Piaget Flashcards
constructivism
- How child actively constructs understanding of the world
- A third way in nature/ nurture debate
- -> innate endowments (reflex schema) + experience (active engagement with world) necessary for constructing Knowledge
Adaptation
- intelligence as a special form of adaptation to the env
- continuous process
- creation of satisfactory theories about the world
-main engine of cog change
Adaptation - The cog schema
-Basic components of intelligence is the schema ( sucking, grasping)
- first schemas are reflexes (genetic endowment)
2 complementary + simultaneous processes
Adaptation - assimilation + accommodation
- Assimilation + accommodation are always active + known as functional invariants
- Assimilation-> children incorporate new experiences into pre- existing schemas
- Accommodation -> schema changes to accommodate different objects
- Equilibrium -> balance between these processes required for creation of consistent internal models
stage theory
- Piagetian stages
-sensorimotor ( 0-2 years/infancy) - preoperational period (2-7 years)
- concrete operations (7-12 years)
- formal operations (11 years +)
Sensori-motor stage - intro
- divided into 6 substages
-each characterised in dev of infants mode of interaction with object world + concepts
sensori-motor sub-stage 1 (0-6 weeks)
-reflexes
-practise of innate reflexes
- sucking, grasping
- state of adualism - don’t understand where own
body ends + rest Of object world is
sensori-motor sub-stage 2 (6 weeks - 4 months)
- primary circular reactions
-repetition of body movements for their consequences - can’t repeat an action on the env
- Actions limited to own body
- out of sight, out of existence- can’t see something = no longer it exists
sensori-motor sub-stage 3 ( 4 -8 months)
-secondary circular reactions
- repetition of actions that have effect on env
- kick to shake cot + produce sound
- can retrieve partially occluded (see some of it)
sensori-motor sub-stage 4 (8 -12 months)
-means- end beh
- combine actions to achieve results
-pull on blanket to obtain out-of-reach toy
- can retrieve fully occluded (hidden) objects
-Have A not B error
A not B error - sub stage 4
- Hide desired object at location A
-infant retrieves - repeat 2 x
- in full view of infant, move object to location B
-result = look for object at location A - look where they found it most often
- object has no separate existence
Explaining A not B error - sub stage 4
-response perseveration-> repeating previously learned response even when incorrect
- Memory limitations-> Harris - made fewer errors when immediate retrieval
-> info about prior location predominant over recent info
- Attention-> distracted = errors -watanbe
- frontal cortex immaturity of infants -> difficulty guiding action from info
sensori-motor sub-stage 5 (12 -18 months)
-Tertiary circular reactions
-experiment to discover new means to ends
- more creative
- can manage A not B
- struggle with unexpected transfer / invisible displacement test
invisible displacement/ unexpected transfer test - sub stage 5
- If you invisibly move Object to different location
-measures theory of mind - child sees 1 object in 1 area + its moved , which location do they perceive the child will look
sensori-motor sub-stage 6 (18 -2 months)
-representation
-imagine consequences of planned actions
- full object permanence ( successful at invisible displacement)
Preoperational stage (2-7 years) - egocentrism
= difficulty of seeing things from others pov
- problems decentring (viewing world from perspective that’s not theirs)
Preoperational stage (2-7 years) - egocentrism + perspective taking
- young child is rooted in own viewpoint
- 3 mountains task- > Piaget + Inhelder
-> child shown 3D model of mountines
-> Doll placed at 1 side
-> present photos of different POvs + ASK which is dolls
-> choose picture representing own pov
Preoperational stage (2-7 years) - egocentrism + conservation
- Test understanding that basic properties of matter are unaffected by change in appearance
- success requires concrete operational thinking (reversibility)
-child shown 2 identical objects + asks if they are the same
-Manipulate objects appearance + child insists they are different (glass + cylinder of water)
Preoperational stage (2-7 years) - Lack of reversibility
- correct use of operations requires reversibility
- Jane have you got a brother? Y Has he got a sister? N
- fail because perceptually dom by 1 aspect of display
-cant simultaneously represent 2 different perspectives
Preoperational stage (2-7 years) - Animism
= attribute life qualities to inanimate objects
- If you pricked a stone would it feel it
- most at this stage fail unexpected transfer task
Concrete operational stage (7 -12 years)
-child passes all the tasks they failed in preoperational stage
- major limitation in their thinking is realm of possibilities
Formal operations stage (11 +) - Thinking
-Ability to think abstractly
- interpropositional thinking -> relate one part to another to arrive at a solution
- intrapropositional thinking -> concrete rather than abstract symbols
-Hypothetical inferential reasoning
-think rationally + logically
- Transitivity task concrete + formal can use logic to draw connect conclusions
Formal operations stage (11 +) - possibilities + scientists
-realms of possibility
-> Treat reality as one of many possibilities
-> mind freely moves through different realms
-Apprentice scientists
-> come up with own theories
