Baillargeon's explanation of infant abilities

• What method did Baillargeon use in investigate infant abilities?

  Violation of expectation
• Describe Baillargeon and Graber's occlusion study and their results.

  showed 24 5-6 month olds a tall and a short rabbit passing behind a screen with a window. In the possible event the tall rabbit can be seen through the window, in the impossible it can't. Looked for an average of 33.07secs at impossible and 25.11 secs at possible
• What 3 things can the violation of expectation method investigate?

  object permanence, containment, support
• What is object persistence?


  an object remains in existence and doesn't spontaneously alter in structure
• Describe why infants pay more attention to impossible events, according to Baillargeon's theory.


  their physical reasoning system means they are predisposed to attend to new events that might allow them to develop their understanding
• Who gave the example of dropping keys and them falling to the floor being understood universally?

  Hespos and Van Marle
• What did Bremner say?


  Piaget distinguished between acting in accordance with a principle and understanding that principle whereas Baillargeon didn't.
• What did Pei et al investigate and what did they find?


  distance perception

  it is innate but develops with age - at first use crude patterns to judge distance but then can start to use more subtle texture differences with experience
• Knowledge of the physical world – refers to our understanding of how the physical world works. An example of this knowledge is object permeance, the understanding that objects continue to exist when they leave the visual field. There is a debate concerning the ages at which children develop this kind of knowledge.
• Violation of expectation research – a method used to investigate infant knowledge of the world . The idea is that if children understand how the physical world operates then they will expect certain things to happen in particular situations. If these do not occur and children show surprise this shows that they have an intact knowledge of that aspect of the world.
• Baillargeon suggested that young babies had a better understanding of the physical world than Piaget had suggested. She proposed that the lack of understanding of object permanence could be explained differently. E.g., babies may lack the necessary motor skills to pursue hidden objects or they may loose interest because they are easily distracted.
• Early research on knowledge of the physical world

  Piaget believed that babies less than 8-9 months of age have a very primitive understanding of the nature of the physical world. E.g., he claimed that babies lack knowledge of object permanence. Piaget’s reasoning was based on his research showing that babies would loose interest in an object once it was out of their sight.
• Violation of expectation research

  Baillargeon needed new techniques to investigate her beliefs in babies superior abilities. One of the techniques she developed is the violation of expectation (VOE) method. Baillargeon 2004, explains the VOE as = ‘in a typical experiment (babies) see two test events à an expected event, which is consistent with the expectation examined in the experiment AND an unexpected event which violates this expectation.

  So if the VEO method is used to test object permanence, infants will typically see two conditions in which objects pass in and out of sight.
• Procedure: 24 infants, aged 5-6 months, in the familiarisation event a baby is shown a tall or short rabbit passing behind a screen with a window – as fits our expectations of object permanence. There were 2 conditions:

  •Possible condition – the tall rabbit can be seen passing the window but the short one cannot•Impossible condition – neither rabbit appeared at the window.
• Findings: the infants looked for an average of 33.07 seconds (impossible condition) compared to 25.11 seconds (possible condition). The researchers then interpreted this as meaning that the infants were surprised at the impossible condition. This was presumably because they knew that the tall rabbit should have reappeared at the window. This demonstrates and understanding of object permanence at less than 6 months of age
• Baillargeon’s theory of infant physical reasoning

  Baillargeon et al 2012 proposed that humans are born with a physical reasoning system (PRS) – born hardwired with a basic understanding of the physical world and the ability to learn more details.

  Initially we have a primitive awareness of the physical properties of the world  - becomes more sophisticated when we learn from experience.
• One aspect of the world which we have a crude understanding from birth is object persistence --> similar to Piaget's idea of object permanence = an object remains in existence and does not spontaneously alter in structure.
• Development proceeds as follows

  1. Babies begin to identify event categories in the first few weeks of life

  2. Each event category corresponds to one way in which the objects interact

  3. Occlusion events take place when one object blocks the view of another

  4. Babies are born with a basic understanding of object persistence

  5. Babies quickly learn that one object can block their view of another
• By the time they are tested in tasks like Baillargeon + Graber's VOE with tall and short rabbits, babies actually have a good understanding that the tall rabbit should appear at the window
• The 'unexpected event'


  Captures the babies attention
• The nature of their PRS means they are predisposed to attend to new events that might allow them to develop their understanding of the physical world
• One strength is that the VEO technique provides a better understanding of infants.

  Piaget assumed that when an infant failed to search for a hidden object the infant thought it no longer existed. Another interpretation would be that they were simply loosing interest, but the use of the VEO technique enables us to control this possibility. This means that Baillargeon’s explanation provides a more valid account of infant abilities than Piagetian theories.
• A further strength is PRS can explain why physical understanding is universal.

  Hespos and van Marle 2012 point out that basic physical properties are understood by almost everyone (e.g., if you drop something it will land of the floor). The fact that this understanding is universal suggests that it is innate. If it were not innate we would expect cultural differences, which have not been found. Baillargeon argues that the PRS was innate and this is well supported.
• A strength is the findings are consistent with research on other abilities.

  Pei et al 2007 found that infants can use crude patterns to judge distance from an early age but that more subtle differences requires more experience. Distance perception therefore appears to be another innate system that becomes more sophisticated with age like the PRS. Therefore, it is likely many cognitive systems develop at least partially in tandem and the fact that other abilities develop in the same way as VEO is supportive of Baillargeon’s PRS theory.
• One limitation is that it is hard to judge what an infant understands.

  Using the VOE technique we are predicting how a baby might behave if a violation of expectations occurred. However, they might not actually look longer at impossible events then possible events. Additionally, infants might look for different lengths of time at different events just because they see them as different not necessarily because they have recognised them as impossible. This raises questions about the validity of the VOE for investigating infant understanding.
• A limitation is VOE assumes behavioural responses indicate understanding.

  Piaget distinguished between understanding and acting in accordance with a principle. Looking longer, even if it is because the scene is impossible, is not the same as reasoning about the physical world. This suggests that Piaget and Baillargeon are considering two different processes. This means that Baillargeon’s research is not actually a criticism of Piaget’s conclusions.