Children's Conformity to the Cardinality Rule as

a Funetion of Set Size and Counting Accuraey

Karen C. Fuson and Geraldine C. Pergament

Northwestern University

Barbara G. Lyons
University of Illinois at Chicago

James W. Hall
Northwestern University

FUSON, KAREN C ; PERGAMENT, CERALDINE C ; LYONS, BARBARA C ; AND HALL, JAMES W. Chil-
dren's Conformity to the Cardinality Rule as a Function of Set Size and Counting Accuracy. CHILD
DEVELOPMENT, 1985, 56, 1429-1436. Young children must leam to count objects accurately, and they
must leam that the last word said in counting a set of ohjects tells how many objects there are in that
set (the Ccirdinality rule). In 3 experiments with preschoolers no difference across sets ranging from 2
to 19 ohjects was found in giving the last counted word as the answer to the question "How many
ohjects are there?" The relationship hetween children's response of the last counted word to a how-
many question and counting accurately varied with set size. For very small sets (2, 3,4), significantly
more children counted accurately and did not give last-word responses than vice versa. For sets from
4 to 7 ohjects, approximately equal numhers of children demonstrated only 1 of these ahilities and
not the other. For sets fTom 9 to 19, significantly more children gave last-word responses and did not
count accurately than vice versa. Children did not exhibit difficulty in coordinating last-word re-
sponding and counting accurately.

The three experiments reported here mean that the child knows the cardinality
were designed to examine how young chil- rule. An altemative possibility, pointed out
dren's conformity to the cardinality mle is af- earlier by Fuson and Hall (1983), is that the
fected by the size of the sets counted and by child has leamed a simpler mle: the last
counting accuracy. The literature presently counted word is the appropriate response to a
contains conflicting results about both size of how-many question. This simpler mle is a
sets and counting accuracy (see below). necessary but not sufficient part of fhe cardin-
ality rule, which also requires knowing that
The cardinality rule (Schaeffer, Eggles- fhe answer to the how-many question refers
ton, & Scott, 1974), or cardinality principle to fhe set as a whole and to die numerosity of
(Gelman & Gallistel, 1978), refers to the the set. Typical testing conditions for the car-
understanding that the final number-word dinality mle have not addressed the child's
spoken in counting a set of objects denotes knowledge of these cardinal attributes, and
the cardinality (numerosity) of tiiat set. Chil- thus those conditions are not sufficient to dis-
dren's conformity to the cardinality rule has tinguish between knowledge of the simpler
been tested by having children count a set of how-many rule and knowledge of the cardin-
objects and then answer the question "How ality rule. Because of that ambiguity, fhe more
many objects are there?" A response with the neutral and operational term "last-word re-
last word used in counting has been taken to sponse" will be used in this paper for a child's

