Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > Cognition & Development > Flashcards

Cognition & Development Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development

A
  • children do not simply know less than adults do, but instead think in entirely different was
  • their thinking is ‘QUALITIVELY DIFFERENT’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Piaget: Schema role in cognitive development

A
  • as children develop they construct more and more detailed and complex mental representations of the world
  • representations stored as: schemas
  • ‘mental structure containing all the information we have about one aspect of the world’
  • children are born with a small no. of schemas just enough to allow interaction with people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Piaget: motivation to learn

A

disequilibrium: when our existing schemas do not allow us to make sense of something new –> lead to disequilibrium

Equilibrium: to escape disequilibrium we must adapt to the new situation by exploring and learning what we need to know –> achieve equilibration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Assimilation

A
  • when we understand a new experience and equilibrate by adding new info to exiting schemas
  • e.g. a child in a family of dogs can adapt to the existence of different dog breed by assimilating them to their dog schema
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Accommodation

A
  • response to dramatically new experiences
  • child adjusts by radically changing existing schemas or forming new ones
  • e.g. child with pet dog may at first think cats are also dogs, (four legs, fur and a tail) but then accommodate to the existence of a separate species of cats
  • this involves altering animal/pet schemas to include then and creating new cat-schema
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Piaget’s stages of intellectual development are….

A
  • universal: apply to all cultures
  • invariant: must go through in the same order
  • Discontinuous: staged model
  • maturational: different ages
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Piaget’s stages explained

A
  • you are not able to do something at a younger age, but when you get to the next stage you are biological ready to learn
  • at each stages child’s understanding is ‘qualitatively different’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sensorimotor stage: age and understanding

A
  • 0-2 years

- understands the world via sensory information- e.g. understands limited sensations: warm, soft, loud, etc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Sensorimotor stage key feature

A
  • object permanence: understanding that objects still exist when they are removed from view
  • Piaget suggested this is developed at 8 MONTHS OLD
  • child understand object permanence if when object is cover/removed from view they look for it
  • if they do not look for it –> lack object permanence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Object permanence how Piaget studied it

A
  • observed babies looking at objects
  • it was then removed from sight e.g. a screen was put in front of it
  • babies under 8 months lost interest a soon as it was out of sight
  • after around 8 months they would try to look for it
  • led Piaget to believe this is when it was developed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Criticisms of Piaget’s testing object permanence

A
  • younger babies are less mobile and cannot physically look for an object compare to those who are older e.g. 2 months vs 8 months –> may just be they cannot physically look for the object
  • How can we test who has looked for it and who is just looking around - hard to operationalise
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

testing object permanence alternative research

A
  • Wishart and Bower
  • 1 month old babies show surprise when toys disappear
  • they must therefore understand that objects exist
  • —> how do we know they’re surprised
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Pre-operational stage: age and understanding

A
  • 2-7 years
  • understanding is rooted in physical experiences
  • e.g. learns from interacting with environment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Pre-operational stage: key feature

A
  • Egocentrism
  • inability to understand that another person’s view or opinion may be different than their own
  • child is egocentric if they cannot identify situations from another’s point of view
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Egocentrism how Piaget studied it

A
  • 3 mountains task
  • child is shown three mountains each with different features on each side
  • child is shown both sides of the mountains and asked what they can see from one side
  • then asked what someone (a doll) standing on the other side would see
  • if egocentric: they will state the doll sees the same as what they can see
  • if not: thy will state what they could see when they went round to the other side of the mountains
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Criticisms of Piaget’s testing egocentrism

A
  • required child to remember what was n the other side of the mountains –> 3 year olds memory may be less developed
  • complex task: required young chi8dren to understand the questions and what was being asked of them -> many children will never have stood on different sides of a mountain = low ecological validity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

testing egocentrism alternative research

A
  • ‘3 mountains task= too difficult to understand’
  • Policeman doll study
  • 2 intersecting walls, policeman doll and boy doll
  • asked to place the boy doll where the policeman would not be able to se it/hide it
  • this related to a game children have often played before: hide and seek (^ ecological validity)
  • harder study involved 2 policeman dolls in which there was only one correct place to put the doll
  • tested 3 year olds (preoperational)
  • 90% gave correct answers
  • harder task: 90% of 4 year olds got it right
  • suggest Piaget’s task was just too difficult to understand and egocentrism is largely gone by 4 years old
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

pre-operational stage: another key feature

A
  • Class inclusion
  • an understand basic classification
  • pre operational children struggle with class inclusion
  • children under 7 cannot simultaneously see a dog as a member of the dog class and of the animal class
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

