in inducing psychological distancing (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]). Indeed, at the neural level, in adult humans both symbolic and non-symbolic representations of numerical magnitudes are mapped onto the parietal cortex, whereas in children there is still a prominent engagement of frontal brain regions (Nieder, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]; see also Holloway & Ansari, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref17">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Here, we aimed to longitudinally examine how symbolic distancing affects preschool children's delay tolerance in a delay choice task. We tested the same children that participated in our previous study (when they were 3- and 4-year-olds, T1; Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]) with the same delay choice task two years later (when they were 5- and 6-year-olds, respectively, T2). On the basis of our previous findings, we expected the performance of children tested at T2 to be more similar to the performance of the adults tested in our previous study (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]) than to the performance of children tested at T1. Thus, at T2 we expected no significant difference in the choice of the delayed option between children presented with symbolic stimuli and those presented with edible rewards, rather than less choices for the delayed option with symbolic stimuli than with edible rewards (as observed at T1, Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0141395502-4">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were first tested when they were 3 and 4 years-old (T1). One-hundred-and-one children, 51 three-year-olds (<emph>M</emph> age = 36.13 months, <emph>SD</emph> =.45; 25 boys and 26 girls) and 50 four-year-olds (<emph>M</emph> age = 48.11, <emph>SD</emph> =.49; 27 boys and 23 girls) were included at T1.</p> <p>All families were contacted again two years later, when children were 5 and 6 years-old (T2). Of the original sample of 101 children, 69 children participated at T2, 38 five-year-olds (<emph>M</emph> age = 60.1 months, <emph>SD</emph> =.56; 16 boys and 22 girls) and 31 six-year-olds (<emph>M</emph> age = 72.14 months, <emph>SD</emph> =.66; 21 boys and 10 girls). All children were Italian and came from families of middle socioeconomic status (as determined by parental educational level), living in the large metropolitan area of Rome. They were mostly recruited from the preschool they attended.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-5">Procedure</hd> <p>This study was part of a broader research project on preschool children's behavior regulation (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]). At both phases of the study, children were administered a battery of tasks, in which the delay choice task was always presented as first. Data collected at T1 were already analyzed in (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]), whereas data collected at T2 were completely original. Experiments were carried out within one month before or after children's birthday in order to make their mean ages homogeneous. Children were tested individually by two female experimenters at home or in a quiet room of the preschool they attended. The administration of the delay choice task took approximately 15 minutes; each trial was videotaped for future coding.</p> <p>All 101 children were tested at T1 and 67 children out of 69 were tested at T2 (two children were excluded because of technical problems). Each child had to choose between a smaller reward, available immediately, and a larger reward, available either immediately or after an 80-s delay, according to condition (please see below). In all conditions, we used food as reward and the food type was selected following parents' suggestions on the basis of children's preferences. The apparatus (Figure 1), stimuli (Figure 2), and procedure were the same at both T1 and T2.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Apparatus used in the delay choice task. For a detailed description of its functioning, please see main text.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Stimuli used in the food delay and food control conditions (2a), and in the high-symbolic token delay, low-symbolic token delay and high-symbolic token control conditions (2b) of the delay choice task.</p> <p>The apparatus was a rectangular wooden box (55 × 43.2 × 18.7 cm) with two transparent semi-spherical plastic cups placed upside-down (diameter 11.6 cm), 10 cm apart from each other. Stimuli were placed under the two transparent cups, which could be opened by pushing or hitting on a red button placed in front of each cup. As soon as the child pressed the button, a red light near the button was automatically turned on, and the unselected option disappeared from the child's view falling in a trap beneath the cup.