Lecture 2-Object and number concept Flashcards
what is object concept
objects continue to exist even if not in view or physical contact
the object concept 3 underlying principles
when an object is occluded by another object, the out of sight object continues to exist
the occluded object retains its spatial and physical properties
the occluded object is still subject to the laws of physics; its interactions with other objects remain regular and predictable
do babies understand the object concept
they must understand these 3 underlying principles to understand object concept
understanding of object permanence- specifically that one object cannot move through another
Baillargeon, Spelke + Wasserman, 1985
procedure
familiarisation event
babies shown screen rotating back and forth 180
haven’t seen before so attention is captured
TEST A- rotating screen stops as hits object behind
have expectations and hence know it will stop
TEST B- screen rotates 180 despite the obstructing object behind
if infants understand object concept, which was found, infants should look for longer as it is impossible and not compatible with expectations
The ability of object concept may be innate
Baillargeon 1987
understanding of object permanence; specifically that one object cannot move through another
7 months
procedure
familiarisation event
babies are shown either screen sliding or screen rotating
test event-vertical block
a vertical block is placed behind the sliding screen,the screen stops when hitting block and hence is a possible condition
a vertical block is placed beneath the rotating screen, the screen doesn’t stop when it hits block
test event-horizontal block
a vertical block is placed behind the sliding screen, the screen doesn’t stop when it hits the block and so it is an impossible test
a vertical block is placed beneath the rotating screen, it stops as it reaches the block and hence is a possible event
infants will look at the impossible test if they understand object concept
Baillargeon 1987
understanding of object permanence; specifically that one object cannot move through another
7 months
conclusion
the results suggest that babies represented the block behind the screen and then estimated when the screen should stop when it reached the object
Baillargeon 1987
understanding of object permanence; specifically that one object cannot move through another
7 months
design issue
how do we know that babies aren’t just responding to the visual characteristics of the block and task?
the statistically significant result shows that infants looked for longer at the impossible event regardless of how the screens and blocks interacted
Baillargeon 1987
understanding that one object cannot move through another, but can be compressed if it is soft
procedure
the rotating screen is used with either a hard or a soft object beneath it
the hard object either stops the screen-possible event or doesn’t-impossible event
the soft object doesn’t stop the sliding screen and can stop it and so is a possible event
infants looked at the impossible event
Baillargeon 1987
understanding that one object cannot move through another, but can be compressed if it is soft
conclusion
7 month olds understand the physical properties of objects when they are given the opportunity to feel them and even when they cant feel them they know their properties remain the same
Piaget research
Piaget suggested what
that 2 year olds develop an object concept over the first 2 years of life
Piaget research
AB task
contradicting results
this showed that infants fail up until 12 months old whereas other research has shown infants do have object concept by 7 months old
Piaget research
AB task
Children are asked to search for an object that is repeatedly hidden at A
They are they asked to search again, this time the object is clearly hidden at B
Children fail and still look at A even though the object is obviously hidden at B
Piaget research
what did he conclude
Infants do not appreciate the systematic nature of spatial relationships or the permanence of objects
They dont have object concept due to their frontal lobe not being fully developed until they are 22 years old
Piaget research
Harris 1973- memory
The AB search error is due to memory account.