How Piaget tested class inclusion

A
  • Children shown picture of 5 dogs and 2 cats
  • asked: ‘are there more dogs or animals’
  • preoperational children were likely to say that there were more dogs
  • could not simultaneously see a dog as a member of the dog class and a member of the animal class
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Concrete operational stage: age and understanding

A
  • 7-11 years
  • able to use mental operations (reasoning abilities)
  • these operations can only be applied to physical objects in the child’s presence rather than abstract ideas and imaginative ones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Concrete operational stage: key feature

A
  • conservation

- understanding that if the shape of something changes, the mass, volume or number do not change too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

How Piaget tested conservation

A

Conservation of liquid:

  • showed child two beakers that were the same with the same volume of liquid
  • asked the child if they were the same
  • if yes: poured the liquid from one of the beakers into a narrower glass and asked ‘are they the same’ 2x
  • ‘they’re the same’ = have conservation
  • ‘the taller one’ = do not have conservation

Conservation of number:

  • 2 rows of objects e.g. cubes with the same no. in each
  • asked same questions
  • this time one row is spread out

conservation of length:

  • 2 ribbons each the same length
  • asked same questions
  • this time one ribbon is coiled

conservation of matter

  • 2 balls of clay
  • asked same questions
  • this time one ball was rolled out into a longer thinner, shape
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

criticisms of How Piaget tested conservation

A
  • adult intention may have effected answer: they moved it on purpose –> McGarigle and Donaldson used naughty teddy to ‘accidentally’ move counters etc. this increased the % of children who did the task correctly
  • ‘are they the same’ asked 2x = demand characteristics
  • yes then no if they asked again first answer must’ve been wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Testing conservation alternative research

A
  • Samuel and Bryant did Piaget’s tasks again but this time only asked ‘are they the same’ 1x
  • asking 2x may have led the child to believe that their first answer was wrong (demand characteristics) and urge them to change their answer
  • study:
  • 252 children groups of 5years,6years,7years,8years
  • 3 conditions:
    > Piaget’s asking 2x
    > one judgment: asking 1x
    > fixed array: asked once and only saw objects after they’d been changed
  • one judgement = least amount of errors made = questions Piaget’s methodology
  • younger=more mistakes = supports Piaget
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Formal operations

A
  • aged 12–>adulthood

- capable of formal reasoning and abstract thought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Key feature of formal operations

A
  • abstract and logic thinking

- able to focus on the form of an argument s and not be distracted by it content

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

How Piaget tested formal operations

A
  • logic questions
  • Rule and application of rule
  • ‘all yellow cats have 2 heads’
  • I have a yellow cat named Charlie, How many heads does Charlie have?’
  • correct answer=two
  • younger children become distracted by the fact that cats do not have 2 heads
28
Q

Evaluation: Piaget’s theory of cognitive development

A

P - research support
E - Conservation
- showed child two beakers that were the same with the same volume of liquid
- asked the child if they were the same
- if yes: poured the liquid from one of the beakers into a narrower glass and asked ‘are they the same’ 2x
- ‘they’re the same’ = have conservation
- ‘the taller one’ = do not have conservation
- children under 7 were more likely to say the taller beaker had more liquid
- C - this demonstrates how children in previous stages have qualitatively different thinking to those in later stages and support Piaget’s theory

  • H - However, Piaget’s conservation task has been found to have methodological issues (asking twice) - research by Bryant has found conflicting evidence

P - good applications
E - Piaget’s stages have been used to develop key stages in schools
- the level of development is used to determine the child’s learning type
- e.g. KS1 - emphasis on play vs KS3 - emphasis on abstract thought such as algebra
C helps provide conditions that are optimal for children in each stage to learn and reach best cognitive ability

P - Culture bias
E - theory is based on his own West- European ideas
e.g. for Piaget if child shows abstract though this means they are cognitively developed WHEREAS in other cultures operational abilities are more fundamental in displaying cognitive development
C - weakness because it lacks generalisability across cultures

P - diff learning styles
E - some children may be more independent learners whereas others may work better in social settings
- discovery learning vs peer learning
C - explains some children but cannot be used to explain the cognitive development of all children

