Cognitive Development Flashcards
(17 cards)
Mirror neurons and their role in social cognition (AO1)
The mirror neuron system was identified by Rizzolattie et al in the 1990s following a study of electrical activity in the motor cortex of monkeys, which became activated when one of the researchers reached for his lunch. These neurons fired when the monkey made a meaningful movement, but also when it observed another animal making the same meaningful movement. Mirror neurons were therefore discovered to be brain cells that are activated when we observe actions carried out by another person. This cell activation is the same as if we had carried out the action ourselves. Humans are also assumed to have a mirror neuron system, so that neurons involved in, for example displaying facial expressions, fire when facial expressions are observed in others. This firing is thought to activate the appropriate feelings associated with that facial expression, allowing us to experience the same feelings we identify in others. This means that mirror neurons are thought to be responsible for the human ability to share understanding of intention and emotional experience. It is assumed that this could be the foundation of our abilities to understand and empathise with others, which is key for successful social interactions and reciprocal exchanges, which are central to forming meaningful relaltionships, and thus the mirror neuron system is basic to social cognition. Deficits in social cognition displayed by individuals with autism spectrum disorder can therefore be explained by problems in the mirror neuron system. There may be a lower density of mirror neurons/ less neuronal firing in the mirror neuron system, suggesting an underlaying biological basis for lower social cognition in some individuals, and this is known as the broken mirror hypothesis proposed by Ramachandran. Ramachandran also believed that mirror neurons are so important that they have shaped human evolution. The uniquely complex social interactions we have as humans requires a brain system that facilities an understanding of intention, emotion and perspective and without these cognitive abilities we couldn’t live in the large groups with complex social roles + rules that characterise human culture. Ramachandran suggest that mirror neurons are therefore key to understanding the way humans have developed as a social species.
Mirror neurons AO3
There is evidence from neuroscience to support the role of mirror neurons in a range of human behaviour. Haker et al (2012) used a FMRI scan on the brains of participants as they watched a film of people yawing. Levels of activity in Broadman’s area 9, believed to be rich in mirror neurons, increased when ppts yawned in response. Contagious yawing is believed to be a result of empathy, we are empathising with others being tired, suggesting that ppts brain activity was reflecting an automatic, unconscious empathetic response to the yawns of others. By demonstrating a direct neural response to a social cue, this research improves the validity of the mirror neuron theory as it actively demonstrates how these neurons are not only involved in simple motor functions, but are also crucial in more complex social behaviours, highlighting there importance and providing evidence for there existence.
However, FMRI scans only measure activity in a certain area, rather than at a cellular level, so we cannot see which individual cells are activated. This means that we are making inferences that activity in a mirror neuron-rich area means there is mirror neuron activity, although this cannot be falisied. Rizzolatti’s animal studies of mirror neurons involved implanting electrodes in monkeys’ brains to study electrical activity in individual neurons, which is ethically impossible in humans. As a result, there is no gold standard test for measuring individual mirror neuron activity in humans. This lowers the validity of the mirror neuron theory, as there is no direct empirical evidence that humans actually have a functioning mirror neuron system. Instead, we rely on inferences and generalizations from animal studies, which may not accurately reflect human cognitive processes due to differences in brain structure and complexity. Consequently, the mirror neuron theory lacks credibility and scientific objectivity in fully explaining social cognition.
Furthermore, this is a biologically reductionist explanation. The assumption is that the MNS forms a biological basis for all social cognition, reducing complex human behaviours to neurochemical processes. This perspective implies that any dysfunction in the mirror neuron system would result in deficits in higher-order social processing, which is an overly simplistic and deterministic view. Social behaviour is shaped by numerous factors such as personal experiences, environmental context, and cultural influences, all of which contribute to how individuals process and interpret social information, which is not consiered by the theory. The assumption that a dysfunction in the mirror neuron system is the primary cause of conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) further illustrates this reductionism, as it disregards the holistic nature of social cognition. It is far too simplistic to argue that a singular biological component can account for such complex behaviours. A more complete explanation of social cognition would consider not only the neurological factors, but also the role of upbringing and personal experiences. By integrating these elements, a more holistic understanding could be achieved, one that moves beyond the confines of biological determinism and acknowledges the role of both nature and nurture in shaping social cognition.
