Cognitive development

Question 1

Early Piagetian approach to object permanence?

Answer 1

• It is an important major development in the sensorimotor period (0-2years)
• Development is gradual, emerges at around 18 months, in sub-stages, and driven by experience

Question 2

Early methods for studying object permanence?

Answer 2

Hide-and-search task

A-not-B task

Question 3

What are the substages of the hide-and-search task?

Answer 3

Stages 1/2:
0-4 months: baby does not get upset or search for toy; puzzled
Stage 3:
4-8 months: will retrieve object if they see part of it; will not search if object is completely obscured
Stage 4:
8-12 months: will search for object, but fails A-not-B task

Question 4

By ____ months, babies are still making Place Error in the A-not-B task

Answer 4

8-12 months

Question 5

What are some alternative explanations other than that the infant has incomplete development of object permanence?

Answer 5

• OP involves development of short-term memory
• OP involves development of spatial memory
• OP involves the coordination of manual and cognitive systems

Question 6

Why do we no longer believe that failing HAS and A-not-B task means that infants have underdeveloped OP abilities?

Answer 6

Place Error and error in Hide-and-search task may be occurring not because of an underdeveloped cognitive ability for OP, but because of underdevelopment in any of these three factors - short term memory, spatial memory, coordination of manual and cognitive systems

Question 7

Diamond 1985 study?

Answer 7

• Varied delay between hiding and searching in the A-not-B task
• Babies get better at doing task with delays at 8-9 months
• By 12 months pass test with 1-2 second delay
• But some 8-12 month olds still make error even if the object is not concealed at B

Question 8

Bjork and Cummings, 1974 study?

Answer 8

Modified version of A-not-B task - had multiple locations
• 8-11 month olds rarely made classic A-not-B errors, but reached in the general direction of B
• Failed to remember exact hiding location

Question 9

What studies did Renee Baillargeon conduct?

Answer 9

Moving Screen task, and Train and Track studies

Question 10

___ month olds distinguished between possible and impossible events in the moving screen task

Answer 10

5

Question 11

_____ month olds showed more interest to the impossible event in the train and track task; and even children as young as _____

Answer 11

6; 3.5 months

Question 12

What did Krister and Patterson do?

Answer 12

• Examined the overgeneralisation of children

Question 13

What did Rozin and Fallon do?

Answer 13

The Comb and Grasshopper study, to examine children’s undergeneralised understanding of contamination

Question 14

What did the Siegal studies involve?

Answer 14

Reexamining children’s understanding of contagion and immanent justice concepts.

Asking children to make judgements about another character’s explanation of illness thus minimising demand effects
Cold + proximity or IJ explanation
Toothache + proximity or IJ explanation

Question 15

What did the Siegal studies show?

Answer 15

Vast majority of children gave the correct response for cold+proximity, cold+IJ, and toothache + IJ, from 5 years old

Majority (55%) of 5 and 6 year olds correctly rejected toothache + proximity explanation.

Nearly all 8 year olds correctly responded for all items

Question 16

What was the Siegal and Share study?

Answer 16

A reexamination of 3 year old’s understanding of contamination.

Replicated Rozin & Fallon task except in third person, minimising social demand effects.

Question 17

What did the Siegal and Share show?

Answer 17

88% of 3 year olds knew that the juice was not okay to drink

90% of 3 year olds said that the juice will make character sick

Question 18

Siegal and Share Queensland study?

Answer 18

Involved children 35 months or younger from Queensland
Moldy bread - 92% ‘not okay to eat’
Vegemite covering mold - 83% ‘not okay to eat’