Jesus Case

We conducted Experiment 4 to address an aspect of the design

used in Experiments 1 and 2 that might limit the conclusions we

can draw from the results of these experiments. Our children might

have succeeded in the nonverbal response paradigm even though

they were unable to hold a dual representation of the deceptive

object's apparent and real properties. In both experiments, the

children were not given alternative objects with which they could

reasonably choose to respond to the experimenter's appearance

and reality requests. For both requests, in addition to the deceptive

object, the children were presented only with a baby training cup,

an apple, a rubber ball, and a paper tissue (or a children's book) as

alternatives. Because most of these alternatives were so different

from what was requested, the children might have chosen the

deceptive object not because they had a dual representation of the

deceptive object but because it shared some similarities with the

requested object.

For example, in the reality request part of the rock-sponge task,

when asked to give the experimenter something with which to

wipe spilled water (the reality request), phenomenist children (i.e.,

those who thought the rock-sponge looked like and really was a

rock) might have chosen the rock-sponge for wiping not because

they thought it was a sponge but because it was one of the

alternatives that was most similar to a sponge (e.g., the rocksponge's

soft tactile quality). In the reality request part of the

crayon-candle task, when asked to give the experimenter something

to put on the cake, phenomenist children (i.e., those who

thought the crayon-candle looked like and was a crayon) might

have chosen it as a candle not because they thought it really was

a candle but because it was more similar to a candle than any of the

other alternatives (e.g., both crayon and candle were elongated).

The same argument can be made about the appearance request.

In the rock-sponge task, when asked to provide an object that

looked like a rock, realist children (i.e., those who thought the

rock-sponge looked like and really was a sponge) might have

chosen the rock-sponge as their response because that alternative

was most similar to a rock on certain dimensions (e.g., the rocksponge's

rugged surface). They might not have thought that the

rock-sponge actually resembled a rock at all. In the crayon-candle

task, realist children (i.e., those who thought the crayon-candle

looked like and really was a candle) might have given the experimenter

the crayon-candle in response to the appearance request

not because they thought the crayon-candle actually looked like a

crayon but because it was the only alternative that shared common

attributes with the crayon (e.g., both crayon and candle had an

elongated shape). Despite the fact that most 3-year-olds appeared

to respond correctly to both the appearance and reality requests in

Experiments 1 and 2, they might not have made these responses on

the basis of their understanding of the A-R distinction. Their

success in the nonverbal response paradigm of Experiments 1

and 2 might not have reflected their ability to hold a