</p> <p>Before the onset of the session, the experimenter showed the apparatus to the child and said: "This is a special box, which can let you win many candies (or much chocolate, etc.). I show you how it works: if you press this button, you open this cup; if you press this other button, you open the other cup". In order to better explain the functioning of the apparatus, the experimenter proposed two practice trials, presenting one option in each trial (in the first trial the larger option was placed under the left cup, in the second trial the smaller option was placed under the right cup). In the delay conditions, the larger option was associated with the corresponding delay (please see below). At the end of the practice trials, four experimental trials were presented; the order of presentation of the smaller and larger options was pseudo-randomized and their position (left or right) was counterbalanced across trials. If the child selected the larger option and was tested in a delay condition (please see below), s/he was offered the possibility to play with a toy during the delay, in order to reduce the potential distress induced by waiting for the reward. To avoid that children preferred the toy over the apparatus, we chose a toy appropriate for younger children (i.e., a set of wooden rings of ascending sizes and different colors at T1 and a puzzle featuring an animal farm at T2). Children could eat the rewards immediately or save them for future consumption.</p> <p>A between-subject design was used by randomly allocating children to five different conditions. The task included three experimental conditions (Food Delay, High-Symbolic Token Delay and Low-Symbolic Token Delay), in which children chose between a smaller option immediately available and a larger option available after an 80-s delay, and two control conditions (Food Control and High-Symbolic Token Control), in which both the smaller and the larger options were immediately available. Children were assigned to the same condition at both T1 and T2.</p> <p>In Food Delay and Food Control conditions, children chose between two and six food items (Figure 2a), whereas in High-Symbolic Token Delay, High-Symbolic Token Control and Low-Symbolic Token Delay conditions, children chose between two cards (8.5 × 8.5 cm). In the High-Symbolic Token conditions, the cards depicted a mouse and an elephant, respectively (Figure 2b). These stimuli were adapted from Carlson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref23">7</reflink>]) and had a high degree of symbolic abstraction since there was only a figurative representation of the quantities: the elephant, a large animal, corresponded to the larger food amount (six food items), whereas the mouse, a small animal, corresponded to the smaller food amount (two food items). In the Low-Symbolic Token Delay condition, the cards depicted respectively two red dots, corresponding to the smaller immediate reward, and six red dots, corresponding to the larger delayed reward, on a white background (Figure 2c). These stimuli had a low degree of symbolic abstraction since there was a numerical one-to-one correspondence between each dot and the associated reward. After each trial in a symbolic condition, children exchanged the card with the experimenter to obtain the corresponding food reward. The Food Control and High-Symbolic Token Control conditions were identical to the corresponding experimental conditions except for the fact that both options were immediately available. In all symbolic conditions, children were appropriately instructed to associate symbols to the corresponding rewards through a training procedure (the scripts are reported in the Appendix).</p> <p>Choices of the larger option were scored as 1, whereas choices of the smaller option were scored as 0. As dependent variable, we employed the proportion of choices of the larger option. The task was coded independently by two experimenters from videotape. The index of concordance for the proportion of choices for the larger option was 1.00.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-6">Missing data analyses</hd> <p>Given the attrition between the two phases of the study (i.e., 32% of missing data at T2), analyses on missing data were conducted in order to exclude the possibility that data were not missing completely at random (MCAR). The pattern of missingness was assessed by using the Little's test ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref24">15</reflink>]) for MCAR. The Little's test was not significant, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>) =.23, <emph>p</emph> =.63, thus revealing that the missingness met the MCAR assumption. The attrition between the two phases of the study was likely due to the fact that some children at T2 attended a different preschool than at T1 or moved to the primary school. This would have required to do home visits, which however were not feasible for some parents.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-7">Results</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics with means and standard deviations of the proportion of choices for the larger option at T1 and T2 are reported in Table 1. We employed regression methods for longitudinal data analysis (Snjiders & Bosker, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]; van de Pol & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]) by using the software Stata 14 (StataCorp. 2015. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP). Regression methods for longitudinal data analysis account for interdependency and structuring of the data and thus allow the use of multiple data points from the same subject (rather than aggregating all measurements of the same subject into an average value and make these values the unit of analysis), while avoiding the problem of pseudo replication. These models are particularly suited for analyzing behavioral data that typically have one or more levels of aggregations.</p> <p>Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the proportion of choices for the larger option in the delay choice task at T1 and T2.