-> Hypothetico-deductive reasoning
-> pendulum problem
standard critiques
- underestimates children abilities
-ignored social influence on cog dev - didn’t sufficiently integrate social experiences into his theory
object permanence tasks critique
-different methodologies can show preconscious understanding
- If don’t require baby to physically remove cloth can see object permanence earlier than Piaget suggests (limited to immature Motor abilities)
Dishabituation - critique
- If show infant new object should dishabituate + perform better (attention)
- Infant habituates to events (interest decreases with repeated presentation)
- It infant snows increased looking when stimulus is changed can infer infant has perceived change
Baillargeon + Graber- Dishabituation study - violation of expectation
- example of violation of expectation technique
- Infant shown event + shown 2 new events
- 1 is consistent with everyday reality (possible) + other inconsistent ( impossible)
- infant typically looks longer at impossible as it violates their expectancies
Baillargeon- Dishabituation study -search strategies
- response to possible + impossible search strategies for objects
-infants dishabituates more to impossible
-possible = object at retrievable
side of barrier - impossible = object behind barrier so shouldn’t be able to retrieve
perspective taking - conservation task critiques
- The lang issue- pre-opp children fail due to lang issues, too complicated + wording is difficult
-> verbal skills not dev but understand concept - Human sense issue- fail because doesn’t make human sense (Donaldson)
-> Hughes: children asked to hide doll so can’t be seen by police (3-5 year olds were 90% correct) - Need to make tasks more child appropriate
counter critique: object permanence
-If infants have mentaI representation of objects Why don’t instigate search?
-> suggests executive problem with inhibiting prepotent action (Diamond) -instinct makes child go t0 A -presented multiple as successful
-children sometimes fixate on location B but hard shoots to A (can’t inhibit prepotent motion)
counter critique : perspective taking
- Hughes doll + policeman task has no conflict in perspective
-> not overriding own pov just avoiding policemans pov
counter-critique: animism
- original critique = Piaget underestimated engagement in animism
- Believe he actually overestimated due to animate -inanimate distinctions being inhale
-His observations focused on events they didn’t understand
counter-critique : formal operations
- original critique = Piaget underestimates Childs ability
-counter = overestimates
-many adults struggle with the pendulum or abstract thinking task (only 1/3 pass- Capon + Kuhn)
Modern research- physical vs mental perspective taking
- moved towards understanding Childs ability to take another mental perspective
- Flavell’s 3 levels of understanding
1) mind exists
2) mind has connections to physical world
3) mind can represent objects events
Theory of mind- modern research on perspectives
- children who can represent different mental states have acquired theory of mind
- first by Woodruff + Premack in chimps ability to intentionally deceive keepers
- understanding logic of mental state lang
Theory of mind + false beliefs- unexpected transfer task -wimmer + Perner
- success requires representation of another’s false beliefs
-Baren-cohen added props : put choc in green draw, child leaves, mum moves choc + puts in blue draw, does ppt s ay he will look in blue or green? - found children under 4 can’t predict beh or false belief
- over 4 can due to conceptual shift
-may fail task: executive, reality bias + narrative problems
more likely to pass theory of mind task if.
-regular contact with extended family (Lewis et al)
- Higher socioeconomic status
-Mothers more highly ed
- Better at collaborative symbolic play early (pretend with others )
Maternal Mind-mindedness
-meins -> first year of life maternal mind-mindedness pas predicts childness theory of mind at 4-5 years
- caregivers tendency to treat young children as indiv with own mind
- accurately tuning in to infants internal states faciiteltes Childs own mind-reading abilities
Beyond Piaget- adolescents As rule-based problem solvers
- Siegler believed thinking is rule-based+ children use rules to solve problems
- use task-analysis method
- Rules are domain specific
keating- characteristics of adolescent thinking
1) Emphasises world of possibility
2) Ability to carry out systematic hypothesis testing
3) Think about future by planning ahead
4) introspecting own thought process
5) content of thinking is expanded
Factors affecting dev - modular brain view
- Fodor’s -> Born with module for understanding minds that is active from beginning of life
-> Module is refined at age 4 - Leslie + Thais -> indivS with autism lack brain module
Factors affecting dev- siblings
- Perner et al > children aged 3 who had siblings more likely to pass false belief
> more siblings = more correct judgement - Jenkins + Astington -> Beneficial effect of siblings is confined to those with older siblings - children only with younger were no better than those with none at all
Autism + development
- Lack understanding of the mind
-wing + Goulds triad of impairments: social beh
, communication + imagination
-Lack imagination -> cant disengage from reality for play so cant to acknowledge false belief - deficit in understanding others minds
- Those with downs syndrome do pass false belief test
