early conceptions of the physical world Flashcards
what is Piaget’s constructivist theory of physical knowledge?
action is necessary for children to construct their own knowledge
so later development of conceptual understanding of objects
what is Spelke and Baillargeon’s nativist theory of physical knowledge?
core knowledge hypothesis
infants possess innate knowledge of object concepts
what are the core principles of object knowledge?
solidity
cohesion
contact
continuity
what is solidity?
no two objects can occupy the same space at one time
what is cohesion?
objects are connected masses of stuff that move as a whole
what is contact?
objects move through contact- not spontaneously
what is continuity?
objects move in continuous paths
what does developmental change involve in nativism?
refine core concepts and further changes to additional abilities
what is Karmiloff-Smith (1992) theory of physical knowledge?
midground between nativism and constructivism
genes initially channel attention to environmental inputs, leads to implicit understanding
change occurs from implicit to explicit knowledge
what is object permanence?
awareness that objects continue to exist, even when they are no longer visible
when does the Piagetian account suggest object permanence occurs?
late development
around 8-9 months
why does Piaget suggest object permanence occurs later in development?
learn about the world through interacting with it
when infants are younger they do not do much interaction with the world
what is evidence used when investigating object permanence?
A not B error
what happens with the A not B error?
infant searches for a hidden object where they last found it (location A) rather than at its current location (location B)
when does the A not B error occur?
8-12 months old
what is the criticism for manual search tasks like the A not B task?
tasks could be underestimating infant’s knowledge
studies like eye tracking which don’t include manual reaching suggest earlier competencies
what happened in Baillargeon et al (1985) drawbridge study?
infants were shown a screen which could rotate or remain stationary
behind the screen was a drawbridge which could rotate or stay in place
researchers observed infants reactions when the screen rotated to reveal a possible or impossible event based on the drawbridge’s movement
what were the findings for Baillargeon et al (1985) drawbridge study?
from 5 months old, infants looked for longer at the impossible event
according to Baillargeon, findings show that infants understand that objects continue to exist when hidden from view
challenges Piaget’s conclusions, but for Piaget- he focused on action, just thinking things wasn’t enough for him
what are alternative explanations for the drawbridge study?
perceptual persistence- in order to have object permenance, must represent an object in their head
maybe when they watched the drawbridge rise, didn’t think about its existence just its linger activity
preference for events which display more motion
what happened in Baillargeon’s 1986 study into a block on the track?
block on the track
truck seemed to go through to the other side- impossible event
spent longer looking at this
cannot be explained by lingering activation
what happened in Baillargeon 1987 third study of permanence and solidity?
shown a squashy and hard object
7.5 month old infants represented the properties of hidden objects
infants looked for longer at the impossible event (object going through hard object)
what happened in Spelke et al 1992 impossible event study?
ball was dropped onto a platform behind a screen
when the screen was raised, the ball was on the floor
more children aged 2.5 years than 2 years searched for the upper cup (where the ball should be)
what are search errors?
discrepancy between early looking data and later search errors
infants have knowledge, but are unable to use it to guide their actions
what are the possible reasons for search errors?
children have:
limited problem solving abilities
frontal cortex immaturity
weaker memory representations
early representations are implicit
who proposed a model of cognitive development?
Karmiloff-Smith (1992)
what model of cognitive development did Karmiloff-Smith propose?
implicit, procedural knowledge (in the mind)
representational re-description
explicit, declarative knowledge (available to the mind)
what is our understanding of support and gravity?
gradual mastery over the first year of life
increased sophistication
impacted by the role of experience of playing with and placing objects
how does elaboration of core knowledge occur?
at their first go of understanding physical events, infants construct all or none representations
these capture the essence of events, but few of the details
with more experience, these core representations are progressively elaborated
what are children’s naive theories?
conceptual frameworks children spontaneously generate to make explanations and predictions about the world
include simplifications and misunderstandings
resistant to counter evidence- hard to convince children that these aren’t true
what is the gravity error?
children infer that the trajectory of the invisibly falling object will be straight down
who investigated the gravity error?
tubes task- Hood, 1995
what is the naive physical theory?
thought that all objects must balance in the centre
who investigated the naive theory that all things must balance in the centre?
Karmiloff-Smith, 1992
what does U shaped performance mean for naive physical theories?
children have better performance when they are younger and older, middle period where they do worse
4-5 year olds perform well by trial and error
6-7 year olds rigidly stick to a naive centre theory of balance and fail the task
8-9 year olds are flexible and switch strategy when evidence contradicts their centre theory
when do children begin to think about objects being used for a purpose?
around 1 years old
-begin to show correct use of everyday objects
-play with objects functionally
how did Hunnius and Bekkering (2010) investigate when knowledge of object use occurs?
used an anticipatory looking technique to find out if 6 to 16 month olds have expectations about how a number of everyday objects are used
showed conventional and unconventional ways of how we use an object
from 6 months, looked more when the object was used quickly
