Baillargeon- Explanation of Infant Abilities

Question 1

Define VOE

Answer 1

An unexpected even that violates what a child expects to happen based off their knowledge of the physical world

Question 2

Baillargeon vs Piaget

Answer 2

B says children don’t lack object permanence but lack motor skills or are too distracted to investigate.
Develops at 5months vs Piaget 8 months

Question 3

Outline Biallargeons Occlusion study procedure

Answer 3

24 babies: 5-6 months
Familiarisation event:
Condition 1-expected:
Condition 2-unexpected:

Question 4

Findings of Baillargeons study

Answer 4

Babies looked for 33 seconds at unexpected vs 25 seconds expected
33vs 25
Shows surprise, look longer, interpreted as showing object permanence at 5 months

Question 5

Baillargeons PRS

Answer 5

Says we have innate Physical Reasoning System- born with understanding of how the physical world works helping us learn
We test PRS and develop it through experience and learning

Also theorised:
Containment
Support

Question 6

Strength Baillargeon- universal

Answer 6

P- evidence for PRS being universal
E- examples of innate PRS (sucking and gripping) and also learned PRS (child knows object will fall if pushed of table-support)
E- shows PRS is universal as all children display these behaviours supporting Baillargeon’s theory of a universal PRS

Further evidence:
Supported by Van Marle who says certain PRS principles are present from birth and can be tested from birth
Van Marle says these primitive concepts are elaborated through learning and experience

Key test across cultures- all chirldren looked when dropped

However, can’t really measure on babies as lack motor ability/coordination etc

Question 7

Strength Baillargeon- science

Answer 7

P- scientific evidence
E- Kaufman used neural studies, found increased activity of Right Temporal region during impossible event vs possible in occlusion study
E- support as used scientific measure which adds level of empirical evidence to inferences made about infants understanding of Physical world

However- only a correlation between temporal lobe activity and object permanence, no cause and effect

Question 8

Weakness Baillargeon- accordance

Answer 8

P- Distinction drawn between behavioural response and behavioural understanding
E- Brember says Piaget suggested acting in accordance with a principle is not the same as understanding
E- even if babies are able to recognise and devote more attention to the unexpected event it doesn’t mean they understand the differences in height and appearance of the objects, and consciously reason and think about it.
L- limits VOE and Baillargeon as incorrect conclusions about a child’s object permanence may have been made, reducing validity
May be measuring ability to notice difference rather than OPM

Question 9

Limit Baillargeon- novelty

Answer 9

Researchers reviewing VOE studies suggested infants show attraction to novel stimuli and observe a difference rather than show surprise as a result of understanding.
Limits VOE as not valid measure of understanding the physical world

may not actually be measuring object permanence, but be measuring suprise and interpreting/infering this to be object permanence