Post-Piaget Theories Flashcards
Chomsky
Poverty of the stimulus
Language acquisition device
POS: Infants don’t get enough data to learn how to speak their nature languages
LAD: We’re born w/ an LAD in our brains that facilitate language learning
Fodor - Modularity (Naturism)
Domain specific
- Specific areas in charge of visual, auditory, etc
Encapsulated and inaccessible
- We can’t bring other parts of the mind to reason something
Localizable and dissociable
- Parts of brain in charge of specific things
Automatic, shallow, fast
Core Knowledge (Nativism)
Core domains (real world content) represented by core knowledge (mental structures)
Innate, evolutionary ancient, universal
Has signature limits and is never lost
Has 4-5 domains
What are the 5 domains of the Core Knowledge theory?
1) Objects
- 4-month-olds and newborns imagine full stick moving behind block instead of two sticks
2) Number
- Chicks imprinted to certain number of objects. W/ core number sense, they prefer to stand next to number of objects they were imprinted to
3) Agents
- We have preference for motion that is life-like
- Chicks had any preference for life-like motion whether hen or cat
4) Space
- Understanding of length of shapes seen can help understand layout
- Rat shown location of treat in a corner and can apply this knowledge to other similarly shaped rooms
5) Social interaction
- Infants prefer native language
- Infants show innate understanding of bad and good. Prefer to look at blue triangle that helps red circle than yellow square that pushes it back down
Massive modularity (Nativism)
Mind is like swiss army knife
High-level cognitive processes are modularized
What do dynamic system theory and connectionism have in common?
Both reject symbolic representations
Have mathematical and structural similarities
Dynamic systems theory (Empiricism)
Knowledge is sum of body-environment interactions
- Also emerges in the moment
Development is a process of making sense of multiple levels of causal interactions
Connectionism (Empiricism)
Models are of idealized brains
- Knowledge distributed across long-term neural connections activated by input
- Bottom-up approach
Development is a process of learning rules matching inputs to outputs
How does connectionism counter Chomsky’s poverty of stimulus argument?
Says there is actually enough input (only need to hear language once and learn thru probability)
Ex: Learning past tense
- Hear “ed” ending -> Hidden representations strengthens
- Causes overuse of “ed”
- Learning contextual exceptions and regularities fixes representation
A-not-B error
Connectionist vs Dynamic systems view
Connectionist:
- Task creates competition between latent memory trace for A and active memory trace for B (new hiding place)
- @ 8 months, latent trace is stronger
- @ 12 months, active trace retained better
Dynamic systems:
- Reaching behaviour is combo of motor action planning, memory of where object was last seen, where gaze is directed
- Error occurs because hard for them to change motor program
- Changing gaze to B and changing to standing position changes motor program to change and reach for B
Neoconstructivism (Constructivism)
Against modularity
Development is constrained by its contexts:
- Encellment - Neural activations are product of electrochemical interactions
- Embrainment - Areas of brain develop in sync w/ each other and alter each other’s devel and activation
- Embodiment - Brain develops inside of a body, which exists in physical enviro
- Ensocialment - Person develops in social context w/ critical social cues
Theory theory (Constructivism)
Bayes’ rule
Search problem
Child born w/ innate theories which they test and revise
- Develop hypothesis, collect data, run experiment, revise theory, repeat
P(H|D) = P(D|H)P(H)
- P(H) - Prior: Hypothesis based on prior belief
- P(D|H) - Likelihood: Testing to see likelihood of hypothesis
- P(H|D) - Posterior: New belief
Search problem: Where do new hypotheses come from?
- Innate constraints (some options naturally just too unlikely)
- Random sampling of hypotheses that get more specific over time
A-not-B error
Theory theory view
Failure is error in hypothesis
- Eventually gets abandoned bcuz evidence conflicted w/ hypothesis that object is in A, developing new theory
Systematic play w/ hiding and invisible displacement matched w/ success age (12-18 months)
How is Rational Constructivism like and unlike Core Knowledge?
Like:
- Infants born w/ small number of domain specific competencies (not just perceptual/sensorimotor)
Unlike:
- Competencies aren’t full-fledged (can’t be manipulated until properly learned)
- “Proto-conceptual” (between perceptual and conceptual)
Vygotskian thought
Zone of proximal development (ZPD)
Cognitive development occurs thru interaction w/ culture and internalization of knowledge the child doesn’t begin with
- Uses inner speech as they learn language from others
ZPD: Zone where task can be done w/ support of others to build independent skills
- Skill increases in zigzag between comfort zone and ZPD
- Play most important for creating ZPD
Information processing
Development is a continuous process; brain like a computer
- More computing power (brain maturation) leads to more development
A-not-B error
Information processing view
Failure is from limited cognitive processes
- @ 8 months, trouble remembering new location or inhibiting previous memory
- @ 12 months, more success from more cog resources
Microgenetic method
Continuous process of trying diff strategies and figuring out which ones work and which ones don’t
- Variability in children’s strategy use
What can help confirm that operationalizing variables are measuring what you’re testing?
What are the concerns?
Control questions to eliminate other possibilities
- Ex: Asking child if they remember what is in the box in false belief task confirms that failure isn’t from memory or attention
Concerns:
- Children may have hard time w/ false representations
- Might answer differently on Sally-Anna task bcuz they think they’re just playing a game
- Hard to tell if toddlers understand what you’re saying, the task, and if they can verbalize their answer
- Infants can’t speak (only gaze and action measured)
Preferential looking method
Habituation method
Preferential looking:
Infant looks longer at left or right stimulus
- Visual discrimination detected bcuz it shows they can tell images apart
Habituation:
- Infants get bored of looking at same stimulus repeatedly. When new stimulus appears, attention recovers and they look longer
- If interest recovers, can distinguish between old and new stim
Habituation and object occlusion
4-month-old habituated to rod moving behind block
- Only little attention recovered when complete rod revealed
- Lots of staring and attention recovered when broken rod appears bcuz it violates expectation
Conclusion: Infants understand object occlusion
Violation of Expectation (VOE)
Infants look longer at impossible event even if possible event has new motion
- Ex: Flap goes through block behind it, infant looks longer
Infants are supposed to understand:
- Object permanence: Objects continue to exist out of view
- Solidity: 2 objects can’t occupy same position at same time
What are the criticisms of violation of expectation (VOE)?
Against:
- Too many assumptions from the dependent variable (surprise and looking longer may not actually mean understanding)
- Low construct validity (infants don’t all respond the same)
For:
- VOE picks up on violations of concept knowledge rather than perceptual novelty
- Infants’ exploration behaviour when seeing something surprising matches concept being violated
