Lecture 7 - Early Conceptions of the Physical World Flashcards
What do children and well informed adults know about the physical world
Composed objects and surfaces governed invariant laws
3D environment occupied by objects, varying attributes
Objective reality
What perspective does Piaget 1954 take on physical knowledge
Constructivist
Outline Piaget’s 1954 Constructivist theory of physical knowledge
Chaotic perceptual input early infancy
Action necessary construction knowledge
Responsible own knowledge
Watch objects and their consequences
Late development of conceptual understanding
Prior learning conceptual chaos, could not mentally represent objects - out of sight, out of mind
Who takes a Nativist approach to the theory of physical knowledge
Spelke
Baillargeon
Outline the Nativist approach to the theory of physical knowledge
Core knowledge Hypothesis
Possess innate knowledge object concepts
Solidity, Cohesion, Contact, Continuity
Evolutionary, adaptive
No huge change between infancy and adulthood
Developmental change - refinement of core concepts
Outline Solidity as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach
No two objects occupy same space at one time
Do not merge together
Outline Cohesion as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach
Objects are connected masses stuff move as a whole
Outline Contact as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach
Objects move through contact i.e. do not move spontaneously
Outline Continuity as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach
Objects move in continuous paths
Who reconciles the two opposing views of Constructivism and Nativism
Karmiloff-Smith 1992
Outline how Karmiloff-Smith 1992 reconciled the 2 competing views of constructivism and nativism
Not born innate knowledge but have constraints that channel attention
Genes specify initial biases/predispositions channel relevant environmental inputs
Non-chaotic system from outset
Implicit understanding
Developmental change necessary - implicit –> explicit
“representational redescription”
Outline Piaget’s Constructivist approach on object permanence
Understanding objects continue to exist even when they cannot be perceived
Infants believe it is their action that brings an object into existence
A not B error task
When is Object Permanence acquired
9 months
Outline the A not B Error Task
Look for object where they last found it, not where it currently is.
Object continuously hidden under cloth A and revealed. Then hidden under cloth B
Continue to look under cloth A
Manual Search Task
When does the A not B error occur
8-12 months
Why do infants fail the A not B error task
Search/reach/grasp –> memory difficulty
Hard inhibit potent response pattern
Criticism of the A not B error task
Reliance on search tasks - could be underestimating infants knowledge
Outline Bower and Wishart 1972 Motor Skill counter argument and support of Object Permanence
Infants who failed retrieve object from opaque upturned cup were successful when cup was transparent
Ability retrieve object when action plan in place - not memory
Outline Butterworths 1977 counter argument and support of Object Permanence
Infants still make A not B error when object in full view at B (transparent covers or hidden)
Not just memory
Outline the Violation of Expectancy Method
Looking time study
Familiarise infant to an event
Present test behaviour that is consistent/inconsistent with prior familiarised event
Infant looks longer at inconsistent event, evidence they are surprised
Some level knowledge about physical world
Outline Baillargeon et al 1985 permanence and solidity experiment 1 method
Object permanence in 5 month olds
Habituated to drawbridge of 180 degrees
Then saw block placed in way of trajectory
Possible event; touched solid wood then went back
Impossible event: appears drawbridge went through block
Outline Baillargeon et al 1985 permanence and solidity experiment 1 results
Looked longer impossible events
Earlier than Piaget suggested
Understand object continues exist when hidden from view
Outline the Skeptics view on perceptual or higher level learning
Cohen and Marks 2002
Cautious about attributing sophisticated cognitive processes to infants when simpler processes will suffice
Butterworth 1998
Perception and knowledge not the same thing. Can regard event as odd without knowing why
Outline Rivera et al 1999 alternative explanation for the drawbridge study
Result of perceptual preferences rather than understanding
Preference for more motion
120 degrees less motion = look less as less interesting
Outline Rivera et al 1999 alternative STUDY for the drawbridge study
Replication drawbridge study but without a block, just rotated
Looked longer at 180 degrees rotation even though there was no block
Motion preference
Outline Haith 1998 alternative explanation for the drawbridge study
Perceptual persistence
Nothing tells us if they are mentally representing blocking
May just have lingering memory of block
Lingering activation causing an illusion
Against interpretation of high level knowledge
Outline Permanence and Solidity 2 experiment
Habituated to truck moving down slope and behind screen emerging out the other side
Shown block either out side track or on the track behind the screen
Still see car going through trajectory
But if understand object permanence should be surprised see car come through other side
When does Baillargeon 1986 argue object permanence exists in the Truck study
6.5 - 8 months
When does Baillargeon and DeVos 1991 argue object permanence exists in the Truck study
3.5 month olds
Understand objects continue to exist
Outline Permanence and Solidity 3 study by Baillargeon 1987
Testing infants understand and reason about properties of object even when out of sight
Either squash sponge or hard woodblock put in way of drawbridge
Only surprised when drawbridge went through block
7 months represent properties of hidden objects
