Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Object permanence
- Piaget, object permanence
- <9 mth, failed even though physically capable
- A not B error, fragile memory trace
- Perseveration error, looking under cloth A when seen hidden under B
- Repeating previous action even though now out of context
- Egocenticism- toy found because of action not thought
- Bower et al - 2 mth appeared to expect train to emerge
- Gaze pattern Suggests they knew it still existed whilst out of sight
- Study did not need physical capabilities
- Further study show baby continue to track train after stopped
- Suggests baby can't stop tracking once started
- Baillargeon et al
- 5 mth, rotation of drawbridge, impossible event & novel event
- Baby showed more interest when block did not obstruct when it should have- impossible
- Novel event, rotation stopped by block
- Suggests they believe block exists & understood it should be obstacle
- Replicated at 6-8 mth
- More attention paid to habituated but impossible event
- Car emerging in a road block condition, knew car should not get through
- Method, habituation
- Based on baby losing interest in event seen many times
- Violation of expectations
- Spend longer looking at something they believe impossible
- Aguilar & Baillargeon
- Suggest babies understand that hidden objects exist
- Show progression of understanding of hidden objects
- Hood & Willats
- 5 mth, more likely to reach in direction of interesting object seen before lights out
- Harris, delay in searching A not B task
- Memory for new hiding place fragile & short delay disrupts
- Butterworth
- Error still made with transparent cloth
- 2 ways to code position, when objects moved
- Egocentric code- position in relation to self
- Allo centric code- position in relation to another object
- If toy moved but not cloth, only one code has changed
- Diamond
- Vary length of delay
- Better able to cope with age as short term memory improves
- Suggests when info from temp memory fades, habitual response takes over