MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- objects Flashcards
What are the classic methods of examining infants
Visual preference and preferential looking
Habituation
What are more recent methods of examining infants
Eyetracking, neuroimaging methods, computational methods
What are visual preference tasks
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
What is discrimination (visual preference)
The infant recognises the two images are 2 different things
What is habituation as a method of examining infants
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
What can we conclude from visual preference and habituation tasks if the infant looks equally at stimulus A and B
Nothing! They may fail to discriminate A and B, be equally interested in both, or equally bored by both
What do adults perceive in an occlusion task with a rod that moves behind a box
The adult system ‘fills in’ the invisible parts of the rod, and we perceive a partly hidden rod rather than 2 separate rod
What is the procedure of Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study
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?
Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study- results in test phase
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)
Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study- results in habituation phase
As 4 month olds are repeatedly shown the same stimulus, they get bored as they become habituated, and begin to look away
Kellman and Spelke (1983)’s object occlusion study- what did the authors conclude
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
Object occlusion study on newborns
Slater et al (1990)- newborns look longer at the complete rod, suggesting they treat the visible evidence literally and don’t make perceptual inferences
Object occlusion study on 2 month olds - direct replication
Johnson and Nanez (1995)- 2 month olds ‘fail’ direct replication of Kellman and Speke tasks
What do the different results of object occlusion studies suggest
Gradual emergence of object unity
What is object permanence
The ability to understand that even if an object is no longer visible, it continues to exist
Piaget- what sort of behaviours do children initially use to construct knowledge through interacting with their environment
Built-in behaviours like looking, sucking and moving
Piaget- when do infants’ development of understanding of objects take place
Gradual development across stages 3-5
Piaget- what are stage 3 errors
Babies of 6-9 months fail to search for a completely hidden object
But can retrieve partially hidden objects
Piaget- what have 6 month olds worked out about the environment
Stages 1 and 2- they have worked out the difference between themselves and objects in the environment
Piaget- what do 6 month olds not understand about objects
Don’t understand objects have continuous ad independent existece- they think of objects as depending on their own actions
Piaget- what is infants’ undestanding of objects throughout the first 18 months
Infants have an imperfect understanding of the continued existence of any object once it disappears from sight (no object permanence)
Piaget- what is infants behaviour with hidden objects at the end of stage 3
They can search for a totally hidden object IF they happen to be making a move towards it when it is covered
Piaget- stage 3 error, why do infants not search for a hidden object
Infants don’t understand the object still exists- they think it has been obliterated
Piaget- stage 3 error, what do infants understand is happpening when they retrieve a partially covered object
They think their own movements have reconstituted the missing bits
Piaget- what ability have infants gained at stage 4 with hidden objects
At about 9 months, infants begin to retrieve objects which they see covered
Piaget- what is the stage 4 error
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
Piaget- how long does the stage 4 error (A not B) continue for
Continues to about 12 months
Piaget- what causes the A-not-B error to be made at older ages
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
Piaget- why do infants make the stage 4 A-not-B error
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
Piaget- what do infants understand about objects at stage 4
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
What is the result of object tasks when motor demands are removed
Greater object knowledge is revealed at an early age
What is the fundamental issue of Piaget’s methods
His reliance on action and motor skills to measure cognition
How do studies showing evidence of mental representation and object knowledge in 2-4 month olds weaken Piaget’s theory of learning
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)
Piaget- the role of motor action vs perception in learning knowledge?
Perception alone is not sufficient- children learn through action and interaction with their environment
What is the violation of expectancy technique
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
What is the drawbridge experiment procedure
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)
What would Piaget’s theory predict in the drawbridge experiment
The 5mos are in Piaget’s stage 3, have no sense of object permanence- would not expect surprise at impossible event
Drawbridge experiment results
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
Criticism of looking time paradigms
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)
What is Rivera et al (1999) criticism of the drawbridge experiment results interpretation
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
Experiment suggesting object permanence/solidarity undertsanding where there are no perceptual explanations for looking time
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
Object occlusion study on 2 month olds- modified presentation, procedure
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
Object occlusion study on 2 month olds- modified presentation, results
Johnson and Aslin (1995)- with both modified stimuli, in the test phase there was greater recovery from habituation with the broken rod (impossible event)
Object occlusion study on 2 month olds- modified presentation, conclusions from results
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
What are the weaknesses of traditional looking tests
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
What is the benefit of using eye tracking
Temporal and spatial characteristics of the eye recorded, so much higher resolution- movement record is much richer
What did Amso and Johnson (2006) aim to investigate
Do changes in visual selective attention regulate emerging object knowledge through infancy?
