MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- objects

Question 1

What are the classic methods of examining infants

Answer 1

Visual preference and preferential looking

Habituation

Question 2

What are more recent methods of examining infants

Answer 2

Eyetracking, neuroimaging methods, computational methods

Question 3

What are visual preference tasks

Answer 3

Measure whether the infant looks at one stimuli more than another
Difference in looking time implies discrimination- L-R locations systematically varied to rule out tendency to look in one direction
Important other things are controlled/counterbalanced over trials

Question 4

What is discrimination (visual preference)

Answer 4

The infant recognises the two images are 2 different things

Question 5

What is habituation as a method of examining infants

Answer 5

Present stimulus a no of times until infant shows little interest- they become bored suggesting they remember the stimulus from trial to trial
When shown a new stimulus, if their interests recovers, suggests discrimination

Question 6

What can we conclude from visual preference and habituation tasks if the infant looks equally at stimulus A and B

Answer 6

Nothing! They may fail to discriminate A and B, be equally interested in both, or equally bored by both

Question 7

What do adults perceive in an occlusion task with a rod that moves behind a box

Answer 7

The adult system ‘fills in’ the invisible parts of the rod, and we perceive a partly hidden rod rather than 2 separate rod

Question 8

What is the procedure of Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study

Answer 8

4mo infants habituated to a stimulus display where a rod moves behind a box
They are then shown 2 test displays- one showing a moving rod, and one showing 2 moving rods seperated by a gap
Both could’ve been the familiarisation stimulus- which do they look at?

Question 9

Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study- results in test phase

Answer 9

In most critical trials, after the end of the habituation phase, there is an increase in looking at the broken rod (recovery) compared to the complete rod (no recovery in looking after habituation phase)

Question 10

Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study- results in habituation phase

Answer 10

As 4 month olds are repeatedly shown the same stimulus, they get bored as they become habituated, and begin to look away

Question 11

Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study- what did the authors conclude

Answer 11

Infants were surprised by the broken rod, something had changed that made them look, suggesting they understood how the box occluded a complete rod
Suggests 4mo infants understand occlusion

Question 12

Object occlusion study on newborns

Answer 12

Slater et al (1990)- newborns look longer at the complete rod, suggesting they treat the visible evidence literally and don’t make perceptual inferences

Question 13

Object occlusion study on 2 month olds - direct replication

Answer 13

Johnson and Nanez (1995)- 2 month olds ‘fail’ direct replication of Kellman and Speke tasks

Question 14

What do the different results of object occlusion studies suggest

Answer 14

Gradual emergence of object unity

Question 15

What is object permanence

Answer 15

The ability to understand that even if an object is no longer visible, it continues to exist

Question 16

Piaget- what sort of behaviours do children initially use to construct knowledge through interacting with their environment

Answer 16

Built-in behaviours like looking, sucking and moving

Question 17

Piaget- when do infants’ development of understanding of objects take place

Answer 17

Gradual development across stages 3-5

Question 18

Piaget- what are stage 3 errors

Answer 18

Babies of 6-9 months fail to search for a completely hidden object
But can retrieve partially hidden objects

Question 19

Piaget- what have 6 month olds worked out about the environment

Answer 19

Stages 1 and 2- they have worked out the difference between themselves and objects in the environment

Question 20

Piaget- what do 6 month olds not understand about objects

Answer 20

Don’t understand objects have continuous ad independent existece- they think of objects as depending on their own actions

Question 21

Piaget- what is infants’ undestanding of objects throughout the first 18 months

Answer 21

Infants have an imperfect understanding of the continued existence of any object once it disappears from sight (no object permanence)

Question 22

Piaget- what is infants behaviour with hidden objects at the end of stage 3

Answer 22

They can search for a totally hidden object IF they happen to be making a move towards it when it is covered

Question 23

Piaget- stage 3 error, why do infants not search for a hidden object

Answer 23

Infants don’t understand the object still exists- they think it has been obliterated

Question 24

Piaget- stage 3 error, what do infants understand is happpening when they retrieve a partially covered object

Answer 24

They think their own movements have reconstituted the missing bits

Question 25

Piaget- what ability have infants gained at stage 4 with hidden objects

Answer 25

At about 9 months, infants begin to retrieve objects which they see covered

Question 26

Piaget- what is the stage 4 error

Answer 26

A-not-B error- if toy is put in place A and covered and retrrieved, then moved to place B, infant tends to look for it in the original location A

Question 27

Piaget- how long does the stage 4 error (A not B) continue for

Answer 27

Continues to about 12 months

Question 28

Piaget- what causes the A-not-B error to be made at older ages

Answer 28

If a delay is imposed ie experimenter places the object in location B and causes a longer delay before the object is put within reachable distance of the infant

Question 29

Piaget- why do infants make the stage 4 A-not-B error

Answer 29

For the infant, the object has become ‘the thing of the place’ ie place A
They think moving their hand to the original place A recreates the object