We wish to thank Mrs. Elaine Spanier, the director, and the teachers, staff, and children of the
B'nai Torah Nursery School, Highland Park, IL, and the teachers and children of the Baker Demon-
stration School, Evanston, IL. Special thanks go to Lloyd Kohler and Cinny Neal—wonderful
experimenters with children. The flrst experiment in this paper is based on a Ph.D. dissertation
submitted hy the second author to the School of Education, Northwestern University. The second
experiment and an earlier draft of the paper were completed while the flrst author was a Visiting
Scholar at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin. Parts of this paper
were presented at the Piaget Society Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, June 1983. Requests for re-
prints should he sent to Karen C. Fuson at the School of Education, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL 60201.
[Child Development, 1985, 56, 1429-1436. © 1985 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/85/5606-0007$01.00]
1430 Child Development
answering a how-many question with the last
counted word.
The evidence is presently mixed with re-
spect to the effect of the size of the set
counted on the last-word response. Schaeffer
et al. (1974) reported a considerably higher
last-word response rate for the small sets of 2,
3, and 4 than for sets of 5, 6, and 7; that is,
they reported a decrease of the last-word re-
sponse with an increase in set size. However,
Schaeffer et al. included as correct last-word
responses the many cases for the small sets in
which a child did not count the set but simply
recognized the small set as a pattem and an-
swered the how-many question based on this
pattem. Ginsburg and Russell (1981) reported
the opposite result, that the last-word re-
sponse did not seem to be related to the size
of the set counted over sets of 3, 5, 8, and 11.
However, some of their children also used
pattern recognition, guessing, and other strat-
egies rather than counting before being given
the how-many question, so it is not clear
whether these children could give the last-
word response. Thus, neither of these studies
provides entirely clear data on this issue.
Celman and Gallistel (1978) observed a
very sharp decline in the extent to which chil-
dren gave the last-word response as sets in-
creased from 2 through 19. However, their
procedure had two attributes that may have
resulted in underestimating last-word re-
sponses. First, the children were not explic-
itiy given a how-many question on each of the
trials on which last-word responses were as-
sessed. Instead, on some trials the children
were just told to "Count fhem" or to "Co
ahead." Therefore, on these trials the child's
volunteering of the last-word response was as-
sessed rather than the child's ability to give
the last-word response when asked. Second,
when a how-many question was used, it was
given only before counting began. Thus it
seems possible that a child might forget the
how-many question during the course of
counting. Such forgetting might be especially
likely with larger sets where more time and
effort would be required for counting than
with small sets; such differential forgetting
that a how-many question had been asked
could have contributed to the reported de-
crease in last-word responses with an increase
in set size.
Wilkinson (1984) used a procedure in
which children were explicitiy asked the
how-many question on each trial and were
asked the question after the counting was
completed. He reported little effect of set size
on children's last-word responses over sets of
size 3 through 26, though last-word responses
were slightiy higher for sets of 3 than for 6
and were slightiy lower for sets of 19 and 26
than for 6, 9, and 12.
Several different positions also exist in
fhe literature with respect to the relationship
between counting accurately and last-word
responding. Two studies suggest that count-
ing accurately precedes giving last-word re-
sponses. Schaeffer et al. (1974) proposed that
children integrate their use of pattem recog-
nition of small numbers (subitizing) and the
counting procedure to form the cardinality
rule and then extend the use of the cardinality
rule to numbers larger than four only when
their counting of such numbers is accurate.
Consistent with this prediction, Schaeffer et
al. found many children who could count ac-
curately but did not give the last-word re-
sponse, while they did not find children who
showed the reverse pattem (did not count ac-
curately but did give the last-word response).
Gelman and Gallistel (1978) identified
three how-to-count principles: the cardinality
principle and two principles that underlie ac-
curate counting—the stable-order principle
and the one-one principle. The cardinality
principle was credited if a child gave last-
word responses (or exhibited behaviors from
which last-word responses could be inferred),
the stable-order principle was credited if a