29
Q

Vygotsky’s theory of social development

A
  • agreed with Piaget that young children are curious and actively involved in learning
  • placed more emphasis on social contributions to the process of development rather than self-initiated development/discovery
  • believed children acquire their cultural values, beliefs, and problem-solving strategies through interaction with other, more knowledgeable people.
  • sociocultural approach to cognitive development
30
Q

Cultural differences in cognitive development

A
  • children will pick up the mental tools that are most important for life within their physical, social and work environments
  • these tools vary between cultures
31
Q

Zone of proximal development

A
  • a gap between a child current level of development i.e. what they can understand and do alone, and what they can potentially understand after interaction with more expert others

—> in order for new learning = tasks must be just outside child’s current ability

  • assistance allows the child to understand as much of a subject/situation as they are capable - level of development still limits this to some extent
32
Q

Scaffolding

A
  • structured interaction between MKO and learner
  • helps learner achieve a specific goal
  • Wood suggested features: engages child, focuses child, motivates child, identifies most important parts and demonstrates task
  • involves verbal instructions, prompts and cues that are progressively withdrawn
33
Q

influence of others on learning

A
  • Vygotsky said that children develop a more advanced understanding and more advanced reasoning abilities by learning with others rather than individual exploration
  • especially if this other person is more knowledgeable on the subject than they are (more knowledgeable other)
  • interaction with others does not only result in acquiring more info but also more advanced reasoning abilities
34
Q

Evidence for MKO

A

Roazzi and Bryant:

  • tested 4-5 year olds on estimating abilities when working with an older child
  • worked alone = less likely to succeed
  • worked with MKO = more likely to both succeed and master task
35
Q

Evaluation Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development

A

P - evidence support
E - Connor and cross
- Longitudinal study
- observed mothers and children engaging in tasks
- 16mths, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 years
- mothers used less and less direct intervention and more prompts a children gained more experience
C - This shows support for Vygotsky’s theory as it shows that using progressively withdrawing help is an effective method for teaching children

P - Application in schools
E - social interaction in learning e.g. peer work and MKOs such teacher assistants have been used to scaffold children through their ZPD’s
C - we now know what techniques can encourage learning and help children reach their potential

P - individual differences
E - not everyone learns in the same way and do not learn the best through social interaction
C - the theory therefore unhelpful in some cases as it cannot be generalised to all children and all learning style

36
Q

Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities

A
  • infants may be much more capable than Piaget claimed, and at least some of the physical world is innate
  • Baillargeon believed the reason infants appeared to fail to understand object permanence was because they did not have the necessary motor skills to pursue a hidden object
37
Q

Violation of expectation studies: methodology

A
  • measured the amount of time that children look at an expected event vs an unexpected event
  • expectation: children will look at the unexpected event for longer
  • tests object permanence
  • children consistently looked at the unexpected even for longer
  • this was interpreted as surprise
  • surprised = must understand what should have happened
  • this demonstrates object permeance
38
Q

Selman’s perspective-taking research

A
  • 60 children
  • 1/2 boys 1/2 girls
  • 20 = 4 y/o 20 = 5 y/o 20 = 6 y/o
  • given tasks that measure role-taking ability
  • given scenarios and asked how each person felt within these scenarios (interpersonal dialemmas)
  • e.g. girl asked by dad not to climb trees girl must climb tree to save friends cat
  • how would each person feel if girl did or did not climb the tree

—> lead to the identification of distinct levels of role-taking these correlated with age suggesting it was to do with development

39
Q

Stage 1: Socially egocentric

A
  • Ages 3-6
  • child cannot reliably distinguish between their own emotions and those of others
  • they can identify the emotional states of others but cannot identify what social behaviour may have caused them
40
Q

Stage 2: Social information role-taking

A
  • Ages 6-8
  • child can now tell the difference between their own viewpoint and that of others, but they can usually focus on only one of these perspectives
  • they can appreciate that others may have a different POV because they have access to different info
41
Q

Stage 3: Self-reflective role-taking

A
  • Ages 8-10
  • child can put themselves into the position of another person and fully appreciate their perspective
  • but can only take on one broad point of view at a time
42
Q

Stage 4: Mutual role-taking

A
  • Ages 10-12
  • child now has the ability to look at a situation from their own perspective and another’s perspective at the same time
  • e.g. as a third person viewpoint
43
Q