Question 30

Piaget- what do infants understand about objects at stage 4

Answer 30

Even though they look for hidden object, they don’t fully understand it objects when hidden independent of their action ie object existence defined by their actions, rather than object knowledge

Question 31

What is the result of object tasks when motor demands are removed

Answer 31

Greater object knowledge is revealed at an early age

Question 32

What is the fundamental issue of Piaget’s methods

Answer 32

His reliance on action and motor skills to measure cognition

Question 33

How do studies showing evidence of mental representation and object knowledge in 2-4 month olds weaken Piaget’s theory of learning

Answer 33

Children this young have not had enough reaching and manipulating experience to have learned about objects through action (as they supposedly do in Piaget’s theory)

Question 34

Piaget- the role of motor action vs perception in learning knowledge?

Answer 34

Perception alone is not sufficient- children learn through action and interaction with their environment

Question 35

What is the violation of expectancy technique

Answer 35

Infants familiarised with an event sequence then shown 2 novel event trials- one a possible event (based on the properties of objects), one an impossible event
If infant looks longer at impossible event, suggests they understand it violates reality

Question 36

What is the drawbridge experiment procedure

Answer 36

Baillargeon et al (1985)- 5mos
Habituation trials- drawbridge rotated through 180*
Post-habituation trials- a block was visible on the far side and the drawbridge was either Rotated through the 180* (impossible event) or Stopped when it would’ve collided with the block (possible event)

Question 37

What would Piaget’s theory predict in the drawbridge experiment

Answer 37

The 5mos are in Piaget’s stage 3, have no sense of object permanence- would not expect surprise at impossible event

Question 38

Drawbridge experiment results

Answer 38

Baillargeon et al (1985)- 5mos look longer at impossible event
Suggests they have knowledge of object permanence- know the hidden block still exists and know the conditions under which one object might impede the movement of others

Question 39

Criticism of looking time paradigms

Answer 39

They are designed to investigate perception not reasoning- impossible to generate perceptually identical but conceptually distinct stimuli, so can’t eliminate perceptual variables that could explain results (Aslin, 2007)

Question 40

What is Rivera et al (1999) criticism of the drawbridge experiment results interpretation

Answer 40

Rivera et al (1999)- the 180* event is longer, therefore more opportunity for looking
Found that even without the hidden object, more looking towards the 180* event, and looking times comparable to the occlusion events in the original drawbridge paradigm

Question 41

Experiment suggesting object permanence/solidarity undertsanding where there are no perceptual explanations for looking time

Answer 41

Baillargeon (1986) infants look longer when they see a car pass down a track IF they see a box placed on the track (that is then hidden) that should block the car
IM/POSSIBLE EVENTS VERY PERCEPTUALLY SIMILAR

Question 42

Object occlusion study on 2 month olds- modified presentation, procedure

Answer 42

Johnson and Aslin (1995)- habituation stimuli has narrower occluding box so more rod is visible, small gap in occluding box so rod is partially visible in gap

Question 43

Object occlusion study on 2 month olds- modified presentation, results

Answer 43

Johnson and Aslin (1995)- with both modified stimuli, in the test phase there was greater recovery from habituation with the broken rod (impossible event)

Question 44

Object occlusion study on 2 month olds- modified presentation, conclusions from results

Answer 44

Johnson and Aslin (1995)- 2mos need additional info compared to 4mos to express perception of object unity and pass
When perceptual learning load of task is easier, we see more advanced patterns of behaviour

Question 45

What are the weaknesses of traditional looking tests

Answer 45

The looks to stimulus or preferred location must be coded by raters- they are blind to experimental condition and inter-rater reliability is checked but this method has poor resolution

Question 46

What is the benefit of using eye tracking

Answer 46

Temporal and spatial characteristics of the eye recorded, so much higher resolution- movement record is much richer

Question 47

What did Amso and Johnson (2006) aim to investigate

Answer 47

Do changes in visual selective attention regulate emerging object knowledge through infancy?

Question 48

Amso and Johnson (2006)- procedure

Answer 48

3 month olds tested on classic rod and box occlusion task, looking preference tested and eye movements tracked

Question 49

Amso and Johnson (2006)- results of looking preference

Answer 49

As a group, no overall preference for either test display (these 3mss ‘on the cusp’)
Within the group, some infants coded as ‘perceivers’ (showed preference for impossible event) and some as ‘non-perceivers’ (no preference)

Question 50

Amso and Johnson (2006)- results of eye tracking

Answer 50

3mos who are ‘perceivers’ scan the rod systematically during habituation more than ‘non-perceivers’
Consistent with the idea that changes in visual selective attention for relevant parts of object are associated with object knowledge

Question 51

Study into training oculormotor anticipation- what is oculomotor anticipation in this task

Answer 51

Johnson et al (2003)- anticipatory eye movements to object location before its reemergence

