Cognition and Development Flashcards
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Define cognitive development
cognitive development: the development of mental processes including thinking, reasoning and our understanding of the world
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Piaget looked at children’s learning, in particular at two aspects. What are they?
- the role of motivation in development
- how knowledge develops
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
True or false: Piaget thought children simply know less than adults but they still learn in the same way.
False
Piaget thought children do not simply know less than adults but they think in entirely different ways
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Outline what is meant by a schema and give an example.
schema: mental framework of beliefs and expectations that influence cognitive processing
- developed through individual experience
- unique to each individual
- e.g.) “sixth form” associated with chocolate cake, french lessons, winter ball etc
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
When do schemas develop in children? Explain your answer.
- children are born with simple schemas that allow them to interact with the world, e.g. sucking, grasping
- as soon as we are born we begin to construct new schemas including the ‘me-schema’
- me-schema = all the knowledge that we store about ourselves
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Explain Piaget’s theory about the motivation to learn.
- when we don’t understand something (our existing schemas don’t allow us to make sense of a new situation/experience) we experience the unpleasant sensation of disequilibrium
- to escape disequilibrium, we adapt to new situations by developing our understanding and therefore achieving the preferred mental state of equilibration
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Explain Piaget’s theory about how learning takes place.
we adapt by expanding our understanding through…
- assimilation: we expand our pre-existing schema by adding new information, e.g.) expanding our schema of ‘dog’ when we see a different breed for the first time
- accommodation: response to dramatically new experiences by radically changing or even forming new schema, e.g.) creating a new schema of ‘cat’ because your current schema of ‘dog’ doesn’t help you understand this new animal (cat)
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Give one strength of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development regarding research support.
P: One strength of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is that there is research support for the existence of schemas
E: For example, Howe et al (1992) placed children aged 9-12 in groups of 4 to investigate and discuss the movement of objects down a slope. Following this activity, all children were shown to have developed their understanding. However, their understanding had not become more similar, instead each child had picked up different facts and reached slightly different conclusions.
E: This is a strength because it supports the theory of schemas being mental framework built through experience and the theory of assimilation because their pre-existing understanding (their schema) had increased (been extended) by adding new info.
E: However, one issue with Howe’s research and Piaget’s theory itself is that the concept of schemas is abstract. It is impossible to scientifically test the existence of schemas, which means psychology lacks falsifiability and this weakens its claim to be a science.
L: As a result, whilst the concept of schemas appears to have research support, this is not empirical and we should be mindful about the conclusions we draw in relation to schemas.
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Give one strength of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development regarding real-world application.
P: One strength of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is that it has real-world application in the education system.
E: For example, traditional classrooms with students coping from the board have been replaced with ‘activity-orientated’ classrooms in which children actively engage in tasks that allow them to construct their own understanding of the curriculum. This is known as ‘discovery learning’.
E: This is a strength because Piaget-inspired approaches have been successful in the development of education practice, and this improves outcomes for children and students.
E: However, Harmsen (2016) found that discovery learning with considerable input from a teacher was the most effective way to learn. Therefore, it may be that discovery learning, on its own, isn’t sufficient for cognitive development as Piaget would have predicted.
L: As a result, whilst the contribution of Piaget has been significant, psychologists should be mindful of the extent to which Piaget’s concepts can be applied in isolation.
PIAGET’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Give one limitation of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development regarding the role of motivation.
P: One weakness of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is that he may have overstated the role of motivation.
E: For example, his original sample (which be based his original theories on) are considered to be unrepresentative asd they were highly intelligent and included Piaget’s own children. Furthermore, a follow-up sample that he studied was children in a university nursery.
E: This is a limitation because Piaget has suggested that all children acquire new knowledge as they are innately motivated to escape the unpleasant sensation of disequilibrium. However, it may be that the samples that he based his conclusions on were more motivated to acquire information about the world than most children.
E: Furthermore, it highlights Piaget’s emphasis on nature over nurture in relation to motivation. It could be that some children are more motivated to acquire knowledge because of their early childhood experiences, e.g. parents encouraging them to explore their environment.
L: As a result, a more credible approach to understanding the role of motivation in learning would be to take an interactionist approach - that motivation is both innate and learned from others.
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Name the 4 stages of intellectual development in order, according to Piaget, and state what ages they occur in.
Sensorimotor stage: 0-2yrs
Pre-operational stage: 2-7yrs
Concrete Operational stage: 7-11yrs
Formal Operational stage: 11+yrs
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
True or false: Piaget says that every child will go through the same stages of intellectual development at fixed ages
False: the stages themselves are universal and fixed, but the ages vary for each child
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Describe the key characteristics that occur at the Sensorimotor stage of development, according to Piaget.
