Children tend to generalize novel labels to new, unlabeled objects (e.g., mutual exclusivity bias) when presented withone alternative category. Do children generalize in the same manner in a system of multiple alternative categories? Inthree experiments, a feature space was partitioned into three regions (i.e., two outer regions separated by an intermediateregion). Preschool-aged children learned labels for two competing categories that occupied the two outer regions of thefeature space. Children were then asked if any labels generalized to the unlabeled intermediate region. In Experiments1 and 2, the results showed that children generalized neither learned nor novel linguistic labels to the unlabeled region.In Experiment 3 objects were labeled with category information. Children generalized a single learned label but didnot generalize a novel label. These findings suggest that contrast between multiple alternative categories may decreasechildrens tendency to generalize novel labels to new, unlabeled objects.

Early math instruction often prioritizes rapid retrieval of mathematical facts, (e.g. 4 + 6 = ; 10), an approach thatpromotes quick recall of sums but with limited transfer to unstudied problems. We consider how this pattern changeswhen the learning scenario highlights the quantities that underlie symbols. Adult participants learned a novel base 8addition task using alphabetic symbols to indicate quantities (e.g. AG + AF = ). They practiced with symbols onlyor with symbols grounded in quantitative representations. When tested in the same format as participants were trained,studied problems were learned equally well but symbol-only learners transferred only to identical-elements problems (e.g.AG + AF transferred to AF + AG). Grounded learners showed better transfer to problems involving novel quantities.The results suggest, in contradiction to some other recent findings, that arithmetic transfer is boosted when the learningscenario highlights quantitative meaning denoted by number symbols.