Question 52

Study into training oculormotor anticipation- what was the initial procedure in establishing baseline

Answer 52

Johnson et al (2003)- Eye movements monitored as 4 and 6 month old infants observed a display of a ball behind an occluding box

Question 53

Study into training oculormotor anticipation- baseline data

Answer 53

Johnson et al (2003)- 4 month olds- 30% anticipatory eye movements, 70% reactionary eye movements
6 month olds- 44% anticipatory, 56% reactionary
6mos produce more anticipatory eye movements, stronger object knowledge

Question 54

Study into training oculomotor anticipation- what was the training

Answer 54

Johnson et al (2003)- 4 x 30 seconds of exposure to the ball moving back and forth, followed by occlusion display as in baseline

Question 55

Study into training oculomotor anticipation- results of training

Answer 55

Poorer performance by 4mos is improved, and they show same level of anticipatory eye movements as 6mos- performance is malleable by exposure

Question 56

Study showing looking vs reaching behavior in 2yos- procedure

Answer 56

Berthier et al (2000) Ball is rolling down a track that is occluded by a wall- infant has to open correct window to retrieve ball, wall occluder should indicate where the ball is

Question 57

Study showing looking vs reaching behavior in 2yos- resultsf for opaque door

Answer 57

2 year olds fail- 0/16 above chance

2.5 year olds- 3/16 above chance

Question 58

Study showing looking vs reaching behavior in 2yos- results for clear door

Answer 58

2 year olds are still at chance performance

2.5 year olds- most succeed

Question 59

How do looking tasks differ from search tasks

Answer 59

Looking tasks require reaction only, while search tasks require more complex cognition

Question 60

Study showing that errors in search tasks in toddlers are due to difficulty of search tasks

Answer 60

Mash et al (2002)- 2yos watch ‘Ricky the raccoon’ find the object at an unexpected location, look longer at the inconsistent condition (suggests they understand object permanence)

Question 61

What does the ability to search require in infants

Answer 61

Requires prediction- plan and execute search, need to know location in advance
Requires coordination of information with appropriate action in complex array

Question 62

Explanation for A-not-B error- memory limitations

Answer 62

Harris (1973)- interference occurs between memory of the object at each location, meaning stronger info of the object at the first location predominated info about its new location
If no delay, search is more successful

Question 63

Explanation for A-not-B error- study criticising memory limitation explanations

Answer 63

Harris (1974)- A-not-B error still made when transparent cups are used

Question 64

Explanation for A-not-B error- response preservation?

Answer 64

Infants have established a habit during A trials, they repeat this previous response when it is no longer appropriate

Question 65

Explanation for A-not-B error- study criticising response preservation explanation

Answer 65

Butterworth (1974)- children still search at A when they see an object moved to B even if they only see the object revealed at A and don’t make a motor response
Plus, why persist with habit over unrewarded trials?

Question 66

Explanation for A-not-B error- what is executive functions

Answer 66

Set of functions that allow us to plan, organise and regulate behaviour

Question 67

Explanation for A-not-B error- executive function as an explanation

Answer 67

ESFs take time to develop, hindering infants’ ability to use/update info to guide action
Underlying object knowledge is there, infants just lack the ability to act upon it

Question 68

Explanation for A-not-B error- executive function as an explanation, example of executive function failure

Answer 68

eg Inhibition- infants are unable to use their memory the object being absent at A to inhibit the old response (search at A)
Many factors contribute to error

Question 69

Explanation for A-not-B error- what is the pragmatic misinterpretation explanation

Answer 69

The experimental set-up encourages infants to learn to treat place A as a container- they may be exploring A for more objects

Question 70

Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal’s suggestion of pragmatic misinterpretation

Answer 70

Topal et al (2008)- infants might misunderstand the communicative intentions of hiding at A, treating it as a cue that this is where objects are hidden

Question 71

Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study procedure

Answer 71

14 10mos in each condition
Ostensive communicative condition, non-communicative condition, nonsocial condition
Infants attempt AB task

Question 72

Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study, what happens in each condition

Answer 72

Ostensive comunicative- experimenter engages with child and responds to their searching behaviour
Non-communicative- experimenter looks away, doesn’t engage, no feedback to infant behaviour
Nonsocial- no social engagement

Question 73

Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study results

Answer 73

Ostensive-communicative- below chance performance
In nonsocial and noncommunicative- about chance performance
Suggests something in the OC condition drives performance below chance

Question 74

Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study conclusion

Answer 74

Experimenter behaviour changes infant response- removing communication by experimenter reduces the no of A errors on B trials
Consistent with A trials ‘teaching’(and rewarding) infant about location for objects, rather than a hide and seek game

Question 75

Overall lecture summary

Answer 75

Infants understand object properties (constancy, unity, permanence) from very young but these sources of knowledge are not sufficiently engrained to guide action
Links between knowledge and action take time and experience to develop

Question 76

What is newborn vision like compared to that of adults

Answer 76

Much poorer- visual acuity is 1/30th of adult ability, and visual accomodation is poor

Question 77

What is shape perception ability in newborns

Answer 77

Slater et al (1983)- newborns discriminate crosses, triangles, squares and circles on habituation trials

Question 78

How do newborns discriminate between shapes?