Sensorimotor stage: 0-2yrs
- early focus: physical sensations and developing basic coordination
- learn by trial and error that they can deliberately move their body in a particular way, and eventually other objects
- acquire some basic language
- object permanence (@ 8 months): the ability to realise that an object still exists even when it is out of the visual field
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Describe the key characteristics that occur at the Pre-operational stage of development, according to Piaget.
Pre-operational stage: 2-7yrs
- conservation: the basic mathematical understanding that quantities remain constant despite changes in appearance
- egocentrism: to only see the world from your point of view
- class inclusion: an advanced classification skill where we realise that classes have subsets and classes are themselves subsets of larger classes. e.g. dogs are dogs as well as animals (not two separate categories)
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Describe the key operations which occur at the Concrete Operational stage of development, according to Piaget.
Concrete Operational stage: 7-11yrs
- can conserve and perform better on ecocentrism and class inclusion tasks
- have better externally verifiable reasoning abilities (called ‘operations’) but strictly concrete (only applied to physical objects in child’s presence)
- struggle to reason about abstract ideas/to imagine objects or situations they cannot see (this appears in final stage)
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Describe the key characteristics which occur at the Formal Operational stage of development, according to Piaget.
Formal Operational stage: 11+yrs
- formal reasoning: children can focus on FORM of an argument and not be distracted by its content, which can be tested with pendulum tasks or syllogisms (Smith et al (1998))
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
What situation/experiment(s) did Piaget conduct to come up with his conclusion about conservation? (these can be used as evidences in PEELs for a strength of his research)
- Piaget placed two rows of 8 identical counters side by side
- even young children correctly reasoned that both rows have the same number of counters
- however, when the counters in one of the rows were pushed closer together, pre-operational children struggled to conserve and usually said there were fewer counters in that row
- liquid conservation procedure: when two identical containers (A and B) were placed side by side with the contents are at the same height. most children spotted that they contained the same volume of liquid
- however, if the liquid was poured into a taller, thinner vessel (C), younger children typically believed there was more liquid in the taller vessel
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
What situation/experiment did Piaget conduct to come up with his conclusion about egocentrism? (this can be used as evidence in a PEEL for a strength of his research)
Piaget and Inhelder (1956) three mountains task:
- children shown 3 model mountains, each with a different feature: a cross, a house or snow
- a doll was placed at the side of the model so it faced the scene from different angle from the child
- the child was asked to choose what the doll would see from a range of pictures
- pre-operational children tended to find this difficult and often chose the picture that matched the scene from their own point of view
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
What situation/experiment did Piaget conduct to come up with his conclusion about class inclusion? (this can be used as evidence in a PEEL for a strength of his research)
Piaget and Inhelder (1964):
- 7-8 year old children shown pictures of 5 dogs and 2 cats
- children were asked, “Are there more dogs or animals?”
- children tended to respond that there were more dogs, which Piaget interpreted as meaning that younger children cannot simultaneously see a dog as a member of the dog class and the animal class
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
What situation/experiment did Piaget conduct to come up with his conclusion about formal reasoning? (this can be used as evidence in a PEEL for a strength of his research)
- using Smith et al’s procedure (1998): “All yellow cats have 2 heads. I have a yellow cat called Charlie, how many heads does Charlie have?” (correct answer = 2)
- Piaget found that younger children became distracted by content and answered that cats don’t have two heads
–> when children can reason formally, they are capable of scientific reasoning and can appreciate abstract ideas
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
What acronym can be used to remember the stages of intellectual development in order?
Some Monkeys Play On Cars, Others Fall Off
SensoriMotor, Pre-Operational, Concrete Operational, Formal Operational
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Outline one limitation of Piaget’s stages of intellectual development, regarding conservation research.
P: One limitation of Piaget’s conclusions about conservation is that there is contradictory research.
E: For example, McGarrigle and Donaldson set up an experiment where the counters appeared to have moved by themselves. In one condition, they replicated the Piaget task with 4-6-year-olds and, like Piaget, found that most children answered incorrectly (which row has more counters?). However, in another condition a ‘naughty teddy’ appeared and knocked the counters closer together and 72% correctly said there were the same number of counters as before.
E: This is a limitation because it shows that Piaget was wrong about children not being able to conserve in the pre-operational stage (2-7) which in turn suggests that he was wrong about the age at which conservation appears.
E: However, this contradictory research studies children aged 4-6, which does not account for the whole of Piaget’s pre-operational stage of intellectual development, which is 2-7. This means that the ability of children aged 2, 3 and 7 to conserve has not been taken into account, which threatens the validity of these findings.
L: As a result, the validity of Piaget’s conclusions about the age at which conservation occurs is weakened, thus casting doubt over his other conclusions about the stages of intellectual development.
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Outline one limitation of Piaget’s stages of intellectual development, regarding class inclusion research.
