Object Concept and Mental Representations Flashcards
What is the understanding of object permanence
- Objects continue to exist even when they are out of sight
- The occluded object retains its spatial and physical properties
- The occluded object is still subject to physical laws
How is mental representation necessary to object concept?
It is necessary for planning and deferred imitation
What are the stages in Piaget’s Theory (and the estimated ages for each)?
- 0 to 2 – Sensorimotor
- 2 to 7 – Pre-operational
- 7 to 11 – Concrete Operational
- 11+ – Formal Operational
At what age is object permanence attained?
12 months
At what age do full internal representations start to form?
18-24 months
What are the 6 sub-stages of the Sensorimotor Stage?
- Reflex activity
- Primary circular reactions
- Secondary circular reactions
- Coordination of secondary circular reactions
- Tertiary circular reactions
- Internal representation
Explain stage 1 of Sensorimotor
Reflex activity (0-1 month)
- Practice innate reflexes (ex. sucking, looking)
Explain stage 2 of Sensorimotor
Primary circular reactions (1-4 months)
- Simple behaviours derived from basic reflexes
- Start repeating behaviour (ex. thumb-sucking)
- Focused on body
- No differentiation between self and outside world
Explain stage 3 of Sensorimotor
Secondary circular reactions (4-10)
- “secondary” behaviors = own, not reflexes
- Start to focus on objects
- Begin to change surroundings intentionally (ex. kick legs, hit mobile)
- Establish connection between body movement and external environment
Explain stage 4 of Sensorimotor
Coordination of secondary circular reactions (10-12 months)
- Engage with objects using a variety of actions
- Combine actions to achieve goals and solve novel problems (but not insightful; use of trial and error)
- A-not-B errors until 12 months
Explain stage 5 of Sensorimotor
Tertiary circular reactions (12-18 months)
- Still repetitive or circular behaviors
- Discover the properties of objects and the environment
- Understand objects through trial and error
- Improvements in problem-solving (experiment with new actions and modify unsuccessful actions)
- Still lack internal representations
Explain stage 6 of Sensorimotor
Internal representation (18-24 months)
- Now has mental representation of the world (can think and plan actions, deferred imitations)
- Solve novel problems insightfully
- Goal-directed, structured behavior (planning)
What is deferred imitation?
Copying a certain behavior after a delay; Not until stage 6
What are the critiques on Piaget’s methods?
- Observational methods, often with own children
- Quantitative, experimental data is rare
- Uses “clinical method” rather than standardised
What are the confounds in Piaget’s Theory?
- Motor coordination and motor planning deficits (inability to perform coordinated actions; means-end)
- Memory deficits
- Communication (biased by cues)
What are the critiques on Piaget’s findings?
- Other following literature found skills like basic object permanence, planning and deferred imitation to develop earlier than Piaget expected
- Younger infants could show some evidence if procedure in exp were simplified (either change the procedure or change the dependent var)
Explain Butterworth’s (1977) study for A-not-B error
- 3 conditions: normal design, covered but visible, visible and uncovered
- Errors in all 3 conditions, even when object covered but visible (reflects lack of coordination, not necessarily lack of object permanence)
Explain Smith & Thelen’s (2003) study for A-not-B error
- One variation had infant stand instead of sit during B trial
- 10m old infants performed like 12m old
- Standing made the A position less salient
What methodological changes were made to Piaget’s?
- Darkness rather than occlusion by other objects (visual vs manual search)
- Take away the necessity of reaching
- Violation of expectation (possible and impossible events; show diff reactions to impossible event)
Explain Bower’s (1982) study on object permanence
- Infants a few months old are shown object, screen moved in front of object, then returned to original position
- 2 conditions: object still in place vs empty space
- monitored child’s heart rate
- Faster heart rate (more surprise) in second (empty) condition
Describe Baillargeon et al.’s (1985) study conditions
- Experiment: Preference for impossible event
- Control: Only those who saw 180 event first, showed preference, only on 1st trial
- SO: Not because preferred 180 event but because expectations violated
What is the conclusion drawn from Baillargeon et al’s (1985) study?
- Infants expected the screen to stop against the box
- Infants understood the box continued to exist
Compare between Baillargeon et al’s (1985) study to Piaget’s Theory
- Infants as young as 5m show object permanence (not an extension or repetition of previous action)
- Supports the idea that failure on previous test results of interaction with other cognitive abilities
Describe Clifton et al’s (1991) study
- Presented 6m olds with small (required 1 hand grasp) and large (2 hand grasp) objects
- Each object made identifying sound
- Infants made appropriate grip to reach for objects in darkness
- Authors conclude this is based on mental representation
Describe Meltzoff & Moore’s studies on deferred imitation
Meltzoff & Moore (1994)
- Some infants saw adults make facial gesture, some saw neutral expression
- Day later, those who saw gesture were more likely to perform it to a neutral face
Meltzoff (1995)
- Experimenter performed series of actions with objects
- Both ages more likely to reproduce observed actions than those who did not see them
- Even after a FOUR MONTH delay
Describe Willatts’ (1989) study on planned actions
- Toy out of reach on a cloth
- Cloth and toy blocked by a barrier
- 9m old children performed sequence of actions to get a toy
- Many on 1st attempt -> Mental representation of the world was used to organise behavior
Describe Claxton et al’s (2003) study
- Differences in motor patterns in adults for planned actions (precise actions = slower approach)
- 10m infants encouraged to throw ball or fit it into a hole
- If motor patterns determined by ball properties, should find no difference
- If determined by upcoming action, should find a difference
- Reaching action slower for precise action
Describe Patel et al’s (2013) study on why context matters
- 6m, 9m, 24m tested using puppet paradigm w/ 24h delay
- Varied the context during retrieval (auditory and visual)
- Full flexibility/generalisation not achieved until 12m
Describe Barr et al’s (1996) study
- Infants saw a series of actions with puppet and had to repeat after a 24h delay
- Children given 3 repetitions of actions -> 6m with no difference from control -> Supports Piaget’s views
- Additional 6m-olds given 6 repetitions of actions -> 6m now score significantly higher than control -> Evidence of deferred imitation in 6m olds