Stage 5: Social and Conventional system role-taking

A
  • Ages: 12+
  • child realises that understanding other peoples viewpoints is not enough to allow people to reach an agreement
  • perspective is also influenced by personal, social and cultural factors
44
Q

social cognition

A
  • the mental processes we use when engaged in social interaction
  • we make decisions based on our understanding of the social situation
  • both understanding and decision making are cognitive processes
45
Q

perspective-taking

A
  • Piaget = physical + social perspective-taking occur together
  • Selman identified social perspective-taking as separate:
  • the ability to appreciate a social situation from another’s perspective
  • underlies much of our normal social interactions
46
Q

Selman’s findings

A
  • children gave answers relevant to their age group
  • as children mature they take into consideration more information and begin to understand that people may react differently
  • they develop: the ability to analyse objectively to be a ‘neutral bystander’
  • and realise that different cultural and societal values affect the perspective of the bystander
47
Q

Selman: Evaluation

A

P - Applications
E - Pair therapy
- used to help children with behavioural and emotional difficulties to develop perspective-taking and negotiation skills that are appropriate to their age.
e.g. talking through the perspectives of others
C - this is a strength because it can be used to improve the QOL of children and help them develop social cognition

HOWEVER P - Selman’s theory overemphasises the cognitive aspects of social interactions;
E - perspective-taking is not the only aspect needed for good social interactions e.g. family climate and opportunities to learn
- so this would need to be taken into account for pair therapy to work in the best way possible.

P - evidence that perspective-taking gets better with age
E - found correlations between age and ability to take different perspectives in original interpersonal dilemmas study
- a longitudinal follow up study
- show: perspective-taking develops with age in each child
- earlier research = not simply the result of
individual differences in social-cognitive ability in different groups
C - strength because Selman’s ideas are based on solid research and are supported by a range of studies

P - cultural differences
E - Wu et al found young adult Chinese p’s did significantly better in perspective-taking tasks than matched Americans
C - weakness because it shows there is more to the development of perspective-taking than cognitive maturity because the differences here were down to cultural inputs.

48
Q

Theory of Mind

A
  • our personal understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling
  • understanding that other people hav e different POVs
  • provides the ability to predict and interpret the behaviour of others
49
Q

False belief tasks

A
  • tests whether children can understand that people can believe something that is not true
  • test whetehr they can interpret a scene from anothers POV
  • if they understand the false belief they have a TofM
  • TofM becomes more advanced at around 4
50
Q

Sally-Anne task (Baron-Cohen)

A
  • sally put the marble in her basket
  • sally leaves
  • anne moves the marble to her box
  • where will sally look for the marble?
  • understanding that sally does not know that anne has moved the marble requires an understanding of Sally’s false belief about where the marble is
51
Q

Sally-Anne task sample

A
  • 20 Autistic children (chronological age: 12) (verbal mental age: 5.5)
  • 14 with Down’s Syndrome (CA: 11) (VMA:3)
  • 27 Typically Developed (ages: 4.5)
52
Q

why did Baron-Cohen use Down’s Syndrom P’s asa control

A
  • to see whether the results from the ASD children related to induviduals with disorders in general or jsut those with autism
  • if its just those with ASD it can be applied to explain why children with ASD lack socail skills
53
Q

Sally-Anne task: method

A

questions to ensure p’s understood the task:

  • naming Q: ‘what is this doll called?’
  • reality Q: ‘ where is the marble now?’
  • memory Q ‘where was the ball in the begining’
  • —-> all P’s answered 100% correctly (they understand)
  • Belief question: ‘where will Sally look for the marble’: revealed the differences between P’s
54
Q

Blue cupboard, Green cupboard

A
  • 3-4-year-olds told a story
  • Maxi left his chocolate in the blue cupboard
  • his mum uses it and places it in the green cupboard
  • where would Maxi look for his chocolate?
  • 3 year olds - incorrect (green)
  • 4 year olds - correct (blue cupboard) - understood that Maxi doesn’t know his mother moved it
  • TofM become more advanced at around 4
55
Q

Sally-Anne: findings

A

correctly answered:

  • Down’s: 86%
  • Typically developed: 85%
  • Autistic: 20%
56
Q

Sally-Anne: conclusion on austism

A
  • the children with ASD didn’t understand the false belief
  • so lack TofM
  • This suggests TofM explains the development of social cognition
  • if TofE develops so does social cognition
  • a lack of TofM can result in ASD
  • explains the social cognition difficulties in induviduals with ASD
57
Q