P: One limitation of Piaget’s findings on class inclusion is that they are contradicted by newer research.
E: For example, Siegler and Svetina (2006) gave 100 5-year-olds from Slovenia ten class inclusion tasks and gave feedback after each task. The condition that received an accurate explanation of class inclusion (“there must be more animals because dogs are a subset of animals”) went on to improve their scores, suggesting that the children had acquired a real understanding of class inclusion.
E: This is a limitation because it suggests that the difficulty of Piaget’s tasks meant that the children couldn’t show that they understood class inclusion when actually they could show this ability on tasks that were easier to understand.
E: However, this contradictory research is culturally biased due to the sample being all Slovenian children. This weakens the claim of Siegler and Svetina’s research because their findings aren’t generalisable to all children in the pre-operational stage, just Slovenian children. This perhaps suggests that they underestimated the validity of Piaget’s conclusions.
L: As a result, the credibility of Piaget’s conclusions about class inclusion is weakened, but only to a certain extent.
PIAGET’S STAGES OF INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
Outline one limitation of Piaget’s stages of intellectual development, regarding egocentrism research.
P: One limitation of Piaget’s conclusions about stages of intellectual development is that there is a lack of support for his view on egocentrism.
E: For example, Hughes (1975) tested the ability of children to see a situation from two different viewpoints using a model with two intersecting walls and three dolls (a boy and two police officers). Once familiarised with the task, 3 1/2-year-old children were able to position the boy doll where the police officer “could not see him” 90% of the time and 4-year-olds could do this 90% of the time when there were two police officers to hide from.
E: This is a weakness because it shows that when presented with a task that makes more sense (as opposed to the confusing 3 mountains task), children were able to decentre and imagine other perspectives much earlier than Piaget proposed. This again suggests that Piaget underestimated the abilities of younger children and that his stages are incorrect.
E: However, this limitation doesn’t mean that the characteristics of the stages themselves are incorrect, just that Piaget incorrectly concluded the age at which children go through these stages. This restores some credibility to Piaget’s research.
L: As a result, the validity of Piaget’s conclusions about stages of intellectual development, and specifically egocentrism, is weakened, but only to a certain extent.
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Give one similarity and one difference between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s beliefs about cognitive development.
similarity: both believed children’s reasoning ability develops in a particular sequence and that they are qualitatively different at different ages
difference: Vygotsky believed that learning was a social process or learning from more experienced others; that knowledge is first intermental (between expert and child) before it is intramental (in the mind of the child)
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Outline what is meant by the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
- ZPD = gap between the child’s current level of development (what they can understand and do alone) and what they can potentially understand after interaction with expert others.
- children cross the ZPD through expert assistance (scaffolding)
- children learn facts and acquire more advanced reasoning abilities through social interaction
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Outline what is meant by scaffolding. Refer to research from Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976).
- scaffolding: all kinds of help that adults or advanced peers can offer to help an individual cross the zone of proximal development
- Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) said that scaffolding can include 5 levels of help:
5) demonstration (most level of help)
4) preparation for the child
3) indication of materials
2) specific verbal instructions
1) general prompts (least level of help)
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Is Vygotsky’s research culturally biased? Explain why/why not.
no, he took cultural differences into account by explaining that learning and reasoning abilities are acquired from those that the individual has contact with (e.g. parents/teachers), which will differ through cultures/reflect an individual’s culture
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Outline a strength of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development regarding supportive evidence.
P: One strength of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development is that there is supportive evidence.
E: For example, Roazzi and Bryant’s experiment (1998) gave 4-5 year-olds the task of estimating the number of sweets in a jar. Children in one condition (A) were working alone with no expert help and children in the other condition (B) had help from an older child (e.g. offering prompts, pointing younger children in the right direction). The children with expert help (B) more accurately estimated the number of sweets in a box.
E: This is a strength because it supports the idea that experts (such as older children who are more knowledgeable) help children cross the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) through scaffolding since those with expert help performed better than those who didn’t.
E: Furthermore, additional support has been found for the role of scaffolding, such as that of Cross (2003). He did a longitudinal study where he observed 45 children engaging in problem-solving tasks with the help of their mothers at 16, 26, 44 and 54 months. Distinctive changes in help were seen over time - the mothers used less and less intervention and more hints and prompts as children gained experience. This supports the role of scaffolding because [the mothers were following the 5 levels of help, which was outlined as a kind of scaffolding.]
L: As a result, the credibility of Vygostky’s theory of cognitive development is increased.
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Outline a weakness of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development regarding contradictory evidence.
P: One limitation of Vygostky’s theory of cognitive development is that there is contradictory evidence for more experienced others.
E: For example, Liu and Matthews (2005) pointed out that in China, classes of up to 50 children learn very effectively in lecture-style classrooms with very few individual interactions with peers or tutors. This shouldn’t have been possible if Vygotsky’s theory had been completely correct.