Theory of minds (AO1)
Theory of Mind refers to the cognitive ability to attribute mental states such as thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and intentions, to oneself and others. It involves understanding that others have perspectives, desires, and knowledge that may differ from our own, which is essantial for successful social interaction. The development of ToM is a fundamental aspect of social cognition and plays a crucial role in interpersonal communication, empathy, and social interaction. Various methods have been developed to study the emergence of ToM across different stages of human development. These studies typically focus on how children begin to understand and interpret the mental states of others, gradually advancing from basic levels of understanding to more complex reasoning.
One of the earliest indicators of ToM can be observed in toddlers through intentional reasoning tasks. Intentional reasoning refers to the ability to infer the goals or intentions behind human actions. Meltzoff provided evidence to show that an understanding of adult intention can be displayed at as young as 18 months. Meltzoff arranged for 18 month old toddlers to observe adults place beads into a jar. The adult was either shown either struggling to put the beads in or were shown dropping the beads in successfully. Meltzoff found that regardless of the adult’s success or failure, the toddlers placed a similar number of beads into the jar as the adult had intended to do. This finding suggests that the toddlers were imitating the adult’s intended actions, rather than simply replicating the behaviour they had observed. This suggests that even at a very young age, children possess the foundations of ToM, namely, the ability to recognize and interpret the intentions behind others’ actions.
As children continue to develop cognitively, their understanding of mental states becomes more sophisticated. One key milestone in the development of ToM occurs around the age of 4, as children begin to grasp more complex aspects of mental states, such as beliefs. This is often tested through false-belief tasks, which assess whether children understand that others can hold beliefs that are not aligned with reality. Wimmer + Perner presented a false belief task to 3/4 year olds in which they were told a story in which a boy called Max left chocolate in a blue cupboard, then went outside to play. Without him knowing, his mum ate some chocolate and then put it in a green cupboard. When asked where Max would look, most 3 year olds said green cupboard and most 4 year olds said blue. These findings suggest that around the age of 4, children undergo a shift in their cognitive understanding of others’ mental states. This transition marks the development of a more advanced Theory of Mind, one that encompasses the recognition of false beliefs, an essential component of social cognition. Understanding false beliefs is critical for navigating complex social interactions, as it enables individuals to predict and interpret the behaviour’s of others based on their subjective perspectives.
How does Theory of mind explain autism? (AO1)
Simon Baron-Cohen et al. (1985) designed the Sally-Anne Task as a false-belief task to investigate the connection between deficits in Theory of Mind (ToM) and the characteristics of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). ToM refers to the cognitive ability to attribute beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives to oneself and others. This ability is crucial for understanding that other people may hold beliefs and perceptions that differ from our own, which is essential for successful social interactions.
The Sally-Anne task involves two dolls, Sally and Anne. Children are told a story in which Sally places a marble in her basket and leaves the room. While Sally is absent, Anne moves the marble from Sally’s basket into her own box. The children are then asked where Sally will look for her marble when she returns. To answer this, children must have an understanding that Sally, having not witnessed Anne move the marble, will falsely believe that the marble is still in the basket.
Baron-Cohen’s study tested three groups of children: 20 individuals with autism, 27 typically developing children, and 14 children with Down syndrome, and found that 85% of the control groups correctly identified that Sally would look in the basket, while only 20% of children with autism answered correctly.
These findings provide important evidence that individuals with autism may experience a significant deficit in their Theory of Mind abilities as the results demonstrate that they often struggle to understand that others can hold beliefs that are not aligned with reality. This inability to attribute false beliefs to others may explain many of the social difficulties faced by individuals on the autism spectrum. For example, without this capacity for understanding others’ mental states, a person may have difficulty interpreting social cues, predicting behavior, or engaging in reciprocal communication.
Their reduced performance on the Sally-Anne task suggests that their social challenges are due to fundamental cognitive difficulty in processing the mental states of those around them. Because children with autism have difficulty understanding that others may have false beliefs, they are less able to predict how others will think or act, making social interactions more challenging. This cognitive limitation is a core reason why individuals with autism may struggle with behaviours like empathy, perspective-taking, and interpreting social cues.
Furthermore, a lack of ToM can also impact emotional development. Since ToM involves the understanding of emotions and the recognition that others may have different emotional experiences from one’s own, individuals with autism may struggle to navigate the complex social and emotional landscapes that typically developing individuals manage intuitively. They may find it difficult to empathize with others or engage in the kind of reciprocal emotional exchanges that are central to meaningful relationships. Overall, Without a well-developed Theory of Mind, individuals may find it difficult to interpret the intentions, emotions, or thoughts of others. This can lead to miscommunications and social misunderstandings, as they might not understand why others behave in certain ways, or they may struggle to predict how their actions will impact others.