Amso and Johnson (2006)- procedure
3 month olds tested on classic rod and box occlusion task, looking preference tested and eye movements tracked
Amso and Johnson (2006)- results of looking preference
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)
Amso and Johnson (2006)- results of eye tracking
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
Study into training oculormotor anticipation- what is oculomotor anticipation in this task
Johnson et al (2003)- anticipatory eye movements to object location before its reemergence
Study into training oculormotor anticipation- what was the initial procedure in establishing baseline
Johnson et al (2003)- Eye movements monitored as 4 and 6 month old infants observed a display of a ball behind an occluding box
Study into training oculormotor anticipation- baseline data
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
Study into training oculomotor anticipation- what was the training
Johnson et al (2003)- 4 x 30 seconds of exposure to the ball moving back and forth, followed by occlusion display as in baseline
Study into training oculomotor anticipation- results of training
Poorer performance by 4mos is improved, and they show same level of anticipatory eye movements as 6mos- performance is malleable by exposure
Study showing looking vs reaching behavior in 2yos- procedure
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
Study showing looking vs reaching behavior in 2yos- resultsf for opaque door
2 year olds fail- 0/16 above chance
2.5 year olds- 3/16 above chance
Study showing looking vs reaching behavior in 2yos- results for clear door
2 year olds are still at chance performance
2.5 year olds- most succeed
How do looking tasks differ from search tasks
Looking tasks require reaction only, while search tasks require more complex cognition
Study showing that errors in search tasks in toddlers are due to difficulty of search tasks
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)
What does the ability to search require in infants
Requires prediction- plan and execute search, need to know location in advance
Requires coordination of information with appropriate action in complex array
Explanation for A-not-B error- memory limitations
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- study criticising memory limitation explanations
Harris (1974)- A-not-B error still made when transparent cups are used
Explanation for A-not-B error- response preservation?
Infants have established a habit during A trials, they repeat this previous response when it is no longer appropriate
Explanation for A-not-B error- study criticising response preservation explanation
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?
Explanation for A-not-B error- what is executive functions
Set of functions that allow us to plan, organise and regulate behaviour
Explanation for A-not-B error- executive function as an explanation
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- executive function as an explanation, example of executive function failure
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- what is the pragmatic misinterpretation explanation
The experimental set-up encourages infants to learn to treat place A as a container- they may be exploring A for more objects
Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal’s suggestion of pragmatic misinterpretation
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study procedure
14 10mos in each condition
Ostensive communicative condition, non-communicative condition, nonsocial condition
Infants attempt AB task
Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study, what happens in each condition
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study results
Ostensive-communicative- below chance performance
In nonsocial and noncommunicative- about chance performance
Suggests something in the OC condition drives performance below chance
Explanation for A-not-B error- Topal et al’s (2008) pragmatic misinterpretation study conclusion
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
Overall lecture summary
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
What is newborn vision like compared to that of adults
Much poorer- visual acuity is 1/30th of adult ability, and visual accomodation is poor
What is shape perception ability in newborns
Slater et al (1983)- newborns discriminate crosses, triangles, squares and circles on habituation trials
How do newborns discriminate between shapes?
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
What is size constancy
Understanding an object remains the same shape despite its retinal image size changing as it moves closer/away from us
What is shape constancy
Understanding an object remains the same shape even though its retinal image shape changes when viewed from different angles
What study suggests newborns have size constancy
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
Infant size constancy ability at 4 months
Infants respond primarilty to real size and not retinal image size, even when both are constant during habituation (Granrud, 2006)
What is object unity
Understanding an object is whole or complete even though part of it may be hidden
Kelman and Spelke (1983)- what condition must be fulfilled for the greater surprise at broken rod to be obtained
The rod MUST move- suggests common motion of upper and lower rod portions is used by infants to perceive object unity
What are subjective contours
When only parts of an object are presented, the remaining contours are filled in so the complete shape can be perceived
Study showing evidence that infants perceive subjective contours
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
Infants visual ability at newborn vs 4 months
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)
Ball/track/occluder study that doesn’t require searching- what were the results?