E: This is a weakness because his theory may be limited in application since scaffolding from a more knowledgeable other may not be crucial to effective learning for everyone, for example in China.
E: However, Vygotsky had already accounted for cultural differences in his research since he said that children learn the mental tools acquired from those they come into contact with (i.e. parents, teachers etc.) which will inevitably differ between cultures.
L: As a result, the point made by Liu and Matthews may not be as great a weakness as once thought.
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Outline a strength of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development regarding real-world application.
P: One strength of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development is that it has real-world application in the education system.
E: For example, the idea that children can learn more and learn faster with appropriate scaffolding has raised expectations of what they can achieve. Social interaction in learning, through group work, peer tutoring and individual adult assistance from teachers and TAs, has been used to scaffold children through their ZPD. Evidence from Keer and Verhaege (2005) suggests that these strategies are effective. [They found that 7-year-olds tutored by 10-year-olds, in addition to their whole-class teaching, progressed further in reading than control groups with standard whole-class teaching. Furthermore, Alborz (2009) concluded that TAs are effective at increasing the rate of learning in children.]
E: This is a strength because it shows that children learn more due to the assistance of a more knowledgeable other (such as teachers or TAs) who provide scaffolding, as suggested in Vygotsky’s theory.
E: Furthermore, this has positive implications for the economy because those who learn more and learn faster (due to the scaffolding from experts) have more opportunities for/in higher education and are more likely to get a degree, which in turn allows for better-paid jobs for the individual, who can therefore contribute more to the economy.
L: As a result, the credibility of Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development is increased.
VYGOTSKY’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Are the following statements true or false?
1) Piaget and Vygotsky agree that cognitive development is mostly the same universally.
2) Piaget and Vygotsky differ in their views of learning since Vygotsky says that learning is an individual process which becomes more social whereas Piaget says it’s a social process which becomes more individual.
3) Piaget and Vygotsky both place great emphasis on the role of nurture more than nature.
0/3 = 1
1/3 = 2
2/3 = 3
3/3 = 5
1) False, Vygotsky says cognitive development differs from culture to culture and from one historical era to the next.
2) False, other way around!
3) False, Piaget places greater emphasis on nature (innate desire to understand and learn) and Vygotsky places greater emphasis on nurture (the assistance from more knowledgeable others)
0/3 = 1
1/3 = 2
2/3 = 3
3/3 = 5
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
Outline what is meant by a physical reasoning system, according to Baillargeon.
physical reasoning system (PRS):
- babies are born with it
- PRS means we are hardwired with a basic understanding of the physical world (e.g. object persistence/permanence) and the ability to pick up new info quickly
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
How does Baillargeon’s explanation differ from Piaget’s?
Piaget: infants have limited understanding of the world and only develop object permanence at 8 months
Baillargeon: lack of object permanence may be explained by a young baby’s lack of motor skills to pursue a hidden object or they lose interest because they are easily distracted
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
Outline the procedure of Baillargeon’s method of Violation Of Expectation (VOE).
- Baillargeon and Graber (1987) tested 24 babies aged 5-6 months.
- they used an occlusion test where one object occludes/blocks another.
- familiarisation event: babies were shown two rabbits (tall and short) passing behind a screen with a window and disappearing (fitting with our expectation)
- test event: condition one, baby is shown the short rabbit passing behind screen with a window but is too short to be seen through the window and so is only visible when object comes out the other side
- test event: second condition: baby is shown a tall rabbit passing behind the screen with a window but is not seen through it, which violates our expectation
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
Outline the findings of Baillargeon’s investigation of Violation Of Expectation.
babies looked on average for 33.07 seconds at the unexpected event compared to 25.11 seconds at the expected event
- researchers inferred this as the babies being surprised by the unexpected event => for them to be surprised they must have object permanence
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
What are the two variations of Baillargeon’s Violation Of Expectation investigation?
containment variation: when an object enters a container it should still be there when the container is opened
support variation: when an object is unsupported it should fall but not when placed on a horizontal surface
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
Outline a limitation of Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities regarding her reliance on inferences.
P: relies on inferences (low internal validity)
E: claims that if the infant looked at the unexpected situation for a long time then they must have been surprised; to be surprised they must have object permanence
E: cannot know for sure that they even understood what they were seeing, let alone being surpised at it; it could be that they were simply interested in/entertained by what they saw - inferences decrease validity of theory about early infant abilities (unscientific)
E: PLUS unscientific nature of inferences (falsifiability and objectivity) weakens psychology’s claim to being a science
L: credibility reduced due to unscientific, low validity conclusions
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
Outline one strength of Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities regarding universality.
P: One strength of Baillergeon’s explanation of early infant abilities is that the physical reasoning system is considered a universal tendency.