Eyes task

A
  • found impaired TofM in adults rather than lack
  • suggests t it develops just with deficit
  • reading emotions based off of cropped images of eyes
  • adults with AS and those with ASD struggled
  • further supports the idea of lacking TofM may cause ASD
58
Q

Evaluation: TofM

A

P - research had good methodology
E - the inclusion of the Down’s control group in the Sally-Anne task answered ‘no’ to ‘is it just disorders in general that cause lack o TofM?’
- additionally all questions asked were closed Q’s which made it easy to make comparisons between the 3 groups
C - increases validity of the findings and in turn the theory

P - False belief tasks validity issues
E - young children who were not successful at the sally-anne task - still engage in imaginary play (requires TofM)
- they have a TofM and still struggle –> is it a valid way of testing TofM?
C - is it measuring what we think it is? –> reduces validity

P - other validity
E - autistic children can be very ‘literal’
- they know dolls aren’t real and don’t have thoughts etc
C - so we may not be measuring the child’s TofM but their ability to understand that inanimate objects don’t have thoughts - reduces the validity
H - however, a replication of the study with human models found the same results
- ^ validity –> suggests it was measuring TofM

P - Application: Social stories
E - encorage children to consider different POVs
- explains social situations through stories
- teaches what to expect and what to do
C - helps ASD children to understand social situations

59
Q

The mirror neuron system

A
  • special brain cells called mirror neurons distributed in several areas of the brain
  • unique because they fire both in response to personal action and in response to action of others
  • may be involved in social cognition allowing us to interpret intention and emotion in others
60
Q

How mirror neurons are studied

A
  • fMRI and EEG’s
61
Q

Ramachandran, mirror neurons & autism

A
  • Ramachandran proposed the ‘broken mirror’ theory of ASD
  • dysfunction in the mirror neuron system prevents developing child imitating and understanding social behaviour in others
  • e.g. ASD infancy –> Autistic children imitate adult behaviour less than others
  • later problems with the mirror neurons can lead to difficulties in social communication
  • —-> as children fail to develop the usual abilities that aid in reading the intentions and emotions of others
62
Q

The discovery of mirror neurons

A
  • Electrical activity in a monkey’s motor cortex was studied
  • when a researcher ate in front of a monkey
  • monkey’s motor cortex became activated in the same way in which it would if the monkey reached for the food itself
  • Further investigations: it was the same cells that fired when the monkey reached itself or watched some else reach.
  • These cells were then called mirror neurons.
63
Q

Mirror neurons and intention

A
  • understanding each other’s intentions is central to social cognition
  • It was suggested that mirror neurons respond not just to observed actions but to intentions behind behaviour.
  • We interpret people’s actions with reference to our memory AND experience their intentions using our mirror neurons
64
Q

Mirror neurons and perspective taking

A
  • associated with TofM and ability to take other’s perspectives
  • mirror neurons fire in response to others’ actions and intentions –> this may give us a neural mechanism for experiencing and understanding others’ perspectives and emotional states.
  • the same information that we use to determine intention may allow us to interpret what others are thinking and feeling.
65
Q

Mirror neurons and human evolution

A
  • Ramachandran
  • complex social interactions humans have require a brain system that contains the ability to understand intention, emotion and perspective
  • without these - we could not live in large groups with complex social roles and rules
66
Q

Mirror neurons: evaluation

A

P - Evidence support for dysfunction of mirror neuron system in people with ASD
E - Ramachandran: mu waves
- in typical people: mu waves suppressed during movement of own body AND observation of other people moving those same body parts (involves mirror neurons)

  • ASD P’s: mu waves are suppressed when moving own body but not when observing others
    C - scientific evidence support increases the validity of the theory
    H - however, there are issues with sample (only male) which decreases the generalisability of the results

P - Correlational evidence
E - evidence of brain structure is simply correlational, one variable occurs alongside the other
- e.g. here the mirror neuron dysfunction occurs alongside ASD there is no evidence to say it CAUSES it
C - reduces validity of the theory because we cannot establish cause and effect

P - difficulty studying mirror neurons
E - Evidence fcomes from brain scanning which identifies activity levels in regions of the brain
- doesn’t allow us to measure activity in individual brain cells (ethically not possible to insert electrodes into human brain)
C - Weakness - because researchers are generally measuring activity in a part of the brain and inferring that this means activity in mirror neurons.
- This is a lack of direct evidence for mirror neruons from studies like this.

Psychology (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions