Baillargeon's explanation of infant abilities

• object permanence

  • Piaget = babies don't reach for a hidden object because they lack an understanding of object permanence
  • Baillargeon = babies have a better understanding of the physical world than Piaget proposed - their behaviour might be better explained by poor motor skills or being distracted
• violation of expectation (VOE) research

  • Baillargeon developed the VOE technique = to compare babies' reactions to an expected and unexpected event
  • they were then able to make inferences about the infant's cognitive abilities
• Baillargeon and Graber VOE study (procedure)

  • 24 babies (aged 5-6 months) = were shown a tall or a short rabbit passing behind a screen with a window
  • they were first 'familiarised' with the task and then were shown the test events to see how they would react
  • expected condition = the tall rabbit can be seen passing the window but the short cannot
  • unexpected condition = neither rabbit appeared at the window
• Baillargeon and Graber VOE study (findings/conclusions)

  • babies looked at unexpected condition for = average of 33.07 secs
  • babies looked at expected condition for = average of 25.11 secs
  • this was interpreted as meaning that the babies were surprised at the unexpected condition
  • this demonstrates understanding of object permanence at less than 6 months of age
  • other studies tested understanding of containment and of support
• physical reasoning system (PRS)

  • Baillargeon et al = proposed that we are born with a PRS to enable us to learn details of the physical world more easily
  • they referred to object persistence = we know that objects do not disappear (similar to Piaget's object permanence)
  • example:
  • from birth, babies identify event categories (ways that objects interact) = eg = occlusion occurs when one object blocks another
  • since babies know about object persistence, they quickly learn that one object can block another (occlusion)
• strength = validity of VOE technique

  • Piaget made a flawed assumption that loss of interest in an object means the baby thinks the object has ceased to exist (the baby may have just been distracted)
  • Baillargeon's VOE method controls for this because distraction wouldn't affect the outcome
  • this control of confounding variables means the VOE method has greater validity
• counterpoint to validity of VOE technique

  • Piaget claimed that acting in accordance with a principle is not the same as understanding it
  • understanding involves being able to think about it consciously
  • means that babies' responses to unexpected conditions may not represent a change in their cognitive abilities
• limitation = the assumption that response to VOE = unexpectedness

  • a methodological issue is that babies' response may not be the unexpectedness of the event
  • all the VOE shows is that babies find certain events more interesting
  • we are inferring a link between this response and object permanence
  • actually the different levels of interest in the two different events may be for any number of reasons
  • means that the VOE method may not be a valid way to study a young child's understanding of the physical world
• strength = PRS can explain why physical understanding is universal

  • we all have a good understanding of the physical world regardless of culture and experience
  • eg = so if we drop a key ring, we all understand that it will fall to the ground
  • this universal understanding suggests that a basic understanding of the physical world is innate (otherwise we would expect cultural and individual differences)
  • means that Baillargeon's PRS appears to be a good account of infant cognitive abilities
• extra evaluation = credibility

  • there have been challenges to the PRS = it is hard to determine whether a baby is really responding to the unexpected nature of an event, and even if it is this may not indicate understanding
  • HOWEVER = the idea of the PRS fits with what we already know about development of other visual systems (eg distance perception)
  • means that the PRS is probably a credible idea