child produced counting words in the same
stable order from trial to trial, and the one-one
principle was credited if a child gave each
counted object one and only one counting
word. Gelman and Gallistel reported that
children produce counting words in a stable
order and count one-one before they give a
last-word response and that, as set size in-
creases, children stop giving a last-word re-
sponse before they stop saying words in a sta-
ble order and stop counting one-one (also see
Gelman, 1982, and Gelman & Baillargeon,
1983).
A recent study (Celman & Meek, 1983)
indicated that on large sets children are cor-
rect in judging errors made by others in giv-
ing last-word responses even though fheir
own performance on those sets is incorrect in
some way (either in counting accuracy or in
giving last-word responses). However, in that
study, errors in giving last-word responses
were not separated from errors in counting.
Therefore it is not clear whether the giving of
last-word responses declined with increasing
set size nor is it clear whether last-word re-
sponses were given regardless of counting ac-
curacy.
 Fuson et al. 1431
Two studies failed to find a dependency For each trial, the board containing the
of last-word responses on accurate counting. row of objects was placed on the table in front
Cinsburg and Russell (1981) reported that of fhe child. Ghildren were told to count the
preschool children's last-word responses on objects, and after the counting was completed
sets of 3, 5, 8, and 11 did not seem to depend were asked, "How many X's are there?"
on counting accurately. However, this result where X was the type of object counted (ani-
might have been affected by the overgener- mals, dolls, soldiers, or blocks). If the child
ous criterion for last-word responses dis- counted again rather than responding to the
cussed above with respect to set-size effects. how-many question with a single number
Wilkinson (1984) did observe a relationship word, the how-many question was repeated at
between counting accuracy and last-word re- the end of this second count in order to en-
sponses, and the nature of that relationship sure fhat a failure to volunteer a single-word
depended on set size. For sets of 3, there response at the end of this second count was
were many more trials on which counting was not just due to forgetting that a how-many
accurate and last-word responses were not question had been asked. The experimenter
given than vice versa, whereas for sets of 6 recorded fhe number words said by each
and more there were many more trials on child, marked on a prepared drawing any ob-
which last-word responses were given and jects that did not receive exactiy one word
counting was inaccurate than vice versa. Wil- when the child was counting, and recorded
kinson proposed that counting skills may the child's response to the how-many ques-
emerge before last-word responses emerge, tion.
but that the latter may reach functional matu-
rity sooner. Furthermore, he suggested that Each child received six small sets, two of
children may have trouble coordinating their each size; 7 (or, occasionally, 10) days later
last-word responding with fheir execution of each child received six of the larger arrays,
accurate counting. Thus, even after both have two of each size. Order of set size was not
been acquired, only one may be displayed on counterbalanced in fhis first experiment be-
any given trial, especially on trials involving cause we did not want to discourage children
counting larger sets. This possibility was ex- by giving the larger arrays first. (This was also
amined in the present experiments. the procedure used by Celman and Gallis-
tel—their sets were given in increasing order
of size.)
In Experiment 1, three questions were
addressed: (1) Do last-word responses de- Results and Discussion
crease in frequency from sets just at and be- A child was scored as giving a last-word
yond the pattem recognition size (4, 5, 6) to response on a given set if the answer to the
sets considerably larger (9, 12, 14)? (2) How is how-many question was fhe last word the
last-word responding related to counting ac- child had said in counting that set. Note that
curately? and (3) To what extent do children this counting did not have to be accurate. A
have difficulty coordinating accurate counting child was classified as "an accurate counter"
and last-word responding? The same three is- if the child counted accurately on all of the
sues were addressed in the second experi- trials and did not give a last-word response on
ment for very small pattern-recognizable sets all of the trials, and was classified as "a last-
(2, 3, 4) and sets just larger than this (5, 6, 7) word responder" if the child gave a last-word
and, in the third experiment, for larger num- response on all of the trials and did not count
bers (16, 18, 19). accurately on all of the trials. For all of
the experiments, fhe analyses using these
