B1 C4 Early Cognitive dev studies obj p P2

B1 C4 Early Cognitive dev studies obj p P2

1. DIAMOND 1985 7-12MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • Replication of Harris 73
       • but varied delay time for diff ages until infant made Anot B error
   • FINDINGS
     • Y infants made error after 3secs
       • as got older could manage delay up to 10 at 12mo
   • CONCLUSION
     • info about new location under cloth B is held in short term memory
       • this is ineffective in VYC
         • the habituated knowledge obj was often under cloth A takes over as STM fades
     • 2 actions need done together to perform task successfully
       • 1. info has to kept in STM after time delay
         • 2. habituated actions that are incorrect have to inhibited
     • infants can do these separately but can't co-ordinate due to immature frontal cortex dev
   • CRITICS
     • Diamond's explanation doesn't expl Butterworth's findings 1977 where STM doesn't seem relevant

2. BAILLARGEON EL AL 1985 5MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • Violation of expectations
       • 1. card sheet moved 180º like drawbridge until habituated
         • 2. Condition 1: wooden block placed so as to stop card completing movement at 120º (possible event)
           • 3. cond 2: wooden block was surreptitiously removed (imposs event)
             • time infant watched each event recoreded
   • FINDINGS
     • infants watched impos even longer
       • expecting card to hit block they thought was still there
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • infants assumed block still existed
       • even though it was out of sight
         • hence shows awareness of obj perm
     • infants understood hidden block could stop motion of card
   • CRITICS
     • may have watched impos event because it took longer

3. BAILLARGEON EL AL 1985 5MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • same as before but cond 2 block removed side
       • insight of infant instead of being moved
         • therefore creating a poss cond for 180º movement
   • FINDINGS
     • infants watched both "poss" cond equal times - no pref
       • even though 180º cond took longer
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • diff in time "poss" + "imposs" wasn't due to time it took

4. BAILLARGEON EL AL 1986 6-8 MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • infants habituated toy car rollin down slope+ disappearing behind screen + reemerging
       • infant shown screen being removed, block placed either on track or side + screen replaced
         • cond block placed track it was surreptitiously removed
   • FINDINGS
     • infants watched "imposs" event -car emerging even though it was supposedy blocked) for longer than "poss"
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • infants understnd block cont exist even when they can't see it
     • they understand the car doesn't cease to exist when it goes behind screen
     • they understand the car shouldn't be able to go though block

5. AGULAR & BAILLARGEON 2002 2.5-3.5MO

   • FINDINGS
     • 2.5mo expect any ob to be hidden behind occluder, even tall obj behind short occluder
       • 3.5 understand only tall occluder can hide a tall obj
   • CONCLUSION
     • infant innately understand obj cont to exist
       • they don't have to learn this
   • CRITICS
     • conflicts with Piaget/ empircism

6. HOOD & WILLATTS 1986 5MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • Obj (xmas dec) shown infant, then removed
       • mum restrains C in arms
     • 1 of 3 cond presented randomly
       • 1. obj pres- shown infants left
         • 2. obj pres- shown infants right
           • 3. no obj pres
     • light switched off, obj removed
       • mum releases bb arms + beha obs by infra red camera 25sec. then light back on
     • in no obj, obj shown in front, then removed - lights on
       • mum restrained bb 10 sec as lights off + beha obs
   • FINDINGS
     • infants reached out more often in direc obj last been than any other direc
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • some 5mo understand things cont exist even when out of sight
   • CRITICS
     • Shinskey + Munakata 2003: although bb seem look hidden obj dark earlier than lighted cond, could de due to methodolgical differ
       • e.g if ob makes a noise

7. SHINSKEY + MUNAKATA 200S 6.5 MO

   • METHODOLOGY
     • controlled comp of infants searching obj dark vs hidden under cloth
   • FINDINGS
     • Supported Hood+ Williatts
       • infants reached out more in direction where ob had last been seen than any other direc