This repo contains the data reported in Srinivasan, M., Foushee, R., Bartnof, A., and Barner, D. (2018). Linguistic Conventionality and the Role of Epistemic Reasoning in Children's Mutual Exclusivity Inferences. *Cognition*. Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Mahesh Srinivasan, Department of Psychology, 2121 Berkeley Way West, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA, E-mail: srinivasan@berkeley.edu. --- ### Abstract: To interpret an interlocutor’s use of a novel word (e.g., “give me the papaya”), children typically exclude referents that they already have labels for (like an “apple”), and expect the word to refer to something they do not have a label for (like the papaya). The goal of the present studies was to test whether such mutual exclusivity inferences require children to reason about the words their interlocutors know and could have chosen to say: e.g., If she had wanted the “apple” she would have asked for it (since she knows the word “apple”), so she must want the papaya. Across four studies, we document that both children and adults will make mutual exclusivity inferences even when they believe that their interlocutor does not share their knowledge of relevant, alternative words, suggesting that such inferences do not require reasoning about an interlocutor’s epistemic states. Instead, our findings suggest that children’s own knowledge of an object’s label, together with their belief that this is the conventional label for the object in their language, and that this convention applies to their interlocutor, is sufficient to support their mutual exclusivity inferences. Additionally, and contrary to the claims of previous studies that have used mutual exclusivity as a proxy for children’s beliefs that others share their knowledge, we found that children — especially those with stronger theory of mind ability — are quite conservative about attributing their knowledge of object labels to others. Together, our findings hold implications for theories of word learning, and for how children learn about the scope of shared conventional knowledge. ---------- ### Overview of repo files ## #### Publication files The **Preprints** folder contains pdfs of the manuscript and supplementary online materials. **SrinivasanFousheeBartnofBarner2019.pdf** Manuscript pre-print **Srinivasanetal2019_SOM.pdf** Supplementary online materials ## #### Data files **data.csv** Data from all experiments reported in manuscript. **data_exp3rating.csv** Data from reviewer-recommended supplemental condition for Experiment 3, wherein adults provided object choice responses on a continuous scale ## #### Analysis files **manuscript_analyses.Rmd** R markdown document containing analyses reported in the manuscript and Supplementary Materials. **manuscript_analyses.html** HTML document containing analyses reported in the manuscript and Supplementary Materials **supplemental_exp3_analyses.Rmd** R markdown document containing analyses reported in the Supplementary Materials corresponding to Experiment 3 continuous rating condition **supplemental_exp3_analyses.html** HTML document containing analyses reported in the Supplementary Materials corresponding to Experiment 3 continuous rating condition ## #### Procedural documentation The folder **Study Procedure References** contains documentation of the exclusion and disqualification criteria used in-lab and general notes on the procedure used in training research assistants. The subfolder **Example Scripts and Data Sheets** contains an incomplete set of the combination experimenter-script/data sheets used in each experimental condition, organized in subfolders by experiment, as reported in the manuscript. The set is incomplete because not all counterbalanced stimuli presentation orders are represented. ---------- ### Data columns ...with possible values and description: **Exclude?**: "yes", "no" + whether to exclude participant **age.mos**: numeric + age of participant in months (calculated from DOB and date of test) **ageGroup**: "3-4.5", "4.5-6", "Adult" + age group of participant (younger & older children, adults) **avoidBool**: 1 (yes), 0 (no) + whether participant classified as an "overlap avoider" as per Diesendruck & Markson (2001), that is, selected previously-unlabeled object on 4 or more test trials out of 6 total **avoidNum**: [0:1] + proportion trials selected unlabeled object **naming**: "Pedagogical"", "Coined" + whether labeled object name introduced pedagogically (Exps 1, 3) or coined with child (Exps. 1, 2) **order**: 1, 2, 3, 4 + which of four presentation orders subject experienced, counter-balancing which of the two objects was labeled, and whether labeled or unlabeled object was introduced first **puppet**: "Present", "Absent" + whether puppet was present or absent for labeling episode (between subjects condition) **question**: q[1-6]b, pt, tom[1-5] + question type and order (possible ones vary depending on Exp) + e.g., q1b: first trial object choice; pt: post-test question; tom1: first question in theory of mind battery **response**: 0, 0.5, 1 + question response (meaning of value depends on question type) + for "choice" questions, 0=selecting previously-labeled object, 1=previously-UNlabeled (mutual exclusivity inference) + for "know" and "hear" types, 0=No, 0.5=Maybe, 1=Yes + for "tom" question types, 0=incorrect, 1=correct **seq**: [1:19] + number of question/trial in sequence **sex**: 0, 1 + 0=female, 1=male **study**: 68.0, 68.2, 68.3, 68.4, 68.6 + in-lab study id code **subject**: subject id **type**: "choice", "know", "hear", "tom" + question type; + choice=object choice: "Can you give me the [bem]?" + know=puppet knowledge: in Exp. 1, "Do you think Percy knows the names of the toys we played with?"; in Exps. 2-3, "Does Percy know we call this a [dax]?" + hear=post-test manipulation-check in Absent conditions: “Do you think Percy could hear us from inside his house?” + tom=theory-of-mind battery questions + name=puppet knowledge in Exp. 4 **tomAvg**: [0:1] + proportion theory of mind trials correct **tomBin**: "0-.2", ".2-.4", ".4-.6", ".6-.8", ".8-1" + theory of mind performance bin **knowWords**: "Yes", "No", "Maybe" + participant evaluation of whether Percy knows toy names **hearWords**: "Yes", "No", "Maybe" + participant post-test evaluation of whether Percy could hear names from inside his house during study **study1**: 1, 2, 3, 4 + Experiment number corresponding to manuscript **choice** _(Experiment 3 Rating Condition Only)_: "unlabeled", "labeled", "dontknow", "gradient", "yes" "no" + for object choice (type=="choice") questions: + unlabeled=participant marked scale extreme indicating unlabeled object + "labeled"=participant marked scale extreme indicating labeled object + "dontknow"=participant marked box in center of scale between labeled and unlabeled objects + "gradient"=participant marked elsewhere on line + for knowledge (type=="know") questions: + "yes", "no", "dontknow" = responses to question, "Do you think Percy knows we call this a [dax]?" **centimeters** _(Experiment 3 Rating Condition Only)_: [-6:6] + distance in centimeters from "don't know" box on scale, with marks to the left (toward the labeled object) entered as negative numbers, and marks to the right (toward the unlabeled object) entered as positive numbers