Answer 78

Slater et al (1991)- newborns discriminate on the basis of angular relationships between lines rather than line orientation
Suggests they perceive simple shapes as a whole not a collection of parts

Question 79

What is size constancy

Answer 79

Understanding an object remains the same shape despite its retinal image size changing as it moves closer/away from us

Question 80

What is shape constancy

Answer 80

Understanding an object remains the same shape even though its retinal image shape changes when viewed from different angles

Question 81

What study suggests newborns have size constancy

Answer 81

Newborns habituated to an image of constant size varied in distance look longer at a new object of different size than the same object at a new distance, even though the new object is at a distance that produces the same retinal image size as one of the old object habituation distances
Suggests infants respond to changes in true size not just retinal image size

Question 82

Infant size constancy ability at 4 months

Answer 82

Infants respond primarilty to real size and not retinal image size, even when both are constant during habituation (Granrud, 2006)

Question 83

What is object unity

Answer 83

Understanding an object is whole or complete even though part of it may be hidden

Question 84

Kelman and Spelke (1983)- what condition must be fulfilled for the greater surprise at broken rod to be obtained

Answer 84

The rod MUST move- suggests common motion of upper and lower rod portions is used by infants to perceive object unity

Question 85

What are subjective contours

Answer 85

When only parts of an object are presented, the remaining contours are filled in so the complete shape can be perceived

Question 86

Study showing evidence that infants perceive subjective contours

Answer 86

Yoshiro et al (2010) 3mos habituated to a square produced by subjective contours prefer looking at a novel test shape than the real test square
Effect is particularly strong if the figure is in motion

Question 87

Infants visual ability at newborn vs 4 months

Answer 87

Newborn ability appears limited to here and now, but over first 4 months, infants develop ability to fill in perceptual gaps to achieve object unity and subjective contours (Slater and Bremner, 2003)

Question 88

Ball/track/occluder study that doesn’t require searching- what were the results?

Answer 88

Spelke et al (1992)- 2mo infants look longer at the impossible event where the ball as moved beyond the obstruction

Question 89

Ball/track/occluder study that doesn’t require searching- what conclusions can be drawn from the results

Answer 89

Top of obstruction was visible above the screen, meaning success arguably doesn’t require full object permanence
However, 2mos must have some solidarity and impenetrability of objects knowledge

Question 90

What knowledge does Spelke argue infants possess and why

Answer 90

Core knowledge of the world (particularly about the physical properties of objects, probably innate), on the basis they can reason about the events they see

Question 91

Study suggesting reasoning about the no of objects in an event- procedure

Answer 91

Spelke et al (1995)- infants familarised to 2 conditions

1) Continuous event, where an object moved behind a first screen, reemergeed, moved behind a second screen then reemerged
2) Discontinuous event where middle segment of object’s trajectory was removed (object disappeared behind first screen then an identical object emerged from the second screen)

Question 92

Study suggesting reasoning about the no of objects in an event- results

Answer 92

Spelke et al (1995)- infants familiarised to continuous event looked longer at a 2 object test display, suggesting they reasoned there was one object in the continuous event
Infants familiarised to discontinuous event looked at a single object test display, suggesting they reasoned there were 2 objects in the discontinuous event

Question 93

Study suggesting infant discrimination between different nos of items

Answer 93

Starkey and Cooper (1980)- 4-7mos dishabituated to a number change of dots in a small number condition (2/3), but not large number condition (4/6), suggesting infants can discriminate between arrays in terms of numerosity W SMALL NOS ONLY

Question 94

How did Starkey and Cooper (1980) explain their results on numerical discrimination

Answer 94

Numerical competence is based on subitising- the ability to perceive directly a small no of items without counting or using some kind of calculation, only applies to v small numbers

Question 95

Study suggesting infant knowledge of addition and subtraction operations

Answer 95

Wynn (1992, 1995)- infants look longer at the impossible event in both addition and subtraction tasks (eg 2 objects presented, then covered by a screen, then one removed by a hand, then screen lifted to show 2 objects)

Question 96

Study suggesting infant knowledge of addition and subtraction operations- conclusion from results

Answer 96

Wynn (1992, 1995)- infants can understand addition and subtraction but as a very approximate system, where any larger or smaller number would be accepted as the results of addition or subtraction respectively

Question 97

Study supporting Wynn’s conclusion that infants understand addition/subtraction

Answer 97

Slater et al (2010)- eye tracking studies show in the 2 object outcome of 2-1 subtraction, infants look significantly longer at the object that should no longer be there