classifications were also done using the more
Experiment 1 lenient criterion of correct performance on
Method two-thirds rather than on all of the trials. In all
Suhjects.—Forty-eight middle-class chil- but two cases the results of these analyses
dren ranging in age from 3-2 to 4-7 (mean 4-0) were consistent with those done with the
attending preschool in a suburb of Chicago stricter criterion and, therefore, are not re-
served as subjects. ported here. The results with both criteria are
reported for the two exceptional cases.
Materials and procedure.—The smaller To facilitate comparisons vi^ith the earlier
arrays contained 4, 5, or 6 objects; the larger Gelman and Gallistel results, in all experi-
contained 9, 12, or 14. Objects used were ments all analyses were redone with counting
small toys (animals, dolls, and soldiers) and 1- being classified as accurate if it satisfied the
inch wooden blocks. Objects were arranged one-one and the stable-order principles (i.e.,
in a single row and glued to a board. the use of a consistent but incorrect sequence
1432 Child Development
of number words was allowed). This re-
classification did not change any significant
results. Thus, in fhe following report and dis-
cussion sections, relationships between accu-
rate counting and last-word responses also
refiect relationships between use of the stable
order and one-one principles and the use of
the cardinality principle.
Turning to fhe data, children gave a last-
word response on 70% of the smaller and on
67% of fhe larger arrays. Thus, there was no
significant decrease in last-word responses
wifh increasing set size. As in earlier studies,
counting was much more accurate for the
smaller than for the larger sets: 75% vs. 44%
sets counted accurately.
Children were fairly consistent in giving
last-word responses across sets (see Table 1).
Across all 12 trials of the six different sets,
85% of the children either consistentiy gave
or consistentiy did not give a last-word re-
sponse on 11 of the 12 trials.
On the smaller set sizes (4, 5, 6), children
counted accurately and gave last-word re-
sponses to about the same extent (75% and
70%). However, an examination of the perfor-
mance of individual children revealed fhat
many children consistentiy demonstrated
only one of these skills and not the other.
Seven children were accurate counters and
13 children were last-word responders.
McNemar's test indicated that the number
of last-word responders did not differ
significantiy from the number of accurate
counters. Thus, for sets of 4, 5, and 6 neither
of fhese aspects of counting seems to precede
the other developmentally, and each oft^n ap-
pears without the other. For the larger sets
(9, 12, 14), McNemar's test indicated that
significantiy more children (18) were last-
w^ord responders than were accurate counters
NUMBER OF CHILDREN CIVING LAST-WORD RESPONSES ACROSS TRIALS (Experiment 1)
NUMBER OF TRIALS
SIZE OF SET 6 5 4 3
4 5 6 31 9, 0 1
9, 12, 14 26 4 3 1 1
NUMBER OF TRIALS
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14 .. .. 24 5 1 2 0
(2), x^(l,20) = 12.8, p < .01. Thus, for larger
set sizes, giving last-word responses seems
developmentally to precede rather tiian fol-
low the ability to count tiiose sets accurately.
There was littie evidence that children
were experiencing difficulty coordinating
counting accurately and giving last-word re-
sponses. If there is competition between
these two aspects of counting, one would ex-
pect fhat children would at times display each
of them without the other, especially for
larger sets where the competition might be
intensified. In fact, for the smaller sets only
one out of the 48 children sometimes showed
each aspect of counting without the other
(counted accurately and did not give a last-
word response on one trial and on a different
trial gave a last-word response and did not
count accurately). For the larger sets, only
four of the 48 children showed each aspect of
counting without the other.
Experiment 2
To test the conclusion of Schaeffer et al.
(1974) that children first give the last-word re-
sponse on very small pattern-recognizable
sets, in Experiment 2 last-word response per-
formance on sets of 2, 3, and 4 objects was
compared to that on 5, 6, and 7 objects. For
each set size, last-word responding was also
compared to accuracy of counting. Younger
children (2-year-olds) were also included in
order to see whether there were any differ-
ences in the relationships due to age.
The process that Schaeffer et al. called
pattem recognition is sometimes called sub-
itizing: the immediate apprehension of the
numerosity of small sets, generally sets of four
or fewer objects. It is not clear just what is
involved in this process, and different re-
searchers have made somewhat different pro-
TABLE 1
OVERALL OVERALL
LAST-WORD COUNTING
2 1 0 RESPONDING (%) AGGURACY(%)
0 9. 12 70 75
0 13 67 44
4 3 2 1 0
1 1 1 1 0 0 1 11 69 60