Selman’s level of perspective taking (AO1)
Selman proposed a domain-specific approach to explaining cognitive development, in comparison to Piaget’s domain-general theory. Selman was concerned with how children develop social perspective taking. He looked at changes that occurred with age in children’s response to scenarios, in which they were asked to take the role of different people in social situations. This was a snapshot study involving 30 girls and 30 boys, 20 4yrs, 20 5yr and 206yrs. All were individually given a task designed to measure perspective taking ability. This involved asking them how they felt in each scenario. One of these scenarios involved a girl called Holly, who promised her dad she wouldn’t climb trees but them comes across a friend whos kitten is stuck in a tree.
Piaget stages of intellectual development
Piaget identified 4 stages of ID. Each stage is characterised by a different level of reasoning ablity. Fixed, nomothetic universal
Sensorimotor stage (0-2)
a babys early focus is on physical sensations and on developing some basic physical co-ordination. Trial +error, people seperate objects, acquire basic language
8 months capable understanding object permance. This is the understanding that objects still exist when they are out of sight. Piaget observed babies looking at objects and watched as the objects were removed from sight. He noted that babies before 8 months lose intrest in an object once they can’t see…no longer aware exist.
From 8 months continue to look
Pre-operational stage (2-7)e
Mobile, can use language but still lack adult reasoning ability. This means display some characteristic errors in logic
Conservation: understanding that quantity remains constant even when the appearance of objects changes
2 rows identical 8 counters-young children correctly reasoned that each row off counters same no. When counters in one row pushed closer together, preoporational children struggled to conserve + usully siad there were fewerr counters in that row
can’t liquid conservation
Egocentrism: childs tendency to only be able to see the world from their own POV-demonstrated 3 mountains task. 3 montains, diff feature-snow,house,cross) doll placed at the side model so facing scene from a different angle then child. What would doll see? preoporational children unsure say own pov.
Class inclusion: child fails to regonise subsets within larger classess. Don’t understand that any object can be at the same an example of a subordinate group-dog-and also an example of s asuperordinate group-animal. Tested 7-8yr child pic 5 dog 2 cats more dogs or animals? dogs
Stage of concerte operations 7-11
can conserve perform good egocentrism and class i. However, although children now have better externally-verfiable reasonin ablities-operations-these are strictly concertate operations i.e they can be applied only to physical objects in the child presence. Struggle to reason abstract ideas or imagine obj/sit can’t see.
Stage of formal operations 11yrs+
11yr capable of formal reasoning
able to focus on the form of an argument and not be distracted by its content
all yellow cat 2 heads chairle cat how many heads? syllogesim
young child distract
once reason formally cabable scientific reasoning + able appericate abstarct ideas
AO3 intellectual development (ego centrismim0
making stages with ages, allow parents to see normal development milestone behaviours
BUT UNDERESTIMATE
Hughs tested ego used model with 2 intersecting walls and 1 boy doll 2police doll. 3.5 yrs 90% 1 poile
4yrs 90% 2 poilice
when tested with scienor that makes more sense, able to decenter + manage others perspectives much ealier then piaget proposed. Suuggests piaget underestimate
bc method, children cannot verbalise cognitions, inferences may can object permance earlier but not verbalise understanding (balligen 3.5 months)
Vygotsky (AO1)
Lev Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development emphasizes the critical role of social interaction and cultural context in shaping reasoning abilities. Unlike Piaget, Vygotsky viewed development as a social process, where children acquire knowledge through guided interaction with more experienced individuals, often referred to as “experts.” This process underscores the significance of language and cultural tools in cognitive growth.
Central to Vygotsky’s approach is the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which represents the gap between what a child can achieve independently and what they can accomplish with guidance.
Scaffolding, a technique stemming from his theory, involves graduated support provided by adults or peers, tailored to the child’s needs and gradually withdrawn as competence increases. Vygotsky also highlighted the variability in reasoning abilities across cultures, influenced by the distinct mental tools valued in different societies. His work remains foundational, offering insights into collaborative learning and the socio-cultural dynamics of education.