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Total sample</td><td>Younger children</td><td>Older children</td></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>T1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Food Delay</td><td>20</td><td>.67</td><td>.27</td><td>10</td><td>.70</td><td>.28</td><td>10</td><td>.65</td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td> Low-Symbolic Token Delay</td><td>20</td><td>.62</td><td>.30</td><td>10</td><td>.57</td><td>.29</td><td>10</td><td>.67</td><td>.31</td></tr><tr><td> High-Symbolic Token Delay</td><td>21</td><td>.49</td><td>.17</td><td>11</td><td>.50</td><td>.22</td><td>10</td><td>.47</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td> Food Control</td><td>20</td><td>.77</td><td>.23</td><td>10</td><td>.72</td><td>.25</td><td>10</td><td>.82</td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td> High-Symbolic Token Control</td><td>20</td><td>.64</td><td>.24</td><td>10</td><td>.52</td><td>.18</td><td>10</td><td>.75</td><td>.24</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Food Delay</td><td>12</td><td>.77</td><td>.31</td><td>5</td><td>.90</td><td>.14</td><td>7</td><td>.68</td><td>.37</td></tr><tr><td> Low-Symbolic Token Delay</td><td>9</td><td>.78</td><td>.19</td><td>8</td><td>.78</td><td>.21</td><td>1</td><td>.75</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td> High-Symbolic Token Delay</td><td>16</td><td>.62</td><td>.24</td><td>8</td><td>.72</td><td>.25</td><td>8</td><td>.53</td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td> Food Control</td><td>16</td><td>.83</td><td>.25</td><td>8</td><td>.84</td><td>.13</td><td>8</td><td>.81</td><td>.35</td></tr><tr><td> High-Symbolic Token Control</td><td>14</td><td>.84</td><td>.19</td><td>7</td><td>.93</td><td>.12</td><td>7</td><td>.75</td><td>.20</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 § Children's performance at T1 has been already partly analyzed in previous papers (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]; Bellagamba et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]); Means reported represents proportions, ranging from 0 to 1; Younger children: 3- and 5- year-olds (at T1 and T2, respectively); Older children: 4- and 6- year-olds (at T1 and T2, respectively).</p> <p>Specifically, we fit a random-effects logistic regression model with choices of the larger option as the dependent variable, and phase of the study (T1 and T2), condition (Food Control, Food Delay, High-Symbolic Token Control, and High-Symbolic Token Delay), age class ("younger", i.e. children that were 3-year-old at T1, vs. "older", i.e. children that were 4-year-old at T1), gender, and trial as independent variables. We dropped from the analysis the children belonging to the Low Symbolic Token Delay condition since at T2 we had a total sample of nine children and only one of them belonged to the older children category. The identity of the subject was included as a random effect and the significance of interaction effects was tested using the Wald test. Non-significant interactions were dropped from the model and the analysis was run again. Significance level was set at <emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>There was a significant interaction between phase of the study and children's age class (χ<sups>2</sups><subs>1</subs> = 9.54, <emph>p</emph> =.002). Specifically, regardless of condition, younger children chose the larger option more at T2 than at T1 (coeff. = 1.30, z = 4.15, <emph>p</emph> <.001; odds ratio = 3.66), whereas for older children there was no significant difference between the two phases of the study (coeff. =.036, z =.13, <emph>p</emph> =.90; odds ratio = 1.04).</p> <p>There was no significant interaction between phase of the study and condition (χ<sups>2</sups><subs>3</subs> = 1.29, <emph>p</emph> =.73). However, when analyzing the data separately at T1 and T2, we found a different pattern of results in the two phases of the study. At T1, children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Control condition chose the larger option marginally significantly more than children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Delay condition (coeff. =.61, z = 1.89, <emph>p</emph> =.058; odds ratio = 0.54), but at T2 this difference reached significance (coeff. = 1.21, z = 2.30, <emph>p</emph> =.021; odds ratio = 0.30). In contrast, at T1, children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Control condition chose the larger option marginally significantly less than children assigned to the Food Control condition (coeff. = −.64, z = − 1.79, <emph>p</emph> =.073; odds ratio = 1.90), but at T2 this difference was not significant (coeff. =.11, z =.20, <emph>p</emph> =.84; odds ratio = 0.89). At T1, children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Delay condition chose the larger delayed option significantly less than children assigned to the Food Delay condition (coeff. = −.72, z = − 2.19, <emph>p</emph> =.028; odds ratio = 0.49), but at T2 this difference was not significant (coeff. = −.74, z = − 1.35, <emph>p</emph> =.17; odds ratio = 0.48). In both phases of the study, there were no significant differences between children assigned to the Food Control and Food Delay conditions (T1: coeff. =.53, z = 1.47, <emph>p</emph> =.14; odds ratio = 1.70; T2: coeff. =.37, z =.64, <emph>p</emph> =.52; odds ratio = 1.44). All the other interactions were not significant (condition x age class: χ<sups>2</sups><subs>3</subs> = 3.28, <emph>p</emph> =.35; condition x gender: χ<sups>2</sups><subs>3</subs> = 1.58, <emph>p</emph> =.66; phase of the study x gender: χ<sups>2</sups><subs>1</subs> = 0.10, <emph>p</emph> =.75).