Cognition and Development Flashcards
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development
Piaget was a very influential Swiss psychologist who developed a theory of cognitive development based on natural maturation of children and their interaction with the environment.
He said children think in different ways to adults (they do not simply know less). He said that children’s ability to reason and understand the world develops by expanding their schemas (he referred to them as scientists- learning through trial and error).
Piaget claimed that children are motivated to develop because when faced with a new experience they feel disequilibrium (an unpleasant sensation when new information is not easily explained by existing schemas).
The child must either assimilate or accommodate the new information.
Assimilation occurs when a child experiences something new which their existing schemas can make sense of. They will add the new information to the existing schema (perhaps they are learning that dogs bark for the first time when previously they had only seen them in a picture book).
When the child comes across a new experience that their existing schemas cannot make sense of they must change existing schemas or form a new one (perhaps they see a cat for the first time when they only have a schema for dogs) this is called accommodation.
When assimilation or accommodation has occurred the child will be back in equilibration (when new experiences and existing schemas are in balance).
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development A03
esearch support for the fact that each child makes their own mental representations comes from Howe who found that children in groups of 4 came to different conclusions about a topic they were given to discuss. Therefore this supports Piaget’s theory that children create their own mental representations.
Piaget’s ideas have also revolutionised classroom teaching. For example, children are now more likely to have activity-based lessons (especially in maths and science) to construct their own understanding. Where before rows of desks and teachers instructing from the front may have been the norm. Therefore, this theory has strong practical applications.
However, Piaget may have underplayed the role of other people in development. He focused on the mind of the individual learner and didn’t put much emphasis on other people. Whereas other theories such as Vygotsky’s saw the interaction with others as essential. This is not really taken into account in Piaget’s work, so it could be seen as incomplete.
Furthermore, Piaget may have underplayed the role of language in learning. He saw language as developing in line with other abilities (as a result of natural maturation). Whereas, others (such as Vygotsky) saw language as shaping our understanding of the world. Therefore, Piaget’s theory may not be complete.
Piaget’s stages of intellectual development
Piaget claimed that cognitive development occurs in 4 stages. These stages occur in the same order in all children and children have different levels of reasoning ability at each stage.
The first stage is the sensorimotor stage (0-2 years), in this stage infants learn through circular reactions (trial and error). At about 8 months infants develop object permanence (realising that an object still exists even when it is out of view).
The 2nd stage is the pre-operational stage (2-7 years). During this stage the child shows errors in reasoning. They are egocentric (can only see the world from their own point of view), they cannot conserve (realising that quantity remains the same despite a change in appearance).
They also fail class inclusion (recognising that classes of objects have subsets). The 3rd stage is the concrete operations stage (7-11 years). At this stage children are no longer egocentric and can conserve quantity but they need concrete materials to manipulate to perform operations (reasoning tasks).
The final stage is formal operations (11+). In this stage children are able to perform reasoning tasks without concrete materials and can understand abstract concepts.
Piaget’s stages of intellectual development A03
Support for Piaget’s pre-operational stage comes from his three mountains task. He asked children to describe what a doll could see (the doll would have a different view to the child). 4 year old children tended to describe their own perspective rather than the dolls showing that they were egocentric supporting Piaget’s claims about the age group.
However, Piaget has been criticised for underestimating infant abilities. He claimed that infants develop object permanence during the sensorimotor stage at around 8 months. Baillargeon has conducted extensive research on infants’ early abilities and she found that they displayed object permanence at a significantly younger age (as young as 3 months). Her method of the length of time they looked at an impossible even is arguably more valid than his of whether they reached for the hidden object so this casts some doubt on his conclusions about object permanence.
Piaget’s methods for determining children’s abilities at different stages have been further criticised in relation to the conservation test. During this test the child witnesses the transformation and may think that they are expected to say that they quantity has changed so they may in fact be able to conserve but are responding to demand characteristics. If this is true Piaget’s conclusions about when children can conserve would not be valid.
However, Piaget’s stages of intellectual development have been applied in educational settings and are in fact hugely influential in modern schools. They have helped teachers to understand what different aged children are ready for and what they would not be able to achieve. For example, children in the concrete operations stage need concrete materials to manipulate (such as an abacus or blocks) and would not be able to do hypothetical reasoning tasks. This understanding is reflected in the curriculum for maths and science so is a useful application of this theory.
Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development
Vygotsky agreed with Piaget that children’s reasoning abilities develop in sequence but he also saw cognitive development as being a social process shaped by more experienced others (expert) “…what a child can do with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow.”
He said that knowledge was first intermental (between more and less expert individuals) and then intramental within the mind of the less expert individual.
He also saw language as playing an integral role in shaping learning. He claimed that culture is essential in shaping our development.
A key element of culture is our social environment. The people around us shape our development. So the experts that children learn from will differ from culture to culture therefore there will be cultural differences in cognitive development.
He claimed that more knowledgeable other people will guide children through their zone of proximal development.
The ZPD is the gap between the child’s current level of development and what they can potentially understand.
Expert assistance (scaffolding) allows the child to cross the ZPD.
Scaffolding is help given by experts to cross the ZPD. The help is gradually reduced as the learner crosses the ZPD (becomes more able). For example the adult will demonstrate the skill (draw with crayons for the child) then they will support the child’s hand, then let them try alone to draw the same thing, then simply ask them to draw a picture.
Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development A03
There is research support for the existence of the zone of proximal development. Roazzi and Bryant gave 4-5 year children a task of estimating the number of sweets in a box. One group had the aid of an older child, and one group did not. The children being supported were able to master the task and the children working alone did not. This suggests children can develop additional reasoning skills with the help of an expert and that the ZPD is a valid concept.
There is further evidence for the idea of scaffolding. Conner and Cross conducted a longitudinal study in which they observed children engaging in problem solving activities with the help of their mothers. They observed that over time mothers used less and less direct intervention. This suggests that experts do scaffold children to competence.
Vygotsky’s concepts have useful applications to education. Activities such as group work and peer tutoring have become more and more prevalent. Eg Van Keer found that 7 yr olds tutored by 10 yr olds (as well as their normal teaching) progressed more in reading than the control group. Therefore Vygotsky’s ideas are practical and can be used to help children to progress.
Vygotsky assumed the process of learning was the same in all children but this does not take into account individual differences in learning styles. For example, a very shy child may not do well in a group work situation. Therefore different personality types should be taken into account and perhaps a combination of Piaget and Vygotsky’s methods should be used in the classroom to accommodate different personality types.
Selman’s levels of perspective taking
Selman developed a stage theory to explain the development of social perspective taking in childhood. Social perspective taking is understanding what other people are thinking or feeling. Piaget proposed that physical and social perspective taking develop together but Selman proposed that social perspective taking was a separate process. Selman developed 5 levels of perspective taking by looking at the changes that occurred with age in the responses to a scenario where the child must take the role of someone else. One such scenario involved a girl called Holly who had promised her father that she wouldn’t climb trees but who came across a friend who’s kitten was stuck in a tree. The task was to describe and explain how each person would feel if Holly did or did not climb the tree to rescue the kitten.
0: 3-6 years – Socially egocentric – cannot distinguish between their own perspective and the perspectives of others
1: 6-8 – Social informational role taking – Can tell the difference between own and others; point of view but assume it is because they have different information
2: 8-10 – Self-reflective role taking – can understand that 2 people can have different perspectives on the same information but can only consider one at once.
3: 10-12 – Mutual role taking - can look at a situation from 2 perspectives at the same time
4: 12+ - Social and conventional system role taking – can now see the situation from a social point of view, they know that seeing another person’s point of view is not necessarily enough to reach an agreement and social conventions are needed.
Selman’s levels of perspective taking A03
There is research evidence for perspective taking abilities developing with age. Selman initially supported his theory with a cross sectional study on 4-6 year olds and found a significant positive correlation between age and ability to take different perspectives. However this study could suffer from individual differences between participants so Selman also conducted a longitudinal study which followed the same children at different ages (no possible participant variables here). This further supported that perspective taking abilities develop as we age.
There is mixed evidence for the importance of perspective-taking in prosocial behaviour. Some research suggests that as children age and develop perspective taking abilities they become less coercive with their parents (Buijzen) this would be a prosocial development. However, Gasser found that children who bullied others were able to take others’ perspectives which suggests that perspective taking may not be an important factor in socially desirable behaviour.
Some have also criticised this theory for being overly cognitive. It emphasises the importance of understanding another point of view but neglects developments that are emotional such as emotional self-regulation and the empathy which are also important in social development. Therefore this theory is reductionist as it reduces social cognition to purely thought processes.
However, Selman’s levels of perspective taking and Piaget’s stages of intellectual development can be seen side by side. For example Selman’s socially egocentric level falls at the same age as Piaget’s preoperational stage (where he also claims children are egocentric in physical perspective taking). This strengthens Selman’s work as Piaget’s well established stages support his ideas about development progressing with age.
Theory of mind (including as an explanation for autism)
Theory of mind is our personal understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling (the ability to understand their mental state). It could be referred to as ‘mind-reading’. It is an essential part of social cognition as it allows us to anticipate the actions/ feelings of others without verbal communication. It has been described as understanding that other people have minds that are separate from our own.
