Baillargeon

Question 1

what did baillargeon propose and how did it differ to Piaget

Answer 1

Baillargeon suggested babies had a better understanding of the world, apparent lack of ability due to poor motor skills or being distracted.

Piaget proposed children didn’t understand object permanence until 8 months.

Question 2

what research did baillargeon conduct

Answer 2

Violation of expectation research

Question 3

what did Violation of expectation research involve

Answer 3

Procedure: Babies attention to expected and
unexpected events is compared/timed.

E.G. Baillargeon and Graber showed 24 5-6-month-old babies’ a short and tall rabbit passing behind a window.

Findings Babies looked longer in unexpected condition (tall rabbit did not appear at the window).

Other studies tested understanding of containment and of support.

Question 4

what was Baillargeon’s theory of infant physical reasoning.

Answer 4

Babies are born with a physical reasoning system (PRS), basic understanding of physical world, including object persistence. Allows them to interpret events, e.g. baby sees an object block another they learn about occlusion

Question 5

strengths of baillargeon

Answer 5

• Validity of violation of expectation: Lack of object permanence in other studies may be because infant has been distracted, VOE eliminates this confounding variable. Also, fewer motor skills are needed for this research (just sat on a lap). Counterpoint: Acting in accordance with a principle is not the same as understanding it (Piaget).
• Validity and reliability: Only 24 p’s in the original study but repeated in different ways and contexts shows research is reliable e.g. Hespos and Baillargeon. Few demand characteristics, infants only a few months old, so valid.
• Can explain our universal understanding: All children appear to have some understanding of the physical world regardless of their experiences and culture (e.g. Dropping a key), suggests an innate PRS

Question 6

limitations of baillargeon

Answer 6

May not be object permanence. We cannot directly tell what a baby understands, we have to infer it from their behaviour. We are assuming that VOE response is to the unexpectedness, but all VOE research actually shows is that babies find certain events more interesting. Therefore the VOE method may not be a valid way to study very young child’s understanding of the physical world and undermines PRS. Counterpoint: but other research supports it, it fits with what we know about development of other systems, e.g. visual, so it is credible