Question 98

Neuroscientific evidence for Wynn’s interpretation that infants understand addition/subtraction

Answer 98

Berger et al (2006)- when infants saw an incorrect numerical outcome, they produced brain activity matching that of adults when they encounter incorrect outcomes

Question 99

Study suggesting search failure is not due to lack of motor skill

Answer 99

Bower and Wishart (1972)- infants under 8months who failed to retrieve an object under an opaque cup succeeded when the cup was transparent, yet motor action was identical- suggests invisibility of the object is a major factor preventing successful retrieval

Question 100

Study that seems to contradict Bower and Wishart’s (1972) finding with opaque vs transparent cups

Answer 100

8mo infants will reach out and grasp an object suspended in front of them after the lights have been turned off leaving the object invisible

Question 101

What explains the seemingly contradictory results of Bower and Wishart (1972) with objects hidden by the dark vs occluding obejcts

Answer 101

Infants only have problems when one object conceals another, as they have difficulty perceiving/understanding the relationship between object and occluder
They understand object permanence before they understand object/occluder relationships

Question 102

Explanation for A-not-B error- how is place A as a container in line with infants’ everyday experience

Answer 102

It is quite possible infants have ideas about containers being magical eg they gradually empty their toybox over the day, but the next day it is full again

Question 103

Explanation for A-not-B error- pragmatic misinterpretation, Topal et al (2009) additional study supporting social information causing misinterpretation of communicator’s message

Answer 103

Topal et al (2009) conducted a further study with dogs (who respond to human communicative signals) and wolves (who do not)
Dogs display the A not B error in communicative conditions, with accuracy improving in non-communicative condition
Wolves do not make errors on B trials no matter if communicative signals are used or not

Question 104

Explanation for A-not-B error- study suggesting attention is important in sucess

Answer 104

Marcovitch et al (2016)- longer peak fixation times and a larger percentage of time spent looking during a focal attention task was positively correlated with subsequent success on a looking version of the AB task

Question 105

Explanation for A-not-B error- study suggesting attention is linked to socio-economic status

Answer 105

Marcovitch et al (2016)- a trend was found for shorter peak fixation times for those whose mothers were of lower socio-economic status (SES)

Question 106

Explanation for A-not-B error- study evidencing the high SES is linked to greater attention in the first year of life

Answer 106

Clearfield and Jedd (2013)- high SES infants consistently show greater overall attention and greater attentional increases to complex stimuli than low SES infants across the second half of the first year of life

Question 107

Explanation for A-not-B error- why is inattention unlikely to be the sole cause of A-notB error

Answer 107

Infants frequently persevere looking in place A when they’re fully attentive

Question 108

Explanation for A-not-B error- study suggesting frontal cortex immaturity causes deficits in executive control

Answer 108

Diamond (1985)- immaturity of frontal cortex causes deficits in infants’ ability to use certain types of info to guide action

Question 109

Explanation for A-not-B error- infra-red spectroscopy study supporting role of frontal cortex in search tasks

Answer 109

Baird et al (2002)- used infra-red spectroscopy to show increased frontal lobe activation in infants while they reached for a hidden toy

Question 110

Explanation for A-not-B error- weaknesses of infra-red spectroscopy study into role of frontal lobe

Answer 110

The searching task only involved one location so examined object permanence rather than the type A-not B error, and only one brain area was examined meaning the role of other areas of activation cannot be assessed

Question 111

Explanation for A-not-B error- EEG study supporting role of frontal lobe in search tasks

Answer 111

Bell and Fox (1992) association between successful B trials and greater frontal EEG activation

Question 112

Explanation for A-not-B error- weakness of EEG

Answer 112

Infant movement during recording causes electrical interference with EEG signals, meaning the EEG data was not taken when the reaching task was actually undertaken
Resting EEG data collected may not be valid in indicating level of change in EEG activity during AB tasks eg those with lower resting EEG activity may show a larger increase when searching

Question 113

Explanation for A-not-B error- study supporting interaction between brain structures in frontal lobe in searching tasks

Answer 113

Cuevas et al (2012)- increased EEG coherence (measures level of interaction between brain structures) when infants observed AB task, suggesting it initiates increased functional interaction between frontal cortex areas rather than just a simple increase in activity of a single location

Question 114

Explanation for A-not-B error- weakness of studysupporting interaction between brain structures in frontal lobe in searching tasks

Answer 114

Cuevas et al (2012)- infants only watched AB tasks and did nto search, so results may not be applicable to AB search task

Question 115

Explanation for A-not-B error- evaluation of Diamond’s (1985) immature frontal lobe account

Answer 115

Strong as it recognises a combinatino of factors lead to error…however, does not predict errors in searching at B after seeing the object being hidden at A (no prior response to inhibit) and does not predict errors when the object is visible at B (no memory load involved)

Question 116

Explanation for A-not-B error- converting knowledge to action issue?

