cognition + development

Question 1

cognition def

Answer 1

term referring to mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension

processes include => attention, thinking, knowing, remembering, judging and problem solving

Question 2

types of learning: accommodation def

Answer 2

we are exposed to new info that radically changes our existing knowledge => leads us to form a new schema

Question 3

types of learning: assimilation def

Answer 3

exposed to new info that does NOT radically change our existing knowledge => we incorporate it into an existing schema

Question 4

motivation to learn comes from

Answer 4

disequilibrium => unfamiliar situation and assimilation is not enough to understand it, so we explore our environment to develop schemas (equilibration)

equilibrium is the desired mental state and occurs when schemas are complete

Question 5

Piagets Stages of Intellectual Development: names and how old

Answer 5

sensorimotor stage (0-2 years)
pre-operational state (2-7 years)
concrete operational stage (7-11 years)
formal operational stage (11+ years)

Question 6

sensorimotor stage

Answer 6

child focuses on physical sensations
- object permanence develops (ability to appreciate something continues to exist when it is no longer in front of them) at 8 months they continue searching for it
=> child shown a toy, gets taken away, child looks for it

Question 7

pre-operational stage: learning 3 things

Answer 7

egocentrism => tendency to view the world from their own perspective (3 mountains task)
conservation => appreciate the quantity of an object stays the same even when the appearance changes
class inclusion => appreciate a group of objects can form a class, and can still be a subset of an even larger group (5 dogs and 2 cats, asked if there were more dogs or animals, most said more dogs)

Question 8

concrete operational stage

Answer 8

develop skills lacking in preoperational stage (egocentrism, conservation, class inclusion), however can only reason about objects physically present in their environment

Question 9

formal operational stage

Answer 9

children become capable of scientific thinking, can reason about abstract ideas

Question 10

Vygotsky sociocultural approach to cognitive development

Answer 10

children’s intellect develops in a particular sequence but not universal like Piaget
- cognitive development is a social process so language plays a heavy role
- learns from more experienced others (experts) or more knowledgable others (MKOs)
- thinking progresses through ‘intermental’ functioning as opposed to ‘intramental’
=> thinking occurs first on the social plane and later on the individual plane (within the child)

Question 11

Vygotsky => zone of proximal development

Answer 11

gap between a child’s current level of development (can do independently) and what they can potentially understand after interaction with more expert others

• start developing advanced reasoning abilities, higher mental functions that can only be acquired through interaction with more advanced others

Question 12

Vygotsky => scaffolding

Answer 12

the kind of help adults and MAO’s give a child to help them cross the ZPD
as the learner crosses the ZPD the level of help given declines to allow the child to become independent and confident in their ability

Question 13

evidence for Vygotsky- Dasen 1994

Answer 13

found spatial awareness developed earlier in Aboriginal children than Swiss
=> shows cognitive development is not purely dependent on maturation but cultural factors too

Question 14

real world application of Vygotsky

Answer 14

+ group work, peer tutoring and teaching assistants used to effectively scaffold children through their ZPD.
=> Van Keer and Verhaeghe 2005 found 7 year olds tutored by 10 year olds in addition to whole class teaching progressed further with reading then a control group without tutoring.

+ raised expectations, growth mindset

Question 15

Baillargeon => Physical Reasoning System

Answer 15

understanding of how the physical world works (eg object permanence)

Question 16

Baillargeon => violation of expectation

Answer 16

infants will show surprise when witnessing an impossible event

shows their expectations => lack of ability may be due to motor difficulties than mental ability
eg in object permanence, infants didn’t search for objects bc they can’t, rather than failure to understand object permanence

Question 17

violation of expectation method

Answer 17

2 conditions: visible toy condition (expected event), toy out of sight (unexpected event)
in the VOE method of testing object permanence, infants show surprise when witnessing impossible event, therefore we know what their expectations are

Question 18

violation of expectation stats

Answer 18

object permanence happens as young as 3 months
33.07 seconds (surprise) impossible event
25.11 seconds possible event
=> demonstrates object permanence

Question 19

Selman: perspective taking def

Answer 19

cognitive ability to take on the viewpoint of another person in both physical and social situations

Question 20

Selman testing kids for perspective taking

Answer 20

60 kids (10g 10b each of age 4,5,6)

tasks => ‘holly and her kitten’ identifying emotional states of holly, her dad, and her friend, who’s kitten is stuck up a tree. holly promised her father not to climb trees, so needs to choose to rescue cat or not