E: Hespos and van Marle (2012) suggest we all have a very good understanding of the basic characteristics of the physical world regardless of culture and personal experience.
E: if you were to drop a book, you would expect it to fall to the floor and make a loud noise - an assumption that requires no cultural-specific knowledge => physical reasoning system based on a universal knowledge that knowledge of the physical world is innate, therefore supporting Baillargeon’s theory of early infant abilities being innate.
E: BUT: infants in her studies were aged 5-6 months old (not newborns) => her claim that this trait is universal and innate cannot be supported by the research and group that she decided to investigate.
E: PLUS: Baillargeon also recognises that our physical reasoning system is built and developed through interaction with the environment, which additionally highlights the role of nurture in cognitive development. Therefore Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities adopts an interactionist approach to explaining cognitive development that is in line with modern-day understanding of complex human behaviours.
L: As a result, the credibility of Baillargeon’s explanation for early infant abilities is increased.
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION OF INFANT ABILITIES
Outline one strength of Baillargeon’s explanation for early infant abilities, regarding determinism // psychology being a science.
FINISH
P: One strength of Bailargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities is that it takes a deterministic stance.
E: For example, …
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Outline what is meant by social cognition.
Social cognition:
- the mental processes we make use of when we engage in social interaction
- e.g. we make decisions based on our understanding of a social situation
- both the understanding and the decision-making are cognitive processes
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Fill in the blanks:
Selman’s (1971) research on perspective-taking is based on the idea that children develop the understanding that other people have ___, ___, ___ and ___ that are different to their own.
Perspective-taking develops via a range of ___ and at specific ___ of a child’s development, according to Selman.
Unlike _’s theory, which states that children develop both ___ and social perspective-taking at the same time, Selman believed that social perspective-taking develops separately from ___ perspective-taking.
In his three mountains task ___ is measuring ___. This is an example of physical perspective-taking i.e. can you stand in my shoes and see what I am seeing.
Selman was interested in social perspective-taking – this refers to our ability to think about a social situation from the ___ ___ ___ of other people, can you understand what someone else is thinking and feeling. This underlies much of our social ___.
0/15 = 1
4/15 = 2
7/15 = 3
11/15 = 4
15/15 = 5
Selman’s (1971) research on perspective-taking is based on the idea that children develop the understanding that other people have thoughts, feelings, viewpoints and attitudes that are different to their own
Perspective-taking develops via a range of mechanisms and at specific stages of a child’s development, according to Selman
Unlike Piaget’s theory, which states that children develop both cognitive and social perspective-taking at the same time, Selman believed that social perspective-taking develops separately from cognitive perspective-taking.
In his three mountains task Piaget is measuring egocentrism. This is an example of physical perspective taking i.e. can you stand in my shoes and see what I am seeing.
Selman was interested in social perspective-taking – this refers to our ability to think about a social situation from the point of view of other people, can you understand what someone else is thinking and feeling. This underlies much of our social interaction.
0/15 = 1
4/15 = 2
7/15 = 3
11/15 = 4
15/15 = 5
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Outline the procedure of Selman’s (1971) perspective-taking research.
Procedure:
- 30 boys and 30 girls
- 20 4-year-olds, 20 5-year-olds, 20 6-year-olds
- given tasks involving asking them how each person felt in various scenarios
- holly scenario: holly promised her father she will no longer climb trees but then comes across a friend whose kitten is stuck up a tree.
- task was to explain how each person (holly, father, friend) would feel if holly did or didn’t climb the tree to rescue the kitten
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Selman’s (1971) perspective-taking research led him to theorise 5 stages of perspective-taking. Describe the 1st stage and include the following:
- the stage number
- the stage name
- the age at which children are in this stage
- a description of behaviour in this stage
- a child in this stage’s response to the Holly dilemma
- Stage 0: Socially egocentric
- Age: 3-6 years
- Description: the child is unaware of any perspective other than their own. they can’t distinguish between their own emotions and those of other people.
- Response to the Holly dilemma: the child will assume that Holly’s father will not mind Holly climbing the tree as he will think the same as the child does (the child wants the kitten to be saved).
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Selman’s (1971) perspective-taking research led him to theorise 5 stages of perspective-taking. Describe the 2nd stage and include the following:
- the stage number
- the stage name
- the age at which children are in this stage
- a description of behaviour in this stage
- a child in this stage’s response to the Holly dilemma
- Stage 1: Social-information role-taking
- Age: 6-8 years
- Description: the child can now tell the difference between their own perspective and that of others, but they can still only focus on one perspective. the child assumes that any difference in their perspective and someone else’s is due to the other person lacking all the information about a situation.
- Response to the Holly dilemma: the child will assume that if Holly shows her father that the kitten is stuck up the tree then he won’t be angry because he will then have the same information as Holly does, meaning they will then have the same perspective.