Answer 116

Bremner (2010)- when faces with the AB task, infants are aware of the continued presence of the object but can’t use this info to guide action

Question 117

Explanation for A-not-B error-converting knowledge to action, what understanding underlies AB task searching behaviour?

Answer 117

Initial success at finding the object at A is NOT based on the knowledge of the existence of the object, but trial and error manipulation of the cover at which it disappeared

Question 118

Explanation for A-not-B error-converting knowledge to action, what does frontal cortex development involve and allow

Answer 118

Involves forming links between object knowledge and action, leading to accurate search based on knowledge of the object’s position rather than just trial and error

Question 119

Explanation for A-not-B error-converting knowledge to action, what study supports this explanaion

Answer 119

Ahmed and Ruffman (1998)- infants who made A not B errors also showed greater surprise in a non-search A not B task if the object hidden at B was retrieved from A
Suggests they know where the object is hidden and can hold this in memory for quite some time, but can’t use that info to guide their search, instead relying on social cues

Question 120

At what age do children search for fully hidden objects

Answer 120

9 months

Question 121

How does the Piagetian account remain relatively intact by shifting the emphasis

Answer 121

Shifting the emphasis from conceptualising infant development as constructing knowledge of the world, to seeing infants as possessing much of this knowledge from the start and constructing links between this knowledge and ACTION (Slater and Bremner, 2003)

Question 122

What are the 3 tenets of Piaget’s theory

Answer 122

Schemas, cognitive development via ordered stages, adaption mechanisms

Question 123

Piaget- what are schema

Answer 123

Representations of knowledge that can be applied to objects/beliefs/ideas, develop and grow from one stage to the next

Question 124

Piaget- how does cognitive development occur over time

Answer 124

Children move through 4 irreversible ordered stages that are qualitatively different and affect all aspects of cognitive functioning

Question 125

Piaget- what are adaption mechanisms

Answer 125

eg accomodation, assimilation and equilibrium- driving forces for balance with the environment that underlie children’s cognitive growth

Question 126

Piaget- why does JM Baldwin refer to mental attitudes of the infant as ‘adualistical’

Answer 126

They lack any differentiation between an objective external world an an internal subjective world

Question 127

Piaget- how do infants establish a scheme of a permanent object that does not depend on the subject’s own actions

Answer 127

Infants must form an objective structuration of the object as an independent entity by constructing the ‘group of translations’ ie the idea of behaviours that involve a return to an original position or detouring around some obstacle

Question 128

Piaget- what is the ‘Copernican revolution’

Answer 128

Around 12-18 months, the subject’s body is no longer seen as the centre of the world but an object like any other, a member of the set of permanent objects that composes their universe

Question 129

Piaget- what provides the foundation for more abstract thought such as logic and mathematics

Answer 129

Relations of order, inclusion and correspondence

Question 130

Piaget- What is assimilation from a biological POV

Answer 130

Lee (2000)- the integration of external elements into evolving or completed structures of an organism

Question 131

Piaget- how are new behaviours assimilated

Answer 131

They are always assimilated to already constructed structures (innate reflexes or previously acquires)
These assimilations make up the fundamental psychogenetic connections that develop over time (Lee, 2000)

Question 132

Piaget- why is assimilation rather than just pure association necessary for learning

Answer 132

Assimilation is necessary to assure the contiuity of structures and integration of new elements to these structrues (Lee, 2000)

Question 133

Piaget- what is accomodation

Answer 133

Any modification of an assimilatory scheme or structure by the elements it assimilates (Lee, 2000)

Question 134

Piaget- what is an example of accomodation

Answer 134

eg a child who assimilates his thumb to the sucking scheme will make different movements when sucking his thumb (accomodation) from those he uses in sucking his mother’s breast (Lee, 2000)

Question 135

Piaget- what does cognitive adaption consist of an equilibrium between

Answer 135

Assimilation and adaption- one cannot exist without another

Question 136

Piaget- how are the accomodations a child is capable of limited

Answer 136

Within limits imposed by the necessity of preserving the corresponding assimilatory structure

Question 137

Piaget- how does thought evolve when assimilation outweighs accomodation (characteristics of object are only take into account insofar as they’re consistent with the subject’s current interests)

Answer 137

Though evolves in an egocentric direction eg symbolic games where objects represent what is imaged
As accomodation to objects becomes increasingly precise, there is eventually no difference between play and spontaneous cognitive activities

Question 138

Piaget- how does thought evolve when accomodation outweights assimilation (so it faithfully models eg the forms of its models at the time)

Answer 138

Representation evolves in the direction of imitation
Immediate imitation (accomodation to present models) extends to deferred imitation (delayed imitation to when behaviour occured) then interiorized imitation (origin of mental imagery)

Question 139

Piaget- what does it mean to say assimilation and accommodation are in equilirium

