Baillargeon's explanation of infant abilities Flashcards
definition of knowledge of the physical world
refers to our understanding of how the physical world works. an example of this knowledge is object permanence, the understanding that objects continue to exist when they leave the visual field. there is a debate concerning the ages at which children develop this kind of knowledge
definition of violation of expectation
method used to investigate infant knowledge if the world. idea is that if children understand how the physical world operate then they will expect certain things to happen in particular situations. if these do not occur and children show surprise, this suggests that they have an intact knowledge of that aspect of the world
how did Baillargeon theory compare to Piaget’s
-Baillargeon suggested that young babes had a better understanding of the physical world than Piaget suggested
-Baillargeon proposed that lack of understanding of object permanence could be explained differently. for example, young babies might lack the necessary motor skills to pursue a hidden object or they may just lose interest because they are easily distracted
what did Baillargeon research
violation of expectations
how did Baillargeon explain violation of expectations
in a typical experiment, babies see two tests events - an expected event which is consistent with the expectation examined in the experiment, and an unexpected event, which violates this expectation.
what is violation of expectation used to test
object permanence, infants will typically see two conditions in which objects pass in and out of sight
Baillargeon VOE experiment- researchers
Baillargeon and Graber
Baillargeon VOE experiment- sample
24 babies aged 5-6 months
Baillargeon VOE experiment- procedure
-familiarisation event where a baby is shown a short and tall rabbit disappearing behind a screen which fits expectations of object permanence
-in the expected condition the short rabbit now passes behind the screen with a window and, because of the height of the window, the short rabbit is not visible until it appears on the other side (the expected event could also be tall rabbit passing and being seen)
-the unexpected event a tall rabbit would not be seen through the window as it moved from one side of the screen to the other –> a baby who has object permanence would show surprise when shown the unexpected event
Baillargeon VOE experiment- findings
-unexpected event the babies looked for an average of 33.07 seconds at
-expected event babies looked for an average of 25.11 seconds
-this was interpreted as meaning that babies were surprised at the unexpected condition as for them to be surprised it follows that they must have known that the tall rabbit should have repapered at the window therefore demonstrating good understanding of object permeance
Baillargeon VOE experiment- what type of study
occlusion as one object occludes (in front of another)
other VOE studies
-test infant understanding of containment and support
-containment is the idea that when an object is seen to enter a container it should be there when the container is opened
-support is the idea that an object should fall when unsupported but not when is is on a horizontal surface
-in all these cases infants have shown that they pay more attention to unexpected events and so appear to have a good understanding of the physical world (Hespos and Baillargeon)
what is Baillargeon’s theory of infant physical reasoning
proposed humans are born with a physical reasoning system. basically we are born hardwired with both a basic understanding of physical world and also ability to learn more details easily. initially we have primitive awareness of physical world and this becomes more sophisticated as we learn from experience. one aspect of the world of which we have crude understanding form birth is object persistence.
how does Baillargeon’s theory of infant physical reasoning
similar to Piaget’s object permanence - idea than an object remains in existence and does not spontaneously akter in structure
Baillargeon’s theory of infant physical reasoning - how does development occur
-first few weeks of life babies begin to identify event categories. each event category corresponds to one way in which objects interact. for example, occlusions events take place when one object blocks the view of another. because a baby is born with a basic understanding of object persistence and quickly learns that one object can block their view of another, by the time they are tested in tasks like Baillargeon and Graber’s VOE with tall and short rabbits, babies actually have a good understanding that the tall rabbit should appear at the window. the unexpected event captures the baby’s attentions because the nature of their PRS emas they are predisposed to attend to new events that might allow them to develop their understanding of physical world
strength of Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities - validity of violation of expectation
-validity of VOE method
-VOE method gets around an important limitation of Piaget’s research, his assumption that when a baby loses interest in a hidden object they no longer believe it exists. Piaget’s method of studying object permanence cannot distinguish between this and the alternative possibility that the baby simply became distracted by other visual stimuli and therefore stopped looking in the original place. the VOE method overcomes this because distraction would not affect the outcome. in VOE the only thing being measured is how long the baby looks at the visual scene - looking away from the scene would not be recorded –> Baillargeon’s VOE method has greater validity than Piaget’s as confounding variable is controlled . this also provides support for her theory explaining early cognitive development
limitation of Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities - counterpoint to validity of violation expectation
-Piaget pointed out in acting in accordance with a principle is not the same as understanding it (Bremner). even if babies are able to recognise and devote more attention to unexpected events, this does not necessarily mean that they understand them. understanding something means it can be thought about consciously and applied to reasoning about different aspects of the world –> means that even though babies do appear to respond to unexpected conditions, this may not represent a change in their cognitive abilities
limitation of Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities - may not be object permanence
-assumption that response to VOE is linked to unexpectedness and hence object permanence
-Piaget suggested that babies respond to unexpected events but that this does not means they truly understand it. a further methodological issue is that babies’ response may not even be to the unexpectedness of the event. all VOE shows is that babies find certain events more interesting. we are inferring a link between this response and object permanence. actually, although the different length of time spent looking at two different events may well reflect one being more interesting than the other, this may not be because the baby sees it as unexpected. it could be interesting for another reason –> means that VOE method may not be entirely valid way to study a very young child’s understanding of physical world
strength of Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities - universal understanding
-Hespos and van Marle point out, we all have very good understanding of the basic characteristics of physical world regardless of culture and personal experience. for example, everyone understands that if we drop a key ring it will fall on the ground. this does not require past experience of dropping keys or even a culture that used keys. this universal understanding suggests that a basic understanding of physical world is innate. if it were not innate we would expect significant cultural and individual differences and there is no evidence of this –> innate basic understanding if physical world suggests Baillargeon’s PRS is correct
evaluation of Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities - credibility
-challenges to idea of PRS.not only is it difficult to determine whether a baby is really responding to unexpected nature of an event, but even if the baby is, this may not indicate real understanding
-however, one thing that enhanced credibility of PRS its consistency with that we already know about the development of other visual systems. for example, babies can use crude patterns to judge distance at an early age, but experience is needed to make use of more suitable visual cues