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Selman’s (1971) perspective-taking research led him to theorise 5 stages of perspective-taking. Describe the 3rd stage and include the following:
- the stage number
- the stage name
- the age at which children are in this stage
- a description of behaviour in this stage
- a child in this stage’s response to the Holly dilemma
- Stage 2: Self-reflective role-taking
- Age: 8-10 years
- Description: the child can now put themselves into someone else’s position and fully understand their perspective, but they can still only focus on one perspective at a time (e.g. they cannot compare two perspectives, which would require being able to focus on both at the same time)
- Response to the Holly dilemma: the child will assume that Holly’s father will not be mad because he will understand why she wanted to save the kitten (Holly’s perspective), but that he will still be concerned about her safety (the father’s perspective).
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Selman’s (1971) perspective-taking research led him to theorise 5 stages of perspective-taking. Describe the 4th stage and include the following:
- the stage number
- the stage name
- the age at which children are in this stage
- a description of behaviour in this stage
- a child in this stage’s response to the Holly dilemma
- Stage 3: Mutual role-taking
- Age: 10-12 years
- Description: the child can now consider a situation from their own perspective and someone else’s at the same time (e.g. they can explain how their perspectives differ, which requires focusing on both perspectives at the same time).
- Response to the Holly dilemma: the child will assume that Holly will understand why her father thinks like he does when he sees her behaviour, at the same time as appreciating her own reasons for climbing the tree.
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Selman’s (1971) perspective-taking research led him to theorise 5 stages of perspective-taking. Describe the 5th stage and include the following:
- the stage number
- the stage name
- the age at which children are in this stage
- a description of behaviour in this stage
- a child in this stage’s response to the Holly dilemma
- Stage 4: Social and conventional system role-taking
- Age: 12+ years
- Description: the child realises that understanding someone else’s perspective is sometimes not enough to reach an agreement. they understand social conventions are needed to keep order (e.g. they have an understanding of ethical norms and how they play a part in people’s perspectives).
- Response to the Holly dilemma: the ethical conventions around the protection of animals justify Holly’s actions and that surpasses anyone’s perspectives.
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
What acronym can we use to remember the names of each of Selman’s stages of perspective-taking?
Even silly idiots still remeber more stress creates sadness
Egocentric, Social Informational, Self Reflective, Mutual, Social Conventional System
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Since his research on perspective-taking, Selman has recognised that his stages of cognitive reasoning do not fully explain social development, so he proposed that there are three aspects to social development - briefly outline each one.
- Interpersonal understanding: (what Selman measured in his earlier perspective-taking research) if we can take different roles then we can understand social situations.
- Interpersonal negotiation strategies: as well as understanding what others think in social situations we also have to develop skills in how to respond to them, e.g. asserting our position and managing conflict.
- Awareness of personal meaning of relationships: as well as understanding social situations and how to manage them, social development also requires the ability to reflect on social behaviour in the context of different relationships. e.g. you would deal with conflict with a friend differently from how you would with a teacher.
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Outline one limitation of Selman’s (1971) levels of perspective-taking, regarding a narrow viewpoint.
P: One limitation of Selman’s levels of perspective-taking is that his explanation can be considered too narrow.
E: For example, perspective-taking is a cognitive ability, however there is far more to children’s social development than their increasing cognitive abilities. By focusing on the cognitive element of development, Selman’s approach fails to take into account the full range of other factors that impact a child’s social development. Other internal factors include the development of empathy and emotional self-regulation. There are also important external factors including parenting style, family climate and opportunities to learn from peer interaction.
E: This is a weakness because it is a reductionist approach, which means Selman reduces the complex behaviour of social cognition to the cognitive ability of perspective-taking, and therefore neglects the important influence of these other internal and external factors that dictate a child’s social development. This casts doubt over the validity of Selman’s levels of perspective-taking because it doesn’t offer a complete explanation for social development.
E: However, a reductionist approach can be beneficial in helping psychologists understand a deficit in this particular aspect of social cognition (perspective-taking), which in turn can help parents understand the cognitive deficit in their children. Parents can then account for this deficit to guide and help them to develop this perspective-taking ability.
L: As a result, the credibility of Selman’s levels of perspective-taking is reduced due to the narrow, reductionist viewpoint, but only to a certain extent due to the benefits of the real-world appplication in parenting.
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Outline one strength of Selman’s (1971) levels of perspective-taking (P-T), regarding research support for his stages.