posals about this (Beckwith & Restie, 1966;
Chi & Klahr, 1975; Klahr & Wallace, 1976;
Mandler & Shebo, 1982; Schaeffer et al.,
1974). The term will be used here in its oper-
ational sense, with no position implied con-
ceming just what is involved in fhis process.
Method
The subjects were 45 middle- to upper-
middle-class children attending a preschool
in Madison, Wisconsin. There were 19 2-year-
olds ranging from 2-5 to 2-11 (mean age 2-8)
and 26 3- and 4-year-olds ranging from 3-0 to
4-3 (mean age 3-6).
The stimuli were small objects (animals,
girl dolls, boy dolls, trucks, pennies, blocks,
and pigs). Six trials were given on linearly
arranged objects of set sizes 2 through 7. Sets
of size 2, 3, and 4 (subitizable sets) were alter-
nated wifh sets of 5, 6, and 7 (nonsubitizable
sets). Half of the sample received a subitiz-
able set first and half received a nonsubitiz-
able setfirst.The questioning procedure and
recording procedures were identical to those
used in the first experiment. The experi-
menter was naive with respect to the issues in
this experiment.
Fuson et al. 1433
Results and Discussion
Because some authors consider only sets
of 2 and 3 to be subitizable by very young
children, performance on sets of 2 and 3 was
also compared to performance on sets of 5
and 7 (sampling from the nonsubitizable
sets). Last-word responding did not differ
significantiy across the subitizable and non-
subitizable sets for either age group, regard-
less of whefher subitizable sets were consid-
ered to be sets of 2, 3, and 4 or just sets of 2
and 3 (see Table 2). Thus no support was
found for the Schaeffer et al. suggestion that
children first give last-word responses for sub-
itizable sets and fhen later give such re-
sponses for nonsubitizable sets.
As in Experiment 1, the children were
fairly consistent in their giving of last-word
responses. The distribution in Table 2 is
bimodal, with 87% of the sample consistentiy
giving or consistently not giving last-word re-
sponses on five of the six trials.
The results comparing accurate counting
and last-word responding by age and set size
are presented in Table 2. A 2 (age: 2- vs. 3-
and 4-year-olds) X 2 (skill: last-word respond-