Spelke et al (1992)- 2mo infants look longer at the impossible event where the ball as moved beyond the obstruction
Ball/track/occluder study that doesn’t require searching- what conclusions can be drawn from the results
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
What knowledge does Spelke argue infants possess and why
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
Study suggesting reasoning about the no of objects in an event- procedure
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)
Study suggesting reasoning about the no of objects in an event- results
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
Study suggesting infant discrimination between different nos of items
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
How did Starkey and Cooper (1980) explain their results on numerical discrimination
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
Study suggesting infant knowledge of addition and subtraction operations
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)
Study suggesting infant knowledge of addition and subtraction operations- conclusion from results
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
Study supporting Wynn’s conclusion that infants understand addition/subtraction
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
Neuroscientific evidence for Wynn’s interpretation that infants understand addition/subtraction
Berger et al (2006)- when infants saw an incorrect numerical outcome, they produced brain activity matching that of adults when they encounter incorrect outcomes
Study suggesting search failure is not due to lack of motor skill
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
Study that seems to contradict Bower and Wishart’s (1972) finding with opaque vs transparent cups
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
What explains the seemingly contradictory results of Bower and Wishart (1972) with objects hidden by the dark vs occluding obejcts
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- how is place A as a container in line with infants’ everyday experience
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- pragmatic misinterpretation, Topal et al (2009) additional study supporting social information causing misinterpretation of communicator’s message
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- study suggesting attention is important in sucess
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- study suggesting attention is linked to socio-economic status
Marcovitch et al (2016)- a trend was found for shorter peak fixation times for those whose mothers were of lower socio-economic status (SES)
Explanation for A-not-B error- study evidencing the high SES is linked to greater attention in the first year of life
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- why is inattention unlikely to be the sole cause of A-notB error
Infants frequently persevere looking in place A when they’re fully attentive
Explanation for A-not-B error- study suggesting frontal cortex immaturity causes deficits in executive control
Diamond (1985)- immaturity of frontal cortex causes deficits in infants’ ability to use certain types of info to guide action
Explanation for A-not-B error- infra-red spectroscopy study supporting role of frontal cortex in search tasks
Baird et al (2002)- used infra-red spectroscopy to show increased frontal lobe activation in infants while they reached for a hidden toy
Explanation for A-not-B error- weaknesses of infra-red spectroscopy study into role of frontal lobe
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- EEG study supporting role of frontal lobe in search tasks
Bell and Fox (1992) association between successful B trials and greater frontal EEG activation
Explanation for A-not-B error- weakness of EEG
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- study supporting interaction between brain structures in frontal lobe in searching tasks
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
Explanation for A-not-B error- weakness of studysupporting interaction between brain structures in frontal lobe in searching tasks
Cuevas et al (2012)- infants only watched AB tasks and did nto search, so results may not be applicable to AB search task
Explanation for A-not-B error- evaluation of Diamond’s (1985) immature frontal lobe account
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)
Explanation for A-not-B error- converting knowledge to action issue?
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
Explanation for A-not-B error-converting knowledge to action, what understanding underlies AB task searching behaviour?
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
Explanation for A-not-B error-converting knowledge to action, what does frontal cortex development involve and allow
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
Explanation for A-not-B error-converting knowledge to action, what study supports this explanaion
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
At what age do children search for fully hidden objects
9 months
How does the Piagetian account remain relatively intact by shifting the emphasis
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)
What are the 3 tenets of Piaget’s theory
Schemas, cognitive development via ordered stages, adaption mechanisms
Piaget- what are schema
Representations of knowledge that can be applied to objects/beliefs/ideas, develop and grow from one stage to the next
Piaget- how does cognitive development occur over time
Children move through 4 irreversible ordered stages that are qualitatively different and affect all aspects of cognitive functioning
Piaget- what are adaption mechanisms
eg accomodation, assimilation and equilibrium- driving forces for balance with the environment that underlie children’s cognitive growth
Piaget- why does JM Baldwin refer to mental attitudes of the infant as ‘adualistical’
They lack any differentiation between an objective external world an an internal subjective world
Piaget- how do infants establish a scheme of a permanent object that does not depend on the subject’s own actions
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
Piaget- what is the ‘Copernican revolution’
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
Piaget- what provides the foundation for more abstract thought such as logic and mathematics
Relations of order, inclusion and correspondence
Piaget- What is assimilation from a biological POV
Lee (2000)- the integration of external elements into evolving or completed structures of an organism
Piaget- how are new behaviours assimilated
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)
Piaget- why is assimilation rather than just pure association necessary for learning
Assimilation is necessary to assure the contiuity of structures and integration of new elements to these structrues (Lee, 2000)
Piaget- what is accomodation
Any modification of an assimilatory scheme or structure by the elements it assimilates (Lee, 2000)
Piaget- what is an example of accomodation
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)
Piaget- what does cognitive adaption consist of an equilibrium between
