Core Knowledge Theories

Question 1

What are some of the general characteristics of core-knowledge theories?

Answer 1

•At birth, infants possess specialized learning mechanisms for certain types (domains) of knowledge
–Allows for rapid acquisition of knowledge in specific domains (e.g., knowledge of objects)
•Ex: objects follow continuous paths through space (object continuity); two objects cannot occupy the same space (object solidity)
•Specialized learning mechanisms are present for domains that have evolutionary significance/importance
–Exs: knowledge of objects; knowledge of people (infer mental states); knowledge of plants and animals (avoid predators, etc)

Question 2

What is involved in the violation of expectation procedure?

Answer 2

Ex: testing knowledge of objects
–Present a “possible” and “impossible” event
•Measure infants’ looking time to each event
•According to core knowledge theorists, infants will look longer at events that surprise or puzzle them

Question 3

What does the impossible event do?

Answer 3

Violates the principles of objects (has to follow a continuous path through space)

Question 4

What do core knowledge theorist argue if the infant looks at the impossible event longer?

Answer 4

They have an understanding of the concept/principle that is being violated

Question 5

Core knowledge theorist argue some types of object knowledge are innate or emerge early. What significance does this have?

Answer 5

Infants have these specialized learning mechanisms that allow them to acquire knowledge.
-Argue that Piaget’s tests for object permanence require a lot of skills that young infants don’t have

Question 6

What is habituation?

Answer 6

•Habituation: A simple form of learning that involves a decrease in response to repeated or continued stimulation
–Ex: visual attention (looking)
•Infants typically look at novel visual stimuli
•If a visual stimulus if presented repeatedly, infants’ looking will decrease (habituation)

Question 7

Why is habituation used?

Answer 7

When a new stimulus is presented they want to determine which of the objects the infant is looking at longer.

• If there is no difference in looking time you assume they don’t see a difference in the two objects
• If they do show a difference in looking time you assume that they do see a difference

Question 8

Describe Baillargeon’s experiment

Answer 8

•Habituation trials (both conditions): Infants were habituated to a screen rotating 180 degrees
–Test trials (experimental condition): Object was placed behind the screen to block its path
•Screen rotated 112 degrees (possible event) or 180 degrees (impossible event)
OR
–Test trials (control condition): No object
•Screen rotated 112 degrees or 180 degrees

Question 9

What did the results of Baillargeon’s study show?

Answer 9

• Infants in experimental condition looked significantly longer at the “impossible event” than at the “possible event”.
• Infants in the control condition spent an equal amount of time looking at the 112 and 180 degree rotations

Question 10

How does Baillargeon explain her results?

Answer 10

According to Baillargeon, the “possible event” was more novel than the “impossible event”:
•Infants had been habituated to a screen rotating 180 degrees and the “possible” event was a screen rotating 112 degrees—so the “possible event” was less familiar/more novel
–Given that infants typically show more attention to novel stimuli, the fact that they showed greater attention to the impossible event suggests that they must really be surprised/puzzled by the impossible event

Question 11

What are some general issues or problems with core knowledge theories?

Answer 11

If infants are not fully habituated initially, may show a preference for the familiar stimulus during test trials—the more familiar stimulus is also the “impossible event”
•Some evidence indicates the presence of familiarity effects
-individual differences in habituation time (need to meet criteria for habituation)

Question 12

Issues/Problems cont.

Answer 12

•Other factors may also be confounded with the possible and impossible events
–Ex: Degree of movement of stimuli

Question 13

Issues/Problem cont.

Answer 13

•Should infants’ looking behavior be attributed to higher-order cognitive processes or does it reflect more “basic” perceptual processes (e.g., preference for novelty or familiarity)?
–“Perception and knowing are not the same thing. . . A person can regard an event as odd without knowing why” (Haith, 1998)
-measure of looking reflects basic perceptual processes

Question 14

Issues/Problems continued

Answer 14

Why does young infants’ behavior differ from older infants’ or children’s behavior?
–Ex: If young infants have object permanence, then why don’t older infants search for hidden objects, make the A-not-B error, etc.?

Question 15

Conclusions on Core Knowledge theories

Answer 15

• Evidence is mixed and has been used both to justify core knowledge theories and more traditional Piagetianexplanations of object knowledge
• Researchers should focus on understanding the process of acquiring object permanence, rather than treating it as an all-or-none phenomenon