There has to be a memory trace for the most recent event and a longer memory trace established during previous experience with the object
the memory trace for the recent event hiding in B is lost quickly as LTM interferes with performance
This can be tested by having trials which delay between hiding and retreival- and hence will find the object more often if the search is immediate
Piaget research
habit
babies are rewarded for giving the same response several times, they are then asked to change their answer and make have a problem coordinating a new plan for the new location
Piaget research
Diamond 1988
Damage to the frontal lobe can give rise to errors in the AB task in non-human primates
Infants fail due to an immature developmental state of the pre-frontal cortex
what is the number concept
whether infants possess the ability to understand numbers without being taught it
gelman and gallistel 1978
what 5 things are we doing when we are counting
maintaining 1-1 correspondence maintaining a stable order understanding cardinality abstraction understand order irrelevance
gelman and gallistel 1978
argued that children’s counting skills were what…
guided by underlying implicit knowledge about the 5 counting principles
developed error detection task
gelman and meck 1983
error detection task
asked 3-4 yr olds (before school age) to follow a puppet and identify the puppets mistakes which takes away with pressure from the child the puppet made 1/3 errors -not respecting 1-1 correspondence -not respecting table-order principle -not respecting cardinal principle
what is the 1-1 correspondence
only 1 tag applies to each item in a set
what is the stable order principle
maintaining a stable order
1,2,3
what is absctraction
no matter what you count, the same rules apply
what is order irrelevance
1,2,3,4,5
5,4,3,2,1
gelman and meck 1983
error detection task
results
1-1 principle: both 3+4 yr olds good at task 3yr olds detected less errors overall stable-order principle: same result ^ cardianlity: 3 yr olds detected 70% whereas 4yr olds 90% both performed about chance level
gelman and meck 1983
support gelman and gallistel 1978
support that 3yr olds have implicit knowledge of the counting principles
the knowledge of counting improves during school years rather than being a newly acquired skill
Baroody 1984
replication of gelman and meck 1983
procedure
5-7 yr olds were tested on the cardinal principle and order irrelevance
child counts set “how many are there”
pointing to the last number “can you make this number 1”
“we got N counting this way, what do you think we would get counting the other way”
Child asked to re-count in opposite direction
Baroody 1984
replication of gelman and meck 1983
results
all children counted correctly
most of the younger gave an incorrect answer on the order irrelevance- when counting backwards
Children’s understanding of order irrelevance has been overestimated
Baroody 1984
replication of gelman and meck 1983
what may have led children to fail the task other than their lack of understanding of the principles?
memory hypothesis- they may not simply remember how many were counted
betrayal hypothesis- might be led to thinking that adult is requesting a different answer than they gave before due to being asked again
gelman, meck and merkin 1986
replication of baroody
3-5yr olds
procedure
2 conditions; either the child performs or the child watches a puppet perform
both groups asked to count, order irrelevance and allowed to count the set 3 times
all are given an alternative question “can you start from this side and count this way”
gelman, meck and merkin 1986
replication of baroody
results
with the altered question added, all get the answers right showing an understanding of the cardinal principle and order irrelevance
starkey and cooper 1980
VofE paradigm
number concept
familiarised infants to displays of 3 objects at test, infants were then shown displays of either 2 or 3 objects and looked at the impossible event; 2
expectations violated
wynn 1992
5-6 months
1+1=1/2
VofE
doll is shown in front of child on stage, a screen goes up and a hand comes across and puts another doll onto the stage, the screen is lowered to show either 1 or 2 dolls
the infant looks at the 1 outcome as that is impossibe
shows they have the ability to add
wynn 1992
5-6 months
2-1=1/2
a doll is on the stage, another is placed next to it so there are now 2 on stage, the screen goes up, the hand appears and takes 1 doll away, the screen is lowered to show 1 or 2 dolls
the infant looks at the impossible event =2
wynn 1992
what is of most relevance
no matter the amount of dolls, infants looked at the impossible event-increases robustness
wynn 1992
what can we conclude
number knowledge is innate in young infants as well as excluding the possibility that the visual displays may have biased the results
wynn 1992
scepticism
what if babies are giving answers for reasons other than them having number concept?
wynn implemented further conditions to prove this
1+1=2/3
babies were shown 1 doll on stage and another being added once the screen was up, when the screen lowered it showed 2/3 dolls
babies looked at the 3 dolls as they know that to not be the answer
they know the answer is 2 as opposed to just knowing 2 is larger than 1 in the previous test
Cross cultural research
compare English and oriental children.
number system is different so no 11, 12, 13 but 10+1, 10+2 instead, kids who learn from this linguistic point of view make less errors in schools
Why English kids make more errors in school is because the language they are taught with is conflicting with our innate knowledge