Scaffolding- the process of helping the learner cross the zone of proximal development + advance as much as they can, given their stage of development. Typically the level of help given in scaffolding declines as a learner crosses the ZoP
Demonstration
preparation for child
indication of materials
specific verbal instructions
general prompts
Vygotsky (AO3)
4yr children use set of block + pegs to build a 3D model showed in pic. Too difficult a task for 4yr do alone. Wood + middleton observed how mothers interacted with their children to build the model. Type of support included; general encouragement, specific instructions, direct demonstrations.
The results of the study show that no single strategy was best for helping the child progress. Mothers whose assistant was most effective were those who varied their strategy according to how they’re child was doing. well=less specific, mtruggle=more specific instructions until the child started to makes progress again.
This suggests that mothers were able to give indvdually tailored scaffolding support to their child depending on where they currently were in their zopd. This demonstrates that learning with a mko can help progress a childs capablies + highlights the fact that vygotskian methods acknowledge + foster id in learning + outcomes.
Baillargeon (AO3)
Baillargeon’s research represents a significant challenge to Piaget’s traditional view of infant cognitive development, particularly regarding object permanence. Piaget argued that infants in the sensorimotor stage (birth to two years) have only a rudimentary understanding of object permanence, developing it gradually as they gain experience. In contrast, Baillargeon proposed that infants possess a much more advanced, innate understanding of the physical world, which is evident even in early infancy. Using her innovative violation of expectation (VOE) method, Baillargeon demonstrated that infants as young as five months are capable of recognizing when events defy physical laws, indicating a sophisticated grasp of their environment.
In her classic VOE study, Baillargeon presented infants with two scenarios involving a tall rabbit passing behind a screen with a gap. In the “expected” event, the rabbit was visible through the gap, whereas in the “unexpected” event, the rabbit seemed to disappear behind the screen and did not appear in the gap. Infants consistently looked longer at the unexpected event, indicating surprise and a recognition that this scenario violated their understanding of object permanence. This suggests that even at a very young age, infants expect objects to behave in consistent ways and are able to detect logical impossibilities. The researchers interpreted these findings as evidence that infants understand that objects continue to exist and follow predictable rules, even when out of sight.
Baillargeon expanded her research to include other physical phenomena, such as containment and support. In containment studies, infants observed scenarios where objects were placed inside containers. They showed surprise when an object appeared to “float” outside the container or disappear entirely, indicating that they understood the principles of containment—that objects should remain within a container’s boundaries. Similarly, in support studies, infants demonstrated an understanding of physical support, showing surprise when objects defied gravity by remaining unsupported in mid-air. These findings collectively highlight that infants not only grasp object permanence but also have an emerging awareness of other physical laws.
Baillargeon explained these early competencies through her theory of the Physical Reasoning System (PRS), which posits that infants are born with an innate cognitive framework that allows them to interpret and learn about the physical world. This system provides a basic understanding of fundamental principles, such as object permanence, containment, and support, and enables infants to refine and expand their knowledge through experience. Unlike Piaget, who suggested that infants’ understanding develops slowly through interaction with the environment, Baillargeon argued that the PRS equips infants with a predisposed ability to process and respond to novel physical events. For example, as infants encounter new scenarios, such as unexpected events in VOE tasks, their PRS allows them to detect violations and adjust their understanding accordingly.
Baillargeon’s work underscores the importance of designing research methods that accommodate infants’ limited motor skills, ensuring that cognitive abilities are accurately assessed. Her findings reveal that infants possess a far more sophisticated understanding of the physical world than Piaget had suggested, and that this understanding is both innate and flexible, developing in response to new experiences.
Baillargeon (AO3)
Seen all culture, nomothetic can generalise, support innate
improvement on piaget bc gets rid of CV of infant looking away bc it is distracted, not bc infant thinks the object exisits
however, the reliance on inference has been critisised. The VOE only show that infants notice a diff in the 2 events, but conc this bc understand op rely inference. another reason? decreases validity
ToM (AO30
However, ToM does not provide a complete explaination of autism. Some autistic people do not have issues with Tom + versa versa (15%). ToM describes a state, but does not offer a causal explanation. ToM only explains deficits and … cannot explain islets of ablity or special talents demonstrated amoung autistic savants… must be other factors involved in ASD.
real world application, used as part of a diagonstic tool, alllow parents/ teacher implementy strategies to aid social struggles
ceiling effect/ perspective taking