Assimilation and adaption- one cannot exist without another
Piaget- how are the accomodations a child is capable of limited
Within limits imposed by the necessity of preserving the corresponding assimilatory structure
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)
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
Piaget- how does thought evolve when accomodation outweights assimilation (so it faithfully models eg the forms of its models at the time)
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)
Piaget- what does it mean to say assimilation and accommodation are in equilirium
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)
Piaget- when can we speak of cognitive behaviour and intelleigence rather than play/imitation/mental imagery
As long as assimilation and accomodation are in equilibrium (Lee, 2000)
Piaget- why is equillibrium difficult to attain in the first few months of life
Because of egocentric assimilation and inadequate accomodation (consists only of fixations on states)
Piaget- why can equilibrium be attained from 7-8yo
The emergence of reversible operations ensures equilirbium as both assimilation and accomodation can now act on transformations as well as states
Piaget- what are the 4 stages
Sensori-motor, pre-operatinonal, concrete operational and formal operational
Piaget- what ages are the 4 stages
Sensorimotor- age 0-2
Pre-operational- age 2-7
Concrete operational- age 7-12
Formal operational- age 12+
Piaget- what do children begin to understand in sensorimotor stage
Begin to differentiate themselves from the environment, understand causality in time and space, develop the capacity to form internal mental representations
Piaget- what is the organisation of schema
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
Piaget- what upsets equilibrium between assimilation and accomodation
Upset as children assimilate new experiences or accomodate their existing schemas to a new idea, leading to further learning and adaption
Piaget- what are the best conditions for change and growth
When new experiences are close to the child’s capacity to respond
Piaget- sensorimotor stage, view of world from 1-4 months
Reactions centre on the infant’s own body, no differentiation between self and outside world
Piaget- sensorimotor stage, view of world from 4-10 months
Infants focus on objects rather than their own body, begun to change their surroundings intentionally
Piaget- sensorimotor stage, 12-18 months
Infants actively use trial and error methods to learn about objects, increased ability allows experimentation and exploration
Piaget- sensorimotor stage, 18-24 months, what important thing develops
Internal representations develop allowing baby to manipulate their mental representation of the world (think and plan)
Piaget- sensorimotor stage, 18-24 months, what is the consequence of developing internal representation
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
Study suggesting infants can demonstrate novel planned actions/mental representation earlier than Piaget suggests
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
Piaget- what do children begin to understand in the pre-operatinoal stage
Begin to differentiate themselves from the environment, to understand classification of objects, at the end can perspective take and understand number conversion
Piaget- pre-operational stage, what is children’s thinking characterised by
Egocentrism- child finds it difficult to decentre
Piaget- pre-operational, what does the child find it hard to understand about objects
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
Study suggesting why children fail transitive inference tasks (comparing items that have not been compared before)
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
Piaget- what does the child begin to understand in the concrete operational stage
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
Piaget- study supporting Piaget’s stated order of development of conservation types
Tomlinson-Keasey (1978)- conservation of number, then weight, then volume acquired in the order stated by Piaget
Piaget- what does the child begin to understand in the formal operation stage
Abstract reasoning begins, can reason deductively and formulate and test hypotheses
How can conditioning be used to test infants behaviour
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
How can changes in heart rate be used to test infant behaviour
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
Difficulties of testing infants
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)
Benefit of using different techniques when inestigating infants
If they all find similar results, it suggests reliability
Study showing infant ability to track a moving object
Infants below 2 months can’t track very smoothly, tending to follow the moving object with jerky eye movements (Aslin, 1981)
Study showing infant scanning ability of an object
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
What is the point of the ‘lmiitations’ of infant vision
Hainline (1998)- the ‘limitations’ reduce the range of stimuli they experience, that may help them focus on the most important aspects of their environment
Study supporting infants having shape constancy at 3 months
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
How do Spencer et al (2009) criticise Topal’s pragmatic misinterpretation
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
What do Spencer et al (2009) propose that better explains Topal’s results
Dynamic field theory- infants encode locations more weakly when distracting social cues are present, focuses on more low level mechanisms
Offers a unified account
How to Topal et al (2009) respond to criticisms by Spencer et al (2009)
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
How to Topal et al (2009) respond to criticisms by Spencer et al (2009)- studies cited to support their response
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)
How to Topal et al (2009) respond to criticisms by Spencer et al (2009)- summary of their rebuttal
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
How can Piaget’s own work support the explanation that infants fail searching tasks because they cannot perform coordinated actions
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)
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
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)
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
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
issues with drawbridge experiment- doesn’t demonstrate object solidarity principle?
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
issues with drawbridge experiment- difference in test event length
Impossible test event was longer (12 seconds) than possible test event (8 seconds), possibly affecting looking time
issues with drawbridge experiment- box in control experiment
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
issues with drawbridge experiment- no random assignment
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
issues with drawbridge experiment- control results not significantly different to experimental results
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!