Answer 139

Assimilation is subordinate to the properties of objects and accommodation is subordinate to the already existing structures to which the situation must be assimilated (Lee, 2000)

Question 140

Piaget- when can we speak of cognitive behaviour and intelleigence rather than play/imitation/mental imagery

Answer 140

As long as assimilation and accomodation are in equilibrium (Lee, 2000)

Question 141

Piaget- why is equillibrium difficult to attain in the first few months of life

Answer 141

Because of egocentric assimilation and inadequate accomodation (consists only of fixations on states)

Question 142

Piaget- why can equilibrium be attained from 7-8yo

Answer 142

The emergence of reversible operations ensures equilirbium as both assimilation and accomodation can now act on transformations as well as states

Question 143

Piaget- what are the 4 stages

Answer 143

Sensori-motor, pre-operatinonal, concrete operational and formal operational

Question 144

Piaget- what ages are the 4 stages

Answer 144

Sensorimotor- age 0-2
Pre-operational- age 2-7
Concrete operational- age 7-12
Formal operational- age 12+

Question 145

Piaget- what do children begin to understand in sensorimotor stage

Answer 145

Begin to differentiate themselves from the environment, understand causality in time and space, develop the capacity to form internal mental representations

Question 146

Piaget- what is the organisation of schema

Answer 146

The inborn capacity to coordinate existing schemas and combine them into more complex systems eg a 3month old can combine looking and grasping with sucking while feeding, newborn cannot
Organisation gets more complex as schema elaborate

Question 147

Piaget- what upsets equilibrium between assimilation and accomodation

Answer 147

Upset as children assimilate new experiences or accomodate their existing schemas to a new idea, leading to further learning and adaption

Question 148

Piaget- what are the best conditions for change and growth

Answer 148

When new experiences are close to the child’s capacity to respond

Question 149

Piaget- sensorimotor stage, view of world from 1-4 months

Answer 149

Reactions centre on the infant’s own body, no differentiation between self and outside world

Question 150

Piaget- sensorimotor stage, view of world from 4-10 months

Answer 150

Infants focus on objects rather than their own body, begun to change their surroundings intentionally

Question 151

Piaget- sensorimotor stage, 12-18 months

Answer 151

Infants actively use trial and error methods to learn about objects, increased ability allows experimentation and exploration

Question 152

Piaget- sensorimotor stage, 18-24 months, what important thing develops

Answer 152

Internal representations develop allowing baby to manipulate their mental representation of the world (think and plan)

Question 153

Piaget- sensorimotor stage, 18-24 months, what is the consequence of developing internal representation

Answer 153

Children have a full concept of object permanence- they have a memory/mental representation of a hidden object, so can look for it
Children only now demonstrate novel behaviour to a problem- requires mental representation of what child is planning to do

Question 154

Study suggesting infants can demonstrate novel planned actions/mental representation earlier than Piaget suggests

Answer 154

Willatts (1989)- 9 month old children can carry out the series of appropriate actions to retrieve a toy, often on the first occasion witihout needing trial and error

Question 155

Piaget- what do children begin to understand in the pre-operatinoal stage

Answer 155

Begin to differentiate themselves from the environment, to understand classification of objects, at the end can perspective take and understand number conversion

Question 156

Piaget- pre-operational stage, what is children’s thinking characterised by

Answer 156

Egocentrism- child finds it difficult to decentre

Question 157

Piaget- pre-operational, what does the child find it hard to understand about objects

Answer 157

Can’t understand that if an object is changed in shape or appearance its qualities remain the same eg laws of conversion
Egocentrism means child can only focus on one attribute at a time eg wideness and not compensating height

Question 158

Study suggesting why children fail transitive inference tasks (comparing items that have not been compared before)

Answer 158

Bryant and Trabasso- trained children to remember the lengths of rods, found they could not answer correctly in comparison tasks
Suggests their difficulties lie in limited working memory capacity rather than difficulties making logical inferences

Question 159

Piaget- what does the child begin to understand in the concrete operational stage

Answer 159

Children can carry out ‘concrete operations’ (applying only to immediately present objects), understand conversion and conservation, can classify and order order objects, still face difficulty with abstract tasks

Question 160

Piaget- study supporting Piaget’s stated order of development of conservation types

Answer 160

Tomlinson-Keasey (1978)- conservation of number, then weight, then volume acquired in the order stated by Piaget

Question 161

Piaget- what does the child begin to understand in the formal operation stage

Answer 161

Abstract reasoning begins, can reason deductively and formulate and test hypotheses

Question 162

How can conditioning be used to test infants behaviour

Answer 162

eg an increase in teat sucking rate can be rewarded by presenting a stimulus (eg sound), so infant will continue sucking to hear the sound for as long as it remains interesting- can then test for dishabituation (increased sucking again) when a new stimulus is presented