Outline Spelke et al 1992 study on Infancy and Beyond
Habituated to ball falling down to shelf behind a screen
Screen lifted and found as expected
Saw additional shelf being put on top
Possible event = ball lands on higher shelf
Impossible = ball fell to bottom shelf as if it went through the top shelf
4 months look longer impossible event
Outline Hood et al 2000 and Berthier et al 2000 study on infancy and beyond
Familiarised ball dropping behind screen then shelf introduced
Cups at the bottom as containers
Ball dropped and child asked to look for ball
If understand solidity they should look for ball in cup on top shelf
Outline Hood et al 2000 and Berthier et al 2000 RESULTS on infancy and beyond
2 years 40% correct
2 1/2 years 93% correct
Look for longer impossible event but search in wrong place
Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge
Outline Search Errors
2 year olds have knowledge but unable use it to guide their actions
Early cognitive development involves constructing knowledge action links rather than constructing knowledge itself
Looking measures however should not be dismissed they are still the building blocks of what knowledge builds on
May not be able to use this knowledge to predict
Outline what Keen 2003 says on Speech Errors
Reasoning may be limited to recognising after the fact incongruent events
Perceptual recognition of implausible event outshines seems like a valuable building block to construct further knowledge and prediction about physical world
Outline the Limited Problem Solving reason for Speech Errors
In search task having to predict where a ball has fallen there is more problem solving than looking
Might not have ability to do this
Outline the Frontal Cortex Immaturity reason for Speech Errors
Diamond 1985
Frontal cortex late developing and important for planning actions and inhibitory control
Inhibit habituation knowledge e.g. going to familiarised cup
Outline the Weaker Representations reason for Speech Errors
Weaker representations that are sufficient for looking tasks but not manual retrieval
Representing solidity but aren’t strong enough to guide actions
Outline the Early Representations Implicit reason for Speech Errors
Karmiloff-Smith 1992
Not available to child to intentionally use
Not aware of them to use them
Only later when explicit can they act on them
Outline Karmiloff-Smith 1992 representation re-description model of cognitive development
Implicit: procedural knowledge, in the mind, innate
Then representational re description
Explicit: declarative knowledge, available to the mind
Outline VoE study on support and gravity
3 months - surprise when block appears to float
5 months - didn’t understand slight contact still mean object can fall
6 1/2 months - did not understand amount contact mattered
12.5 months - understood proportional distribution determines support
Outline Baillargeon et al 1992 study on the elaboration of core knowledge
In first pass understanding of physical events
Construct an all or non representation
Capture essence of events but few details
Further experience initial core representations are progressively elaborated
Outline Children’s naive intuitive theories
Conceptual frameworks
Children spontaneously generate (not taught) make explanations and predictions
Resistant to counter evidence
Outline Hood 1995-8 Tubes Task of naive physical theories and the gravity error
Paradigm of holes at top and cups at the bottom connected by tubes
Persistent error 2-3years understand ball has gone down tube
Instead look cup directly below not exit of tube
Infer trajectory falling object always be straight down
Outline REASONING for Hood 1995-8 Tubes Task of naive physical theories and the gravity error findings
Transparent tubes solve it
But when return to opaque still don’t understand
Up vs down motion. When ball placed bottom and sucked up tube , gave right choice in cup
Real life have no experience things going up in straight lines so do not believe that is the expected motion
Outline Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder 1975 naive physical theory on all things must balance in the centre
4-5 years perform well by trial and error. No expectations. Data driven.
6-7 years rigidly stick to naive centre theory of balance and fail the task. Resistant to counter evidence, not flexible. Internally driven. Give up on task.
8-9 years flexible and switch strategy evidence contradicts their centre theory. Reconciling data and internal drives. More explicit knowledge and more flexible. Better ability to reason.
Outline knowledge of object use
1 year old begin exhibiting object function through action:
Begin show correct use everyday objects
Play with objects functionally not just exploration
Outline knowledge of object use by Hunnius and Bekkeding 2010 method
Anticipatory looking technique find if 6-16 month olds have expectations about how number of everyday objects are used
Shown videos actress using objects in conventional or unconventional ways
E.g. bring hairbrush up to hair vs bringing hairbrush up to mouth
Analysing where infants look anticipation where actress putting object
Outline knowledge of object use by Hunnius and Bekkeding 2010 results
Infants more frequently looked mouth and ear area when they watched the correct object being lifted than when observed the unrelated object being lifted
Displayed this from 6 months
They know which actions associated with which objects for 2 everyday objects - phone and cup
(Brush results negative)
Outline the conclusion of knowledge of object use
Child’s own action on objects not prerequisite for having expectation about other people’s actions when using objects
Learning arises through observations people and their actions, detect statistical regularities
Different interpretations data:
Do infants know which action should be done use object properly
Or have simply learn which action associated with which object
Unclear which is the right interpretation
