Baillargeon's explanation: early infant abilities

• thoughts on Piaget

  -agreed with object permanence but called it object persistence

  -thought Piaget was wrong with the ages of the stages

  -criticised Piaget's methodology
• violation of expectations

  When an event goes against what infants think should happen.
• violation of expectations - research

  -used the violation of expectations method to test object persistence.

  -24 5-6m/o. Had tall & short rabbits pass a window. Possible event: see the tall rabbit but not the small rabbit. Impossible event: see neither of the rabbits.

  -infants stared at the impossible situation for 33.07 seconds and the possible situation for 25.11 seconds. Looked at the impossible for longer.

  -infants are surprised by the impossible as they have object persistence.

  -an occlusion study.
• support study

  Baillargeon et al (1985):

  -5m/os

  -drawbridge that moved 180 degrees, box is placed in the path. possible event: drawbridge stopped at box; impossible event: drawbridge passed the box

  -infants looked longer at the impossible event

  
  

  -containment events: object placed inside another object, babies know its still in the box so look.

  -covering events: covering the object, infants look for it.
• theory of infant physical reasoning

  -infants are born with a physical reasoning system

  -infants have predisposed ideas of physical objects

  -object persistence becomes more sophisticated

  -infants can identify event categories

  -infants focus on impossible events because of the physical reasoning system

  -basic understanding of the world
• AO3

  Strength(s):

  -VOE method = more useful than Piaget's method. Piaget didn't use specific procedures, unlike Baillargeon, who used a controlled method. B's method eliminated confounding variables in P's method which increased the int val of her research.

  -supporting evidence: PRS explains why physical understanding is universal, it is innate. Hespos & Van Marle (2012): we don't need to learn basic properties of physical objects. Example: dangling keys, we know they'll fall if we let go. D: biological determinism. Says it is innate and ignores how experts can help increase abilities. Although the theory has research support, it is reductionist (only considers biology).

  
  

  Weakness(es):

  -use of inferences. It is hard to judge what an infant understands. Are making inferences when infants react. They might just find the impossible event more visually interesting. Is research bias and high levels of subjectivity which decreases the validity of the theory.