</p> <p>In addition, to account for possible lack of power of the results of the statistical analyses reported above, we computed the Bayes factor for the comparisons of interest between the four different conditions, separately at T1 and T2. Specifically, we performed independent t tests comparing the proportion of choices of the larger option between Food Control and High-Symbolic Token Control, Food Delay and High-Symbolic Token Delay, Food Control and Food Delay, and High-Symbolic Token Control and High-Symbolic Token Delay, at T1 and T2. We then computed the Bayes factor (BF10), to assess the data support in favor of the alternative hypothesis H1 (Jarosz & Wiley, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]). Values of BF10 less than 1 indicate the lack of support for H1; values from 1 to 3 an anecdotal support, values from 3 to 10 a substantial support, values from 10 to 30 a strong support, values from 30 to 100 a very strong support, and values greater than 100 a decisive support for H1.</p> <p>Results of the logistic regression are confirmed by the values of the Bayes Factor BF10. At T1, data support the hypothesis that the proportion of choices of the larger option in High-Symbolic Token Delay is lower than in both High-Symbolic Token Control and Food Delay (BF10 equal to 1.325 and 2.006, respectively). When limiting the analyses to the children undergoing testing both at T1 and T2 (Figure 3), the support for a difference between the conditions is stronger (BF10 equal to 4.182 and 4.939, respectively). The proportion of choices of the larger option is instead similar between Food Control and Food Delay and between Food Control and High-Symbolic Token Control (for all children, BF10 equal to 0.337 and 0.687, respectively; for children tested both at T1 and T2 only, BF10 equal to 0.201 and 0.237). At T2, the proportion of choices of the larger option in High-Symbolic Token Delay appears to be still lower than in High-Symbolic Token Control (BF10 equal to 2.872), while data do not longer support the difference between High-Symbolic Token Delay and Food Delay conditions (BF10 equal to 0.523). Again, the proportion of choices of the larger option is similar between Food Control and Food Delay and between Food Control and High-Symbolic Token Control (BF10 equal to 0.221 and 0.183, respectively).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. The figure depicts the mean proportion of choices of the larger option (and SEM) only for the children that participated in both phases of the study (N = 58).</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-8">Discussion</hd> <p>In the present study, we aimed to investigate how different representations of reward influenced children's ability to delay gratification in a delay choice task and whether this effect differed between the early (3- and 4-year-olds, T1) and late (5- and 6-year-olds, T2) preschool period, when significant transitions happen in formal education, fostering learning about symbolic representations.</p> <p>Overall, regardless of condition, younger children (aged 3-year-old at T1) chose the larger option significantly more at T2 than at T1, whereas older children (aged 4-year-old at T1) did not show any significant difference between the two phases of the study. This effect was likely due to a general improvement of children's numerical discrimination abilities between early and late preschool period (e.g., Halberda & Feigenson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref31">9</reflink>]; Odic, Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]) and was confined to younger children probably because at T1 they had still to mature this competence.</p> <p>Delay tolerance varied depending on symbolic distancing and on children's age. In particular, at T1 children assigned to the Food Delay condition chose the larger delayed option significantly more often than children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Delay condition (see also Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]). Apparently, this result seems in contrast with findings obtained in other studies using different paradigms, in which a higher symbolic abstractness of the stimuli was related to better children's performance (e.g., delay maintenance task, Mischel et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]; reverse-reward contingency task, Carlson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]). However, in the light of recent research (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref37">2</reflink>]; Bramlett et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]; Genty et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]; Labuschagne et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]), when in the delay choice task the options consist of visible food rewards, choices for the larger and delayed option are likely to be driven by the individual's preference for the larger quantity rather than by her ability to delay a gratification. Thus, we argued that, at T1, children tested in the Food Delay condition could have pointed at the larger option because they were attracted by the larger amount of treats visible to them, and did not consider the