B1 C4: Early Cognitive dev Studies P1

B1 C4: Early Cognitive dev Studies P1

1. Piaget 1954 age 9-12mo OBJECT PERM

   • METHODOLOGY
     • An obj shown to C, then hidden under cloth A;
       • infants over 9mo typically found ob
     • after several reps, obj hidden under diff cloth -B
   • FINIDINGS
     • typically infant would watch obj being hidden under A
       • perseverance error A not B error
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • Infants expect to find obj under cloth that they themselves lift
       • due to EGO-CENTRISM
         • "If I wish to find it, I must do what I did before"
           • they can't separate the obj from their own actions on the obj
   • CRITICISMS
     • Conflicts with other findings that C understand obj perm from 5mo
       • Harris 1973-1989 investigated why this might be

2. PIAGET & INHELDER 1969 6-9MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • obj shown to infant then hidden under cloth
     • Infants attempts to retrive were obs
   • FINDINGS
     • 6-7mo infant made no attempt to retrive hidden /partly hidden obj
       • between 6-9mo, smtimes tried to uncover partly hidden
         • after 9mo they would retrive hidden obj
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • before approx 9mo infants beha as if obj cease to exist once out of sight
       • "if I can't see it it doesn't exist
   • CRITICISMS
     • small sample- can't generalise
     • Infants may nto have been able to co-ordinate reaching + grasping
       • examins by Bower et al 1971

3. BOWER ET AL 1971 2MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • toy train shown rolling along track
       • then behind screen
         • advantage- no physical co-ordination required, just eye tracking
   • FINDINGS
     • C followed expected path train with eyes
       • even when it was stopped behind screen
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • because they followed predicted path train they must understand it continues to exist even out of sight behind screen
   • CRITICISMS
     • infants must have pre-dispostion to track moving objs
       • irrespective of whether they understand obj perm or not

4. BOWER & PATERSON 1973 2MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • toy train shown rolling along track
       • then behind screen
         • advantage- no physical co-ordination required, just
         • but train stopped just before reaching screen
   • FINDNGS
     • C continued to track predicted path of train
   • CONCLUSION
     • C do have predispostion to track moving obj
       • previous Bower et al 1971 study is inconclusive

5. HARRIS 1973 + 1989 9-12MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • Replication of Piaget's 1954
       • but some conditions infants made to wait 5sec before searching
   • FINDINGS
     • infants made A not B error more after wating
       • when allowed to search immediately they found obj under B
   • CONCLUSION
     • infants understand obj is under cloth to start with
       • but if made to wait they forget this new info
         • they then revert to the learn info based on habituation trials
   • CRITICS
     • Doesn't explain Butterworth's 1977 where memory is removed as a factor

6. BUTERWORTH 1977 9-12MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • replication of Harris 1973
       • but used transparent covers rather than cloths
         • so the infant can always see where the obj is
   • FINDINGS
     • infants still often made A not B error
       • even when they could see obj was under cover B
   • CONCLUSION
     • obj locations coded 2 diff ways
       • egocentric-relative to ones self
       • allocentric-relative to smthing else
     • infants made A not B error when code obj location in one way, but cover location in the other way
     • when toy moved but cover left, only 1 obj moved, so only 1 code is updated
     • if infants beha is governed by inchanged code, they wil look in wrong place