Question 21

levels of perspective taking

Answer 21

level 0 (3-6y) => socially egocentric, unable to take on others perspectives

level 1 (6-8y) => social information role-taking, can take on only one single perspective at a time

level 2 (8-10y) => self reflective role-taking, can fully identify with and take on another’s viewpoint, but still one at a time

level 3 (10-12y) => mutual role-taking, can fully identify with and take on multiple viewpoints

level 4 (12+) => social and conventional system role-taking, understand social rules needed to maintain order when simply understanding the other person is not enough

Question 22

perspective taking eval

Answer 22

+ practical application with autism spectrum disorders eg ADHD. Marton et al: 50 adhd children 8-12 all did worse than neurotypical kids on the perspective taking test. if we’ve pinpointed the impairments, more efficient treatments can be developed

+ validity through longitudinal studies: positive correlation between age and perspective taking ability (Gurucharri and Selman 1982) longitudinal control for individual differences

• one sided approach to explaining social cognition. over-emphasis on cognition, there’s also theory of mind and role of mirror neurons, and external factors like parenting

Question 23

later developments on perspective taking

Answer 23

interpersonal understanding - understanding viewpoints of others
interpersonal negotiation strategies - we need to develop skills to respond to other people, not just understand what they think
awareness of personal meaning of relationships - reflect on social behaviour in the context of life history and the full range of relationships

Question 24

theory of mind def

Answer 24

ability to understand/identify what other people are thinking and feeling and how this develops

• they think people with autism lack this

Question 25

3 areas of research in theory of mind

Answer 25

intentional reasoning

false belief tasks

the eyes task

Question 26

Meltzoff intentional reasoning task (theory of mind)

Answer 26

18 month old kids observed adults put beads in a jar
control => adults put all beads in successfully
experimental => adults struggled and dropped beads

in both conditions, kids put beads in jar successfully
=> suggests they were imitating what the adult intended to do

Question 27

false belief task (theory of mind)
Wimmer and Perner

Answer 27

3-4 y/o kids told a story about Maxi, he put his chocolate in a blue cupboard and then went to the playground.
his grandmother used some of the chocolate and put it back into a green cupboard.
when Maxi came back which cupboard would he look in?
3 y/o said green (they think Maxi knows what they know)
4 y/o said blue (they know Maxi is not aware it’s been moved)

Question 28

Sally Anne study => Baron Cohen et al

Answer 28

Sally puts marble in her basket
Anne moves it when she’s not looking
where will Sally look for the marble?
85% control group was correct
20% of ASD group was correct

Question 29

Eyes task (theory of mind)
Baron Cohen et al

Answer 29

older autistic children and adults could do false belief tasks => so they made this one
- reading complex emotions in pictures just showing eyes
=> autistic adults without a learning disability struggled
suggests ToM deficit may be the cause of ASD

Question 30

theory of mind eval

Answer 30

• false belief tasks lack validity => relies on visual memory as well, therefore failure may be due to poor memory
• difficult to distinguish between ToM and perspective taking => studies may just be measuring perspective taking
• eye task lacks mundane realism => we don’t just look at eyes alone, verbal cues too

Question 31

mirror neurons

Answer 31

involved in understanding intention, empathy processes, perspective taking and theory of mind

fire both in response to personal action and action of others

Question 32

mirror neuron study Haker et al

Answer 32

fMRI to study brain while Ps are shown a film of people yawning
- considerable activity in Brodmann’s area (believed to be rich in mirror neurons)
- 55% elicited a yawn too
=> shows that regions in the brain rich in mirror neurons are involved in empathy

Question 33

mirror neurons eval

Answer 33

+ evidence linking mirror neuron dysfunction and autism (brain scans show smaller thickness of pars opercularis in autistic people, an area thought to be rich in mirror neurons + perspective taking
why ASD people may struggle to empathise

• counterpoint: Hamilton 2013 systematic reviewed 25 studies, found evidence of a link between mirror neuron system and ASD was highly inconsistent and results were difficult to interpret, may not be the cause
• logistical problems with studying, would have to implant electrodes into the brain to study electrical activity => highly unethical in humans, so animals used, lacks generalisability
• scanning techniques used only tell you activity of brain region, not actual cells involved => no direct evidence mirror neurons exist