Elsevier

Cognitive Development

Volume 15, Issue 1, January–March 2000, Pages 63-73
Cognitive Development

Inhibition and cognitive development: object, number, categorization, and reasoning

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00015-0Get rights and content

Abstract

In the early 1990s, the concept of inhibition sparked a new surge of interest in cognitive psychology, both in North America and in Europe. In the framework of that research trend, it is proposed here that cognitive development cannot be reduced to the coordination–activation of structural units (as in Jean Piaget's structuralist theory and in the neo-structuralist models), but that development also often involves inhibiting a competing structure or scheme. This approach, which views the processes of selection–inhibition as age- and domain-specific, is illustrated by four experimental examples (from infancy to adulthood): object construction, number, categorization, and reasoning.

Section snippets

Object construction

The question of the relationship between cognitive development and inhibition becomes a relevant one as soon as the basic unit of reality, the permanent object, is in place in the infant. Research on infant oculomotor activity (the study of visual fixation time), which uses the violation-of-expectancy paradigm, has shown that early object permanence already exists at the age of 4 or 5 months Baillargeon, 1987, Baillargeon et al., 1985. How, then, can one explain the well-known A-not-B error,

Number, categorization, and reasoning

The next three examples concern logico-mathematical operations (number, categorization, and reasoning) and show that the relationship between cognitive development and inhibition continues to be a relevant issue in older children, adolescents, and even adults. Hence, the recurring role of inhibition when object unity is inserted into more complex activities.

New stages of development

In all of these key examples, the issue is one of determining what stems from the “non-rational” or “insufficiently rational” subject (lack of a cognitive structure or competence such as object permanence, number, class inclusion, deduction) and what stems from inhibitory inefficiency, i.e., the inability to inhibit a competing structure that is interfering in working memory. In this framework, the inhibitory mechanism is regarded as age- and domain-specific. Other examples could be given here,

Acknowledgements

This research project was conducted at the Laboratoire Cognition and Communication, which is supported by the Université René Descartes (Paris 5), the Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS).

References (86)

  • J. Mandler

    How to build a baby: on the development of an accessible representational system

    Cognit Dev

    (1988)
  • P. Mounoud

    The emergence of new skills: dialectic relations between knowledge systems

  • R.C. O'Reilly

    Six principles for biologically based computational models of cortical cognition

    Trends Cognit Sci

    (1998)
  • T.J. Simon et al.

    Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992)

    Cognit Dev

    (1995)
  • E. Spelke

    Initial knowledge: six suggestions

    Cognition

    (1994)
  • S.P. Tipper et al.

    Mechanisms of attention: a developmental study

    J Exp Child Psychol

    (1989)
  • K. Wynn

    Competence models of numerical development

    Cognit Dev

    (1997)
  • K. Wynn

    Psychological foundations of number: numerical competence in human infants

    Trends Cognit Sci

    (1998)
  • A.D. Baddeley

    Working Memory

    (1986)
  • A.D. Baddeley

    Working memory

    Science

    (1992)
  • R. Baillargeon

    Object permanence in 3.5- and 4.5-month-old infants

    Dev Psychol

    (1987)
  • R. Baillargeon

    Physical reasoning in infancy

  • M.A. Bell et al.

    The relations between frontal brain electrical activity and cognitive development during infancy

    Child Dev

    (1992)
  • M.A. Bell et al.

    Brain development over the first year of life

  • J. Bideaud

    Logique et Bricolage Chez l'enfant

    (1988)
  • D.F. Bjorklund

    In search of a metatheory for cognitive development (or, Piaget is dead and I don't feel so good)

    Child Dev

    (1997)
  • D.F. Bjorklund et al.

    The resources construct in cognitive development: diverse sources of evidence and a theory of inefficient inhibition

    Dev Rev

    (1990)
  • E.M. Brannon et al.

    Ordering of the numerosities 1 to 9 by monkeys

    Science

    (1998)
  • J.G. Bremner

    Infancy

    (1994)
  • P.E. Bryant

    Arithmetic in the cradle

    Nature

    (1992)
  • S.M. Carlson et al.

    The role of inhibitory processes in young children's difficulties with deception and false belief

    Child Dev

    (1998)
  • L. Cosmides et al.

    From evolution to behavior: evolutionary psychology as the missing link

  • S. Dehaene et al.

    A simple model of prefrontal cortex function in delayed-response tasks

    J Cognit Neurosci

    (1989)
  • A. Diamond

    Neuropsychological insights into the meaning of object concept development

  • A. Diamond

    Understanding the A-not-B error: working memory vs. reinforced response, or active trace vs. latent trace

    Dev Sci

    (1998)
  • J.L. Elman et al.

    Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development

    (1996)
  • J.St.B.T. Evans

    Biases in Human Reasoning

    (1989)
  • J.St.B.T. Evans

    Matching bias in conditional reasoning

    Thinking Reasoning

    (1998)
  • J.St.B.T. Evans et al.

    Human Reasoning. The Psychology of Deduction

    (1993)
  • J.St.B.T. Evans et al.

    Rationality in reasoning: the problem of deductive competence

    Curr Psychol Cognit

    (1997)
  • Cited by (142)

    • Inhibitory control and the understanding of buoyancy from childhood to adulthood

      2021, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Because intuitive conceptions coexist with scientific conceptions, several authors have argued that scientific reasoning sometimes requires inhibiting intuitive conceptions in contexts where they conflict with scientific ones (Babai, Eidelman, & Stavy, 2012; Babai, Sekal, & Stavy, 2010). This view is convergent with studies showing that inhibitory control is a fundamental process for the development of complex skills (Borst, Aïte, & Houdé, 2015; Casey & Caudle, 2013; Diamond, 2013; Houdé, 2000) such as arithmetic (e.g., Espy et al., 2004; Gilmore et al., 2013; Roell, Viarouge, Houdé, & Borst, 2019), reading (Borst, Ahr, Roell, & Houdé, 2014), reasoning (for a review, see Houdé & Borst, 2015), and decision making (for a review, see Cassotti, Aïte, Osmont, Houdé, & Borst, 2014). More generally, inhibitory control is necessary at any age to avoid using a misleading heuristic in a context where it interferes with the strategy (or the strategies) leading to the correct answer (for reviews, see Bjorklund & Harnishfeger, 1995; Borst et al., 2015; Diamond, 2013; Houdé & Borst, 2015).

    • Ethical views and considerations

      2020, Handbook of Clinical Neurology
      Citation Excerpt :

      In a second fMRI study (Poirel et al., 2012), we demonstrated that the prefrontal activation (i.e., the blood-oxygen-level-dependent signal), specifically in the right inferior frontal gyrus, observed when schoolchildren succeeded at the Piaget number conservation task was correlated to their behavioral performance on a Stroop-like measure of inhibitory function development (Fuster, 2003; Wright et al., 2003; Aron et al., 2004, 2014). These new results in schoolchildren fit well with previous brain imaging data showing a key role of prefrontal inhibitory control training when adolescents or adults (belonging to Stage 4 in Piaget's theory) spontaneously fail to block their perceptual intuitions (or bias, heuristics) to activate logico-mathematical algorithms (i.e., deductive rules) in reasoning tasks (Houdé, 2000, 2007, 2019; Houdé et al., 2000, 2001; Houdé and Tzourio-Mazoyer, 2003). If we have “two minds in one brain” as stated by Evans (2003) or, in other words, two ways of thinking and reasoning, i.e., “fast and slow” (Kahneman, 2011), currently called “System 1” (intuitive system) and “System 2” (analytic system), then the crucial challenge is to learn to inhibit the misleading heuristics from System 1 when the more analytic and effortful System 2 (logico-mathematical algorithms) is the way to solve the problem (Houdé, 2000, 2019; Borst et al., 2013).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text