Baillargeon's Explanation of Early Infant Abilities Flashcards
Baillargeon’s exp of early infant
Baillargeon was critical of Piaget’s research of cogdev between the age of 0-2. According to her, it is possible that younger babies do not pursue a hidden object simply bc they 1) lack the specific motor abilities that allow them to do this or 2) they may lose interest in the hidden object bc their selective attention is not developed enough to stop themself from becoming distracted (instead of thinking it has stopped existing). -> VoE research
Violation of Experiment research
Conditions: infants see two events: an expected event (which is in line with what the infants expect in that situation) and an unexpected event (which violates the expectation of the infant)
Method: In expected event - a tall object was visible as it passed behind a screen with a window. In the unexpected event - tall object didnt appear when it passed behind a screen with a window.
Results: found that infants on avg stared at unexpected event for 33.07 secs whereas expected event was avg of 25.11 secs.
Conclusion: as infants stared longer at unexpected event, shows they must have known that the tall object continues to exist even when behind the obstacle as they assumed the object should appear in the window. This shows they have some understanding of object permanence.
Conditions of VoE research:
infants see two events: an expected event (which is in line with what the infants expect in that situation) and an unexpected event (which violates the expectation of the infant)
Method of VoE research:
In expected event - a tall object was visible as it passed behind a screen with a window. In the unexpected event - tall object didnt appear when it passed behind a screen with a window.
Results of VoE research:
infants on avg stared at unexpected event for 33.07 secs whereas expected event was avg of 25.11 secs.
Conclusion of VoE research:
as infants stared longer at unexpected event, shows they must have known that the tall object continues to exist even when behind the obstacle as they assumed the object should appear in the window. This shows they have some understanding of object permanence.
What is Physical reasoning system (B’s theory based on VoE research)
What PRS is:
- According to B, babies r born with a PRS - a basic hard wired understanding of the physical world. These give the infant a head start to understand other details - This understanding refines and becomes more sophisticated with experience
- She argues that infants initially have rudimentary understanding of the physical properties of the world, e.g. object permanence - the innate ability to realise objects remain in existence despite not being seen.
Object permanence:
the innate ability to realise objects remain in existence despite not being seen.
The function of PRS:
the function of PRS is that it allows unexpected events to capture infant’s attention. Thus we r hardwired to pay attention to novel events. This helps us develop new knowledge about the physical world and thus cognitively develop.
Extra study:
- infants shown a cover with a protuberance (covered bump) suggesting a hidden object under the cover. Infants aged 9.5 months showed surprise wen the cover was removed and there was nothing under it, didnt show surprise when object revealed was much smaller than protuberance suggested - demonstrates that infants initially have a very basic understanding of the physical world. However, 12.5 month old children showed surprise when there was a mismatch in the protuberance and object- shows that understanding becomes more refined and sophisticated with age.
Strength of B’s research: has higher validity compared to other research in the field such as Piaget’s
B used a less biased sample using birth announcements in local paper as participant pool to pick from, compared to P who researched on his own children and thus was bias. Furthermore extraneous variables such as communication with parents (as the children were sat in parents lap during the task) was controlled by asking parents to keep eyes shut and not communicate with children. Lastly, a double blind design was used in the experiment - observers who measured infant reaction didn’t know whether expected/ unexpected event was shown to infant.
SB: high control allowed B to eliminate EVs in her procedure. Therefore, we can be more confident in the validity of her VoE research
A weakness of B’s exp- has been criticized in terms of measurement of the VoE through an infant’s stare.
Critics argue that it is hard to judge what an infant is thinking based purely on measuring the duration of gaze. B assumes infants staring longer at an object means their expectations have been violated. In reality - may not be the case. Different lengths of stares doesnt mean they see events as expected/unexpected. May b other reasons for y they stare, e.g. colour or movement more interesting. Therefore B’s assumptions of staring=recognition of unexpected event could be a false conclusion - reduces the validity of her research
A weakness of B’s research - she may have made inadequate conclusions abt object permanence.
Bremner believed P may have been right abt object permanence rather than B. P’s concept of cogdev is that a child shouldn’t just react to environmental changes but UNDERSTAND these changes and principles behind them to demonstrate cogdev. B’s research shows that children may REACT to situations and be SURPRISED by it before 8 months - but doesn’t prove they understand WHY it is unexpected and therefore doesn’t prove they have object permanence. Therefore OP may come with biological maturation so P’s ideas of OP r perhaps accurate. Suggests B’ over estimated the cognitive abilities of infants. Thus her research on VoE decreases in validity.
A strength of B’s research- her arguments regarding the innate nature of cog abilities as well as how they get more sophisticated over time is in line with general consensus.
While it is difficult to directly test B’s idea of an innate PRS, the concept itself is consistent w/ other findings within the research into cog abilities. Pei et al found that infants can use crude patterns to judge distance at an early age - these patterns lay the foundation for the development of more sophisticated understanding of the world. e.g. using texture to judge depth. Shows that the innate ability of depth perception becomes more sophisticated with time. It is therefore plausible that the innate PRS also becomes more sophisticated with time. As this is in line with B’s assertions - theory increases in validity.