Research suggests that we are not born with a theory of mind but that it develops with time. Psychologists have developed ‘false belief tasks’ to investigate whether children have theory of mind. False belief tasks investigate whether a child can understand that someone else might believe something that the child knows not to be true. An example of a false belief task is the Sally-Anne task, a story of two dolls which can be acted out for children to make it easy for them to understand. It goes like this: “Sally puts her marble in her basket and leaves the room. Anne moves the marble to her box. Sally returns. Where will she look for the marble?” If the child answers “the basket” they have theory of mind, if they answer “the box” then they do not. Children can generally answer this question correctly at age 4.
Baron-Cohen used this test to explain the deficit experienced in autism. He found that autistic children could not correctly answer the question (20% correct responses) whereas children with Down’s syndrome (and children with no diagnosis) could answer correctly. Baron-Cohen concluded that a deficit in theory of mind might be an explanation for autism.
More advanced theory of mind tests include the Eyes Task (also developed by Baron-Cohen). This involves looking at a picture of some eyes and identifying the emotion displayed. Children with Asperger’s (a mild form of autism associated with problems with empathy and social communication) were found to be successful on the false belief task suggesting they did have theory of mind but they struggled on the eyes task showing that that did have a slight deficit in this area and further supporting a deficit in theory of mind as an explanation for autistic spectrum disorders.
Theory of mind (including as an explanation for autism) A03
There has been some criticism of validity of false belief tasks in measuring theory of mind. Even though thousands of studies have used the Sally-Anne task some are critical of this approach. Some argue that these tasks require abilities other than theory of mind such as the ability to remember what they have just seen which may be too much for 3 year olds. When ASD children are given visual aids to remind them what they have just seen they can succeed in the task at a younger age which questions the internal validity of the approach and conclusions made about ToM as an explanation for ASD.
The eyes task can also be criticised for lacking external validity as viewing static eyes on their own is not really representative of real life experience of interpreting mental states in others (eg we would see a moving complete face with tone of voice to add to the picture). So perhaps this is not a useful task to determine real life deficits.
The concept of ToM has also been challenged because some argue that it is too close to Selman’s perspective-taking. This is the cognitive ability to take the point of view of others. Understanding mental states is incredibly similar to this ability. So perhaps they should be considered together rather than separately. Perhaps the research into ToM is in fact measuring perspective taking. This is a further challenge to the idea that lacking ToM is a complete explanation for ASD.
It seems clear that ASD does at least involve a deficit in ToM but many have criticised the explanation as being incomplete. There are some characteristics of autism that cannot be explained by lacking ToM such as superior visual attention and highly systematic reasoning. Therefore, this cannot be a complete explanation of ASD.
The mirror neuron system in social cognition A01
A mirror neuron is a neuron (nerve cell) that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron mirrors the behaviour of the other and though the observer were itself acting. The mirror neuron system has been proposed as an explanation for the development of social cognition.
Rizzolatti discovered mirror neurons by accident. They were measuring activity in the motor cortex of monkeys (which controls movement) and they observed activity in this area when the monkey watched an experimenter reach for food. Mirror neurons have been found to respond to intentions of others (not just seeing them move- knowing what they are intending to do). It is also suggested that MNs fire in response to others’ perspectives and emotional states which is how they allow us to interpret what others are thinking and feeling. This might be connected to our processing of facial expressions which links the social cognition with movement which they had been previously implicated in. Ramachandran states that we could not live in large groups without an understanding of others so MNs have helped us to develop as a social species (this suggests that they have been instrumental in evolution). Mirror neurons may also be involved in autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Ramachandran proposed the “broken mirror theory” where dysfunction in mirror neurons prevent a child from imitating and understanding social behaviour in others so they fail to develop these abilities.
The mirror neuron system in social cognition A03
Rizzolatti’s research has been criticised, on the grounds of extrapolation from monkeys to humans. Gopnik claims that we cannot extrapolate these findings as monkeys lack theory of mind (which humans have). Therefore, the conclusions about mirror neurons in humans may not be completely valid.
However, there has been further evidence to support the application of these findings in humans. Haker put Ps in an fMRI scanner and showed them clips of yawning. They found activity in Brodmann’s area when they also yawned. This is an area known to be rich in mirror neurons so the researchers claimed that they were watching mirror neurons in action.
There is a significant difficulty in studying mirror neuron activity in humans because the evidence comes from brain scans which show us activity levels in different areas of the brain not activity in specific cells. This is therefore a general observation of the area and researchers must infer that they are observing mirror neurons. This is not direct evidence.
There is also mixed evidence for abnormal mirror neuron activity in ASD. Hadjikhani reports that some studies have found less activity in areas that have mirror neurons but not all studies. Therefore this may not provide us with a complete picture of the brain of someone with ASD.