P: research support for his stages
E: (his own research, holly scenario, 60 kids ages 4-6), significant +ve correlations between age and P-T ability; plus his cross-sectional research has since been supported by findings of longitudinal studies which have seen an inprovement in P-T ability over time
E: increased validity for his stages due to strogn evidence base
E: PLUS not gender bias due to equal sample of boys and girls in each age group so increased validity of evidence base for levels of P-T
L: increased cred of theory due to strong, not gender bias evidence base
SOCIAL COGNITION: SELMAN’S LEVELS OF PERSPECTIVE-TAKING
Outline one limitation of Selman’s (1971) levels of perspective-taking, regarding nature over nurture.
P: emphasises nature over nurture
E: evidence of cultural differences: Wu and Keysar (2007) found American children to be sinificantly less advanced than matched Chinese children, suggests cultural influences (our environment) maybe important in development of P-T
E: Selman believed stages of P-T based primarily on cognitive maturity (i.e. bioligically driven, programmed into development) and hence universal => he has neglected role of environemnt
E: more credible approach would be interactionist where he also takes into account the role of peer learning, like Vygotsky does
L: credibility of Selman’s levels of P-T is reduced due to emphasis of nature over nurture
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline what is meant by theory of mind. How can this be an explanation for autism?
theory of mind: our personal understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling, often known as ‘mind-reading’
- common explanation for defecits seen in autism (broad term for wide range of behaviours, commonly recognised on a spectrum)
- individuals with autism typucally face difficulties in social interaction/communication and repetetvie and restrictive behaviours
- but as a spectrum condition, it affects people in different ways and can sometimes co-occur with a learning disability
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline the following way of assessing Theory of Mind, in typically and atypically developing children:
Intentional reasoning in toddlers
Meltzoff (1988):
- children of 18 months absovered adults place beads into a jar
- experimental condition: adults appeared to struggle with this and some beads fell outside the jar
- control condition: adults placed beads successfully in jar
- both conditions: toddlers did successfully place beads in jar + no more beads in experminetal condition than control condition
=> suggests children were imitating what the adults intended to do rather than what they actually did (which would have been dropping some beads outside the jar, in experimental condition)
- this kind of research shpws that very young children have a simple ToM
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline the following way of assessing Theory of Mind, in typically and atypically developing children:
False belief tasks, including the Sally-Anne study
false belief tasks were developed to test whether children can understand that people can believe something that isn’t true
Sally-Anne Study is an example of a false belief task: Baron-Cohen et al (1985)
- children told story of two dolls, sally and anne
- anne places marble in her basket, but when sally isn’t looking anne moves the marble to he box
- the task is to work out where sally will look for her marble
- understanding that sally doesn’t know that anne has moved the marble requires an understanding of Sally’s false beliefs about where it is
- sally-anne task was given individually to 20 autistic children , 27 non-autistic children and 14 children with down syndrome (control groups)
- 85% children in control groups correctly identified where sally would look for her marble
- only 4 (20%) of autistic group were able to answer it
- Baron-Cohen said the difference showed that autism involves a ToM deficit and this may in fact be a complete explanation for autism
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline the following way of assessing Theory of Mind, in typically and atypically developing adolescents and adults:
Eyes Task
- many autistic people who don’t have learning disabilities have challenges with empathy, social communication and imagination, but their language development may be relatively unaffected
- studies of older autistic children and adults without a learning disability showed that this group could succeed on false belief tasks, so eyes task is more challenging task to assess ToM
- involves reading more complex emotions in pictures of faces just showing a small area around the eyes
- Baron-Cohen et al (1997) found many autistic adults without a learning disability struggled with the eyes task, supporting the idea that ToM deficits might be a cause of autism
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline one strength of Theory of Mind as an explanation of social cognition, regarding real-world application.
P: real-world application
E: tests such as false belief tasks, eye tasks and intentional reasoning tasks are challenging and autistic individuals underperform on them
E: knowing that autistic children underperform on these tasks helps us to target this deficit in ToM in intervention with children to help them overcome these difficulties
E: BUT: socially sensitive; deficit is negative spin on a characteristic that can be beneficial - autistic savants are hyper intelligent; potential for stereotyping and discrimination
L: despite real-world application in intervention and helping those struggling with a deficit in ToM, ethical implications reduce ToM credibility
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline one limitation of Theory of Mind as an explanation of social cognition, regarding the validity of false-belief tasks.
P: limitation of false belief tasks as evidence for ToM is that they lack validity
E: Bloom and German (2000) argue belief tasks require other cog abilities such as visual memory; may be that failure on a false belief task could be due to a deficit in memory rather than ToM (e.g. forgetting where sally put the marble)
E: tasks may not measure what they set out to measure (lacks internal validity); plus children who can engage successfully in pretend play (which requires some ToM) find false belief tasks difficult, which indicates that a deficit of ToM isn’t what’s causing the struggle on the false belief tasks, again reducing cred of false belief tasks as evidence for ToM
E: PLUS tasks designed to measure ToM could actually be measuring perspective-taking (P-T); in sally-anne study, child may be switching between perspectives of sally and anne; ToM and P-T are different cog abilities so internal validity of false belief tasks is further reduced
L: reduced cred for ToM due to evidence base (false belief tasks) with low internal validity
SOCIAL COGNITION: THEORY OF MIND (ToM) (INCL. THEORY OF MIND AS AN EXPLANATION OF AUTISM)
Outline one strength of Theory of Mind as an explanation of social cognition, regarding interactionism.