temporal costs (i.e., the delay) associated with the larger reward. This finding seems supported by the observation that, in both phases of the study there were no significant differences in the choice for the larger option between children assigned to Food Delay and Food Control conditions, likely because when presented with highly preferred, and rarely available, visible food items, children preferred the larger option even at the cost of waiting for a delay (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>At T1, symbolic stimuli possibly helped children to inhibit their strong behavioral predispositions toward the larger quantity, leading them to pay greater attention to the associated delay and thus to reduce their choices for the larger delayed option (see also Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>]). In contrast, at T2 children assigned to the Food Delay condition chose the larger delayed option to a similar extent as children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Delay condition, thus behaving similarly to adult humans tested in an analogous task (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]). The lack of a significant difference between children assigned to Food Delay and High-Symbolic Token Delay conditions at T2 might be due to an improvement in their symbolic representation, that possibly made tokens very closely associated to their referent, thus preventing the distancing effect from the "hot" properties of the reward (Addessi et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]; Bellagamba et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]), and/or to an improvement of their behavior regulation (e.g., Carlson, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]; Kochanska et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]). Whatever interpretation is favored, the above results diverge from those obtained by Lemmon and Moore ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]) in a delay choice task involving stickers as stimuli, in which preschool children's choices for the larger reward increased with age. However, a direct comparison of the two studies is not feasible in the absence of a research investigating, exactly with the same paradigm, children's behavior with edible treats and stickers.</p> <p>Alternatively, it could be hypothesized that the lower number of choices for the larger delayed option shown by children assigned to the High-symbolic token delay condition (as compared to those assigned to the Food-delay condition) at T1 was due to a degraded representation of the symbolically represented quantity, as compared to the food quantity, when the delay was applied. Indeed, at T1 children experienced some apparent difficulties in the achievement of an efficient symbolic representation. Although in both phases of the study children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Control condition chose the larger option more than children assigned to High-Symbolic Token Delay condition, this difference was marginally significant at T1 and reached significance only at T2. Moreover, whereas at T1 children assigned to the High-Symbolic Token Control condition chose the larger option marginally significantly less than children assigned to the Food Control condition, only at T2 the two groups chose the larger option to a similar extent. It is instead unlikely that the toy provided to children in all conditions and in both phases of the study (to alleviate the potential distress of waiting when choosing the delayed option in the "delay" conditions) helped them to wait more. Indeed, at T1 children tested in the High-Symbolic Token Delay condition chose the larger delayed option to a lesser extent than children tested in the Food-Delay condition, although in both conditions they were presented with a toy to play with.</p> <p>Overall, our results are in line with prior findings on the progressive development of behavior regulation and symbolic understanding during the preschool period (Carlson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; Kochanska et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]). To our knowledge, this was the first study that longitudinally investigated how symbolic distancing influences preschool children's delay tolerance in a delay choice task. However, our findings must be considered as preliminary because of the small sample size of the groups of children tested in the different conditions. Along with increasing the sample sizes, in future studies it would be also interesting to use symbols with higher levels of abstraction (such as squiggles and objects not directly recalling any perceptual characteristic of rewards), rather than the iconic stimuli used in the present study (Namy, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref51">17</reflink>]), or abstract but highly salient rewards, as stickers (e.g., Lemmon & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref52">14</reflink>]), and evaluate how these symbolic representations would influence children's responses in a delay choice task.