Question 163

How can changes in heart rate be used to test infant behaviour

Answer 163

Heart rate increases when infants are surprised or upset, and slows when they are focusing or attending to a stimulus- when an infant habituates to a sound their heart rate will increase again, if a new stimulus slows their heart rate it indicates dishabituation and discrimination between the 2 sounds

Question 164

Difficulties of testing infants

Answer 164

Very young infants are easily distracted, easily upset and often fall asleep, and it is often to interpret infant behaviours fundamental to perceptual abilities (eg head turning, heart rate change)

Question 165

Benefit of using different techniques when inestigating infants

Answer 165

If they all find similar results, it suggests reliability

Question 166

Study showing infant ability to track a moving object

Answer 166

Infants below 2 months can’t track very smoothly, tending to follow the moving object with jerky eye movements (Aslin, 1981)

Question 167

Study showing infant scanning ability of an object

Answer 167

Salapatek (1975)- 1mos tend to focus on a single/limited no of features of a shape, 2mos have more comprehensive scanning strategies preferring to scan internal features of a shape

Question 168

What is the point of the ‘lmiitations’ of infant vision

Answer 168

Hainline (1998)- the ‘limitations’ reduce the range of stimuli they experience, that may help them focus on the most important aspects of their environment

Question 169

Study supporting infants having shape constancy at 3 months

Answer 169

Caron et al (1979)- 3mos habituated to the same rectangle at different angles, then preferred to look at a new shape, suggesting they recognised the rectangle as the same shape at different angles

Question 170

How do Spencer et al (2009) criticise Topal’s pragmatic misinterpretation

Answer 170

Topal’s account doesn’t connect social pragmatic interpretation to what is known about the role of attention/working memory/underlying neural processes in A not B
Thus it can’t explain performance over a variety of task versions with manipulated variables

Question 171

What do Spencer et al (2009) propose that better explains Topal’s results

Answer 171

Dynamic field theory- infants encode locations more weakly when distracting social cues are present, focuses on more low level mechanisms
Offers a unified account

Question 172

How to Topal et al (2009) respond to criticisms by Spencer et al (2009)

Answer 172

Topal et al (2009)- communicative signals are used by parents to direct infants’ attention to objects, wouldn’t make sense for these signals to reduce ‘cue salience’ of object

Question 173

How to Topal et al (2009) respond to criticisms by Spencer et al (2009)- studies cited to support their response

Answer 173

Multiple studies show ostensive referential communication facilitates learning about objects, as the context shifts infant attention towards the object’s permanent features (eg shape) and the expese of its transient features (eg location)

Question 174

How to Topal et al (2009) respond to criticisms by Spencer et al (2009)- summary of their rebuttal

Answer 174

The A not B error is not due to immature cognitive functioning, but paradoxically may indicate our early sophisticated social competence that involves learning from others through communication

Question 175

How can Piaget’s own work support the explanation that infants fail searching tasks because they cannot perform coordinated actions

Answer 175

Piaget found that at 9 months, infants begin to coordinate separate actions into means-ends sequences- this is when infants begin passing object permanence searching tasks (Baillargeon et al, 1985)

Question 176

How can Piaget’s theory explain tracking experiments and object in the dark experiences that attempt to disprove his idea of object permanence at 9 months

Answer 176

Piaget- when infants anticipate the reappearance of an object from behind a box, they could be extending a tracking motion begun prior to the object’s disappearance
They reach for an object in the dark because they are extending an action initiated before the lights went out
(Baillargeon et al, 1985)

Question 177

How did they try and run a control for the 180* degree event simply being more perceptually interesting than the 120* movement in the drawbridge experiment

Answer 177

Baillargeon et al (1985)- infants showed no preference between an 180* and 120* event where the box was placed to the side (so neither were impossible events), suggesting looking preference is not due to the 180* movement being more interesting

Question 178

issues with drawbridge experiment- doesn’t demonstrate object solidarity principle?

Answer 178

Infants could be surprised the drawbridge in impossible event doesn’t clip through the box, remembering it exists but being surprised the objects don’t go through one another- could be surprised thinking someone has taken the box away

Question 179

issues with drawbridge experiment- difference in test event length

Answer 179

Impossible test event was longer (12 seconds) than possible test event (8 seconds), possibly affecting looking time

Question 180

issues with drawbridge experiment- box in control experiment

Answer 180

In control test, infants could have been looking at the box placed to the side instead, affecting their looking time at the 2 drawbridges, meaning it is not comparable to experimental condition

Question 181

issues with drawbridge experiment- no random assignment

Answer 181

Doesn’t say infants were randomly assigned to conditions, meaning experimenter bias could have skewed the samples for control vs experimental trial- not valid as a control

Question 182

issues with drawbridge experiment- control results not significantly different to experimental results

Answer 182

On the first test pair in the control, infants showed the same longer looking time for the 180 degree event as when it was impossible in the experiment, suggesting they found it more interesting- not what the study claimed!