The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions
Open accessAbstract
How does space come to be used to represent nonspatial relations, as in graphs? Approximately 1200 children and adults from three language cultures, English, Hebrew, and Arabic, produced graphic representations of spatial, temporal, quantitative, and preference relations. Children placed stickers on square pieces of paper to represent, for example, a disliked food, a liked food, and a favorite food. Two major analyses of these data were performed. The analysis of directionality of the represented relation showed effects of direction of written language only for representations of temporal concepts, where left-to-right was dominant for speakers of English and right-to-left for speakers of Arabic, with Hebrew speakers in between. For quantity and preference, all canonical directions except top-to-bottom were used approximately equally by all cultures and ages. The analysis of information represented in the graphic representations showed an age trend; more of the older children represented ordinal and some interval information in their mappings. There was a small effect of abstractness of concept on information represented, with more interval information represented by children for the more concrete concepts, space, time, quantity, and preference in that order. Directionality findings were related to language-specific left-to-right or right-to-left directionality and to universal association of more or better with upward. The difficulties in externally representing interval information were related to prevalent difficulties in expressing comparative information. Children's graphic productions were compared to other invented notation systems, by children and by cultures, particularly for numbers and language.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basic objects in natural categories
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-x · Cited by 5,643
On the Theory of Scales of Measurement
Stevens, S. S. (1946) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 · Cited by 4,761
Tversky, B. (1992) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/0016-7185(92)90011-r · Cited by 272
Self-citation
Cited by
Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers.
Casasanto, D. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0015854 · Cited by 871
Chen, M. K. (2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.2.690 · Cited by 745
Metarepresentation: Native Competence and Targets for Instruction
diSessa, A. A. (2004) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2 · Cited by 543
Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1013180410169 · Cited by 431
Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797610386621 · Cited by 353
Metadata
- Authors
- Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A.
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 515-557
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989725131
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90005-9
- The paper
- Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., & Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90005-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.