P: interactionist stance
E: Perner et al (2002) suggest that ToM is an innate ability which develops alongside other cognitive abilities, largely as a result of maturity; in line with Piaget’s view that progressively more abstract thinking developes with age as the brain matures; corss-cultural studies (Liu et al (2004)) have found similar pattern of developmnt of ToM abilities in different countries; this argument falls on the nature side of the debate because the major influence on ToM development is a genetically encoded sequence of maturational events
E: contrast: Asington (1998) suggests a more Vygostkian explanation that ToM develops as a consequence of our interaction with others and gradually the concept of ToM is internalised; Liu et al study above noted that ToM abilities didn’t necessarily develop at same age in different countries, just in same sequence; this argument falls on nurture side of debate since social environment is the major influence on development of ToM
E: strength because ToM development is genetic in origin but rate of development is modified by social environment, so it’s both nature and nurture
L: increased cred of ToM as an explanation of social cognition due to it being more in line with modern day understanding of complex human behaviours (interactionist)
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Fill in the gaps about how mirror neurons were discovered:
Mirror neurons were discovered [ ] [ ] when [ ] et al (2002) were studying the [ ] activity in a monkey’s [ ] cortex (part of the brain controlling movement) when one of the researchers [ ] for his lunch in view of the monkey.
The monkey’s [ ] cortex became [ ] in exactly the same way as it did when the animal itself [ ] for food.
Further investigation revealed that it was the same [ ] cells that fired when the monkey reached itself or [ ] someone else reach. The researcher called these cells mirror neurons because they mirror [ ] in another individual.
0/12 = 1
3/12 = 2
6/12 = 3
9/12 = 4
12/12 = 5
Mirror neurons were discovered by accident when Rizzolatti et al (2002) were studying the electrical activity in a monkey’s motor cortex (part of the brain controlling movement) when one of the researchers reached for his lunch in view of the monkey.
The monkey’s motor cortex became activated in exactly the same way as it did when the animal itself reached for food.
Further investigation revealed that it was the same brain cells that fired when the monkey reached itself or watched someone else reach. The researcher called these cells mirror neurons because they mirror activity in another individual.
0/12 = 1
3/12 = 2
6/12 = 3
9/12 = 4
12/12 = 5
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Fill in the gaps:
The mirror neuron system consists of a range of [ ] brain cells called mirror neurons – they are [ ] across different areas of the brain.
Mirror neurons [ ] both in response to [ ] action and in response to action on the part of [ ]. They may be involved in social cognition by allowing us to interpret the [ ] and [ ] in others.
[ ] (2011) has suggested that mirror neurons are so important that they have effectively shaped human [ ]. The uniquely complex social [ ] we have as humans require a brain system that facilitates an understanding of [ ], [ ] and [ ]. Without these cognitive abilities we could not live in the [ ] groups with the complex social roles and [ ] that characterise human culture. He suggests that mirror neurons are absolutely key to understanding the way humans have developed as a [ ] species.
0/16 = 1
4/16 = 2
8/16 = 3
12/16 = 4
16/16 = 5
The mirror neuron system consists of a range of specialised brain cells called mirror neurons – they are distributed across different areas of the brain.
Mirror neurons fire both in response to personal action and in response to action on the part of others. They may be involved in social cognition by allowing us to interpret the intention and emotion in others.
Ramachandran (2011) has suggested that mirror neurons are so important that they have effectively shaped human evolution. The uniquely complex social interactions we have as humans require a brain system that facilitates an understanding of intention, emotion and perspective. Without these cognitive abilities we could not live in the large groups with the complex social roles and rules that characterise human culture. He suggests that mirror neurons are absolutely key to understanding the way humans have developed as a social species.
0/16 = 1
4/16 = 2
8/16 = 3
12/16 = 4
16/16 = 5
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Outline the role of mirror neurons in social cognition.
- used in understanding others’ intentions (central to social cognition)
- Gallese and Goldman (1998) suggested that mirror neurons respond not only to observed actions but to the intentions behind the behaviour
- by simulating others’ actions in our motor system, we experience their intentions using our mirror neurons
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Outline one strength of
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Outline the evidence for the role of mirror neuron system in empathy.
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Outline the issues with researching mirror neurons.
SOCIAL COGNITION: ROLE OF THE MIRROR NEURON SYSTEM
Outline the evidence for the role of mirror neuron system in autism.
