Baillargeon's explanation of infant abilities

    Cards (10)

    • 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