TABLE 2
NUMBER OF CHILDREN CIVING LAST-WORD RESPONSES AGROSS TRIALS (Experiment 2)

NUMBER OF TRIALS OVERALL OVERALL

LAST-WORD COUNTING
AGE 3 2 1 0 RESPONDING (%) AGGURAGY(%)

2-year-olds:
Set sizes 2 3 4 1 3 2 13 19 49
1 2 9. 14 16 21
3- and 4-year-olds:
Set sizes 2 3 4 16 0 3 7 65 92
Set sizes 5 6 7 . . 13 2 5 6 63 69

NUMBER
OF TRIALS

2 1 0

2-year-olds:
Set sizes 2 3 2 4 13 21 53
Set sizes 5 7 . . . . 3 2 14 21 16
3- and 4-year-olds:
Set sizes 2 3 15 4 7 65 92
Set sizes 5 7 . . . . 14 5 7 63 67

NUMBER OF TRIALS

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

2-year-olds 0 2 1 1 1 1 13 18 31
3- and 4-
12 2 2 0 1 5 4 64 81
1434 Child Development
ing vs. accurate counting) X 2 (set size) analy- difficulty coordinating accurate counting and
sis of variance with repeated measures for the last-word responses. Only one child some-
last two factors indicated that the main effect times demonstrated each skill without the
of age apparent in the Table (the older chil- other. Thus, the results from Experiment 1 on
dren did considerably and uniformly better in the relationship between counting accuracy
all cells) was significant, F(l,43) = 29.35, p < and last-word responding for sets just beyond
.001. The interaction between set size and the subitizing range were replicated here.
skill was significant, F(l,43) = 16.11, p <
.001. More subitizable sets were counted ac- Experiment 3
curately fhan were given last-word responses, In Experiment 1, last-word responses did
while the nonsubitizable sets were counted not decrease with set size and did not depend
accurately and given last-word responses to on counting accuracy for sets up to 14. In Ex-
fhe same extent. periment 3, somewhat larger set sizes were
Children who counted fhe subitizable examined and the order of set size was coun-
sets accurately could have answered the how- terbalanced. The smaller sets were given first
many question by subitizing the objects (the in Experiment 1, and there seemed to be
objects were not covered) rather than by giv- some chance that this might have induced
ing their last counted word. Such subitized more last-word responses on the larger sets.
responses would be quite difficult to distin- Method
guish from last-word responses, since the sub- The subjects were 24 middle- to upper-
itized answer would be the same as their last middle-class children between the ages of 3-6
counted word. However, only two children and 4-5 who attended a preschool in a differ-
showed response pattems that possibly re- ent suburb from fhat used in the first experi-
fiected such subitizing, fhat is, they each gave ment. The experimenter was also different
a last-word response on one subitizable set from the early experimenters and was un-
and no such responses on a nonsubitizable aware of the issues in this experiment.
set. Thus there was very littie evidence of
children subitizing after they had counted a The counting stimuli were irregularly
set. spaced red or blue dots arrayed in a row.
Cardboard strips contained 7, 8, 9, 16, 18, or
The analysis of perfonnance within indi- 19 dots. Smaller and larger strips were alter-
vidual children indicated no age difference in nated. Half of the children received a smaller
the proportion of children demonstrating only number (7, 8, 9) first. Two fixed orders of pre-
one aspect of counting and not the otiier. sentation were used. The questioning proce-
Therefore the data were pooled across age for dure, recording, and scoring were like those
further analyses. For the subitizable sets (2, 3, used in the first experiment.
4), there was littie evidence that children
were having trouble coordinating last-word Results and Discussion
responding and accurate counting. Only two There was no set-size difference in the
children sometimes exhibited each of these giving of last-word responses: children gave
skills without the other. McNemar's test at the last-word responses on 92% of the smaller and
more lenient two-fhirds criterion indicated on 92% of the larger sets. Counting accuracy
that significantiy more children (16) were did differ by set size; children counted accu-
accurate counters than were last-word re- rately on 78% of the sets of 7, 8, and 9 objects
sponders (1), x^(l,17) = 13.24, p < .01. At tiie and on 19% of tiie sets of 16, 18, and 19 ob-
stricter criterion of use of a skill on all three jects.
trials, the respective numbers of single-skill
users were in the same direction (8 and 2), but Children's last-word responding was per-
McNemar's test was not significant. Thus, ap- fectiy consistent: 22 children gave such re-
parentiy children typically count subitizable sponses on all six sets and two children never
sets fairly, though not necessarily perfectiy, gave them. Thus there was no evidence of
accurately before they give a last-word re- difficulfy in coordinating accurate counting
sponse for these sets. and last-word responding.
The above relationship did not hold for At both set sizes the relationship be-
the nonsubitizable sets (5, 6, 7). For these the tween last-word responses and counting accu-
nonsignificant McNemar test indicated that racy was as it had been for the sets of 9, 12,
the number of accurate counters (six children) and 14 in Experiment 1. For both the smaller
did not differ significantiy from the number of and larger sets with the strict criterion,
last-word responders (six children). There McNemar's test indicated that significantiy
was littie evidence of children experiencing more children were last-word responders

thian were accurate counters, 8 versus 1 and
19 versus 0, x^(l,9) = 5.44, p < .05, and x^(l,
19) = 19.00, p < .01, respectively. For tiie
smaller sets at the more lenient two-thirds cri-
terion, the number of single-skill users did
not differ significandy but the direction of the
difference was the same.
General Diseussion
The three experiments here showed no
difference in the extent to which last-word re-
sponses are given across sets ranging from 2
to 19 objects. Over set sizes and over repeated
trials of fhe same set size, individual children
were fairly consistent in their last-word re-
sponding. Thus, last-word responses do seem
to be based on a mle or a principle that, once
leamed, is applied over a wide range of set
sizes.
The relationship between giving last-
word responses and counting accurately
varies with set size. For fhe very small sets of
2, 3, and 4, children ordinarily count accu-
rately before they give last-word responses.
For sets of 4 through 7, many children count
accurately before they give last-word re-
sponses, but a roughly similar proportion give
last-word responses before they count accu-
rately. For sets larger than this, many children
give last-word responses without counting ac-
curately and almost no children do the re-
verse. This reversal with set size in the rela-
tionship between last-word responding and
accurate counting is consistent with the
findings of Wilkinson (1984), except that in
that study no set sizes were found with
roughly equivalent demonstrations of these
skills. This may be because half of the count-
ing tasks in that study were more difficult
than those used here.
The use of a criterion that assessed count-
ing as acctirate if the counting satisfied the
stable-order principle and the one-one princi-
ple resulted for each experiment in the same
pattem of results as the criterion of fully accu-
rate counting. Thus, these experiments indi-
cate that the relationships among Celman and
Gallistel's three how-to-count principles vary
by set size in the manner discussed above. In
particular, for sets larger than 8, many chil-
dren give last-word responses but do not ex-
hibit both the stable order and one-one prin-
ciples, whereas the reverse is rarely observed.
The present evidence did not provide
support for the Schaeffer et al. (1974) pro-
posed hierarchic integration of pattem recog-
nition of small numbers (subitizing) with the
counting procedure to form the cardinality
Fuson et al. 1435
rule. Children did not give more last-word re-
sponses on subitizable sets than on non-
subitizable sets regardless of whetiier 2, 3,
and 4 or just 2 and 3 were considered to be
subitizable sets. Individual response pattems
also revealed littie evidence of subitizing to
answer the how-many question.
These experiments indicate that few chil-
dren evidence any difficulty in coordinating
accurate counting and giving a last-word re-
sponse. Rather, for smallish sets, a substantial
number of children exhibit one but not the
other of these. Thus neither of these aspects
of counting requires the other. Why some
children begin to count accurately before they
leam that the last counted word answers fhe
how-many question while others leam this
last-word response before counting accurately
is an interesting question for future research.
Taken together, these results suggest that
initially the last-word response may not
necessarily be linked to notions of cardinality.
First, after counting, few children seem to
subitize very small sets to answer the how-
many question. Second, that giving last-word
responses does not depend on accurate count-
ing reveals a lack of understanding that the
specific numerosity of a set depends on accu-
rate counting (and/or reveeJs a conviction that
one's counting is always correct). Third, even
though it would seem to be a bit more
difficult to conceptualize a numerosity of a
large set than of a much smaller set, no set-
size difference was found for giving last-word
responses. Thus, the last-word response may
initially be for many children only a rule
about the answer to a how-many question (a
how-many rule) rather than a cardinality rule.
Referenees
Beckwith, M., & Restie, F. (1966). The process of
enumeration. Psychological Review, 73, 437-
444.
Chi, M. T. C , & Klahr, D. (1975). Span and rate of
apprehension in children and adults. Joumal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 434—
439.
Fnson, K. C , & Hall, J. W. (1983). The acquisition
of early number word meanings: A conceptual
analysis and review. In H. Cinsburg (Ed.), The
development of children's mathematical think-
ing (pp. 49-107). New York: Academic Press.
Celman, R. (1982). Basic numerical ahilities. In R.
Stemherg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of
human intelligence (pp. 181-205). Hillsdale,
NI: Erlhaum.
Celman, R., & Raillargeon, R. (1983). A review of
some Piagetian concepts. In I. H. Flavell & E.
Markman (Eds.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.),
1436 Child Development
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cogni-
tive development (pp. 167-230). New York: Wiley.
Celman, R., & Callistel, C. R. (1978). The child's
understanding of number. Camhridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Celman, R., & Meek, E. (1983). Preschoolers'
counting: Principles hefore skill. Cognition,
13, 343-359.
Cinshurg, H. P., & Russell, R. L. (1981). Social class
and racial influences on early mathematical
thinking. Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, 46(2, Serial No.
193).
Klahr, D., & Wallace, I. C. (1976). CognUive de-
velopment: An information-processing view.
Hillsdale, NI: Erlhaum.
Mandler, C , & Sheho, B. J. (1982). Suhitizing:
An analysis of its component processes. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3,
1-22.
Schaefifer, B., Eggleston, V. H., & Scott, J. L. (1974).
Number development in young children. Cog-
nitive Psychology, 6, 357-379.
Wilkinson, A. C. (1984). Children's partial knowl-
edge of the cognitive skills of counting. Cogni-
tive Psychology, 16, 28-64.