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-9">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We wish to thank the directors and the coordinators of the preschools where the children were recruited (Elisabetta Beolchini: Asilo Nido Montessori at Ministero degli Esteri; Carla Cevenini and Elena Dompè: Casa dei bambini Montessori at Banca d'Italia; Anna Maria Conti: Il Tenero Germoglio; Cristina Ferrera: L'Allegro Ranocchio, L'Aquilone, Il Faro Incantato, Il Girasole, Il Pagliaccetto, La Scatola Magica; Irene Latronico: L'Aurora, Il Casale dei Piccoli). We also thank the parents and the children participating in this research project: without their cooperation this study would not have been possible. We especially thank Nicola Piazzo who built the experimental apparatus used with children.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>We disclose no actual or potential conflicts of interest and declare that our work has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and that all procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology of Sapienza University of Rome.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-11">Informed consent</hd> <p>Informed written consent was obtained from all parents of the participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0141395502-12">Supplementary material</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1693374.</p> <ref id="AN0141395502-13"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref8" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at <ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/hjcd">www.tandfonline.com/hjcd</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0141395502-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Addessi, E., Bellagamba, F., Delfino, A., De Petrillo, F., Focaroli, V., Macchitella, L., ... Paglieri, F. (2014). Waiting by mistake: Symbolic representation of rewards modulates intertemporal choice in capuchin monkeys, preschool children and adult humans. Cognition, 130, 428 – 441. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref37" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Addessi, E., Paglieri, F., Beran, M., Evans, T., Macchitella, L., De Petrillo, F., & Focaroli, V. (2013). Delay choice vs. delay maintenance: Different measures of delayed gratification in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, 392 – 398. doi: 10.1037/a0031869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref29" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bellagamba, F., Addessi, E., Focaroli, V., Pecora, G., Maggiorelli, V., Pace, B., & Paglieri, F. (2015). False belief understanding and "cool" inhibitory control in 3-and 4-year-old Italian children. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 872. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boysen, S., Berntson, G., Hannan, M. B., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Quantity-based Inference and Symbolic Representation in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 76 – 86. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.22.1.76</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bramlett, J. L., Perdue, B. M., Evans, T. A., & Beran, M. J. (2012). Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) let lesser rewards pass them by to get better rewards. Animal Cognition, 15, 963 – 969. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0522-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595 – 616. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2802_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carlson, S. M., Davis, A. C., & Leach, J. G. (2005). Less is more: Executive function and symbolic representation in preschool children. Psychological Science, 16, 609 – 616. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01583.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Genty, E., Karpel, H., & Silberberg, A. (2012). Time preferences in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and humans (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 15, 1161 – 1172. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0540-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref31" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Developmental change in the acuity of the "number sense": The approximate number system in 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds and adults. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1457 – 1465. doi: 10.1037/a0012682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holloway, I. D., & Ansari, D. (2010). Developmental specialization in the right intraparietal sulcus for the abstract representation of numerical magnitude. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2627 – 2637. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2 – 9. doi: 10.7771/1932-6246.1167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1091 – 1111. doi: 10.1111/cdev.2001.72.issue-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labuschagne, L. G., Cox, T. J., Brown, K., & Scarf, D. (2017). Too cool? Symbolic but not iconic stimuli impair 4-year-old children's performance on the delay-of-gratification choice paradigm. Behavioural Processes, 135, 36 – 39. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.11.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lemmon, K., & Moore, C. (2007). The development of prudence in the face of varying future rewards. Developmental Science, 10, 502 – 511. doi: 10.1111/desc.2007.10.issue-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198 – 1202. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933 – 938. doi: 10.1126/science.2658056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Namy, L. L. (2008). Recognition of iconicity doesn't come for free. Developmental Science, 11, 841 – 846. doi: 10.1111/desc.2008.11.issue-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nieder, A. (2009). Prefrontal cortex and the evolution of symbolic reference. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19, 99 – 108. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.04.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odic, D., Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2013). Developmental change in the acuity of approximate number and area representations. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1103 – 1112. doi: 10.1037/a0029472</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sigel, I. E. (1970). The distancing hypothesis: A causal hypothesis for the acquisition of representational thought. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior, 1968: Effects of early experience (pp. 99 – 118). Coral Gables, FL : University of Miami Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snjiders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van de Pol, M., & Wright, J. (2009). A simple method for distinguishing within- versus between-subject effects using mixed models. Animal Behaviour, 77, 753 – 758. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.11.006</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Giulia Pecora; Francesca Bellagamba; Flavia Chiarotti; Melania Paoletti; Maria Letizia Castano and Elsa Addessi</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref51"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1241297
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effect of Symbolic Distancing on Delay Tolerance across the Preschool Period
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pecora%2C+Giulia%22">Pecora, Giulia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bellagamba%2C+Francesca%22">Bellagamba, Francesca</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chiarotti%2C+Flavia%22">Chiarotti, Flavia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paoletti%2C+Melania%22">Paoletti, Melania</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Castano%2C+Maria+Letizia%22">Castano, Maria Letizia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Addessi%2C+Elsa%22">Addessi, Elsa</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Cognition+and+Development%22"><i>Journal of Cognition and Development</i></searchLink>. 2020 21(1):92-103.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delay+of+Gratification%22">Delay of Gratification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rewards%22">Rewards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Food%22">Food</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stimuli%22">Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Stimuli%22">Visual Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Toys%22">Toys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Symbolic+Learning%22">Symbolic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inhibition%22">Inhibition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Italy+%28Rome%29%22">Italy (Rome)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15248372.2019.1693374
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1524-8372
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: We aimed to longitudinally examine how symbolic distancing affects preschool children's delay tolerance in a delay choice task. We presented children with choices between a smaller immediate reward and a larger delayed reward in conditions with either symbolic stimuli or edible rewards. Overall, symbolic distancing modulated children's delay tolerance. In particular, whereas in the first phase (T1: 3- and 4-year-olds) children presented with edible rewards chose the larger option more often than children presented with symbolic stimuli, in the second phase (T2: 5- and 6-year-olds), there was no significant difference between children presented with symbolic stimuli and those presented with edible rewards. These results are discussed by examining how children's delay tolerance changes during the development and comparing children to adult humans in a similar task.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1241297
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1241297
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15248372.2019.1693374
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 92
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Delay of Gratification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rewards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Food
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Toys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Symbolic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inhibition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Italy (Rome)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effect of Symbolic Distancing on Delay Tolerance across the Preschool Period
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pecora, Giulia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bellagamba, Francesca
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chiarotti, Flavia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paoletti, Melania
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Castano, Maria Letizia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Addessi, Elsa
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1524-8372
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Cognition and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1