Cognition and Development A03 Flashcards
(11 cards)
Piaget’s theory of cognitive dev: Schemas
Strength-evidence that schemas exist and are innate
Ev - Research has found infants prefer faces compared to other objects as young as 4 days old.
Ex - So schemas must be innate as they have had little life experience in which to develop this schema. Face preference has been replicated in several studies, so can be assumed that Piaget’s theory is valid and schemas are a construct that exists both biological and env.
L - but could be argued these studies aren’t showing schemas but an infants preference for symmetry as other objects would not be symmetrical like faces. So schemas may not be innate and only learnt through lifelong learning solely.
RS for equilibrium
Ev - Psychologists found children’s learning was helped when there was a mild cognitive conflict between what they expected to happen and what happened
Ex - so equilibrium is a concept that does exist and that equilibrium does have an impact on accommodating info into schemas to restore the balance.
L - But this makes assumptions about the conflict being experienced. Coukd be argued equilibrium is more about a feeling of cog dissonance rather than expectations or people’s beh. So Piaget’s theory an be invalid - not possible to measure and prove it in scientific way through empirical measurements. But this begs Q of whether it’s necessary to be able to physically measure a mental process to say it’s a valid concept.
criticised for ignoring role of language in cog dev which Vygotsky argued was fundamental
Ev - Language shapes our thinking processes, e.g. Carmichael et al gave pps 1 of 2 labels for certain drawings, e.g. shown a kidney shape and told it was either a kidney bean or a canoe. When pps were then asked to draw the shape, it differed according to the label they’d been given.
Ex -Piaget underestimated the power of language in shaping out thought processes.
L - But piaget would argue cog dev comes first and shapes language - only when could children conserve after the age of 7 did they use more complex language (‘larger’ rather than ‘bigger’) Supports Piaget’s view that cog maturity is important for language and not the reverse as suggested by Vygotsky.
Piaget- object permanence
strength-controlled exp have shown the age at which object permanence develops
-Ev - Piaget hid toy under blanket whilst the child was watching. He observed whether the child searched for the hidden toy. if the child searched for it- evident had object permanence. (8m)
In a second experiment, Piaget moved a toy from blanket A to B. Found before 2 years of age, infants continued to search for the toy under blanket A (original hiding place) rather than correct location B, despite them seeing it be moved there.
-Ex - suggests object permanence begins to develop at around the age of 8 months and a full understanding of object permanence is made by 2 years. Supports Piagets theory of intellectual development; that object permanence develops by age through biological maturation (as brain develops)
but making inferences as to why infants are continuing to stare or reach out. Failure to search for an object may not necessarily mean they don’t have object permanence
-Ev - could be due to limited working memory. Another study found that children were more successful at the A not B when took less than 1 second to move toy.
-Ex - Therefore, the results could be more due to a limited working memory than ability to have object permanence.
Another criticism of Piagets methodology is that the blanket can act as another distractor
-Ev - 12 infants at 1-4m old- observed whether they continued to reach for an object on a mobile above their cot after the lights went out and they did.
-Ex -This shows Piagets method was flawed due to having another object hiding the first one, distracting the infant from the previous object.
underestimated infants as they have OP at a younger age than he supposed.
L- criticised as infant had up to 3 mins to complete task, Reaching up could just be cuz of lights going out and random motor movement from infant not OP.
L - However Baillargeon would support idea that OP can happen earlier than Piaget supposed as bio innate. Calls into Q Piaget’s constructivist theory - believed bio maturation of OP schema but that it was env constructed through ‘trial and error’
Paiget - conservation
Strength: scientific evidence to support the fact that children under 7 cannot conserve
-Ev - Piaget had 2 beakers with same amount of liquid in each. asked child between age of 2-7 and above 7 years if liquid in them was same or different. Both said same.
When liquid was poured from one beaker into a thinner one the children aged 2-7 said more liquid as the appearance of the liquid was higher up.
Older than 7 - said same.
-Ex - Implies children cannot conserve properly until 7 and base knowledge of volume and quantity on appearance which is inaccurate. So intellectual development improves with age (biological maturation) in fixed aged stages as Piaget said.
criticised due to repeated questioning within the studies
-Ev - Could lead to children changing their answers to please the researcher (social desirability) of which children are highly susceptible to doing.
Samuel + Bryant repeated - told the children beakers had same amount of liquid. poured into second beaker - asked Q is the liquid amount the same or diff?. Found children older than 5 years made less errors.
-Ex - Piaget underestimated the age children can correctly conserve based on a knowledge of liquid remaining the same volume rather than appearance, as children can do this aged 5 rather than 7 as long as not questioned more than once.
But doesn’t mean ability to conserve isn’t biologically driven by age
-Ev - children questioned once still needed to be aged 5 years to conserve without basing it on appearance.
-Ex - Paiget’s theory that we construct knowledge as we age in fixed age ranges is still valid.
-L - However, according to Vygotsky, the reason for the age-related differences is due to env differences in the time of experts such as their parents and educators. But Paiget would be in agreement as he was constructivist and acknowledged an interaction of bio maturation and env trial and error play.
Piaget - egocentrism
Strength-scientific evidence to support the fact that children below the age of 7 = egocentric
-Ev - Piaget created a 3 mountains task where a doll was placed on the opposite side of the mountains to the child.
The child was asked to look around and describe what they could see. Then what the doll could see. 2-7 gave their own perspective rather than the dolls. whereas children older than 7 years described what the dolls could see accurately -diff to own perspective.
-Ex - children below 7 are unable to consider that other people have info or views that are different to the ones they hold. But with bio maturation children dev ability to consider views diff to theirs.
But the methodology - unrealistic and abstract to children aged 2-7
-Ev - Hughes gave the children a model with 2 intersecting walls, and 3 dolls (a boy and 2 police officers). Asked to place the boy doll where the police couldn’t see him. Children as young as 3.5yrs were able to position the boy where one police officer could not see him 90% of time.
4yrs could do this 90% of the time when there was 2 police officers to hide from.
-Ex - So Piaget’s theory underestimates younger children’s ability to perspective take. 3 mountains was more abstract so Piaget may have been measuring abstract thinking rather than perspective taking.
Paiget emphasises importance of bio maturation and supposed intellectual dev was a serial process
Ev - Children with learning disabilities like ASD can develop concrete operational skills, conservation and class inclusion but not egocentrism.
Ex - suggests stages of intellectual dev don’t occur in sequence but develop skills sep. Supported by modern studies which have shown that with the right support, children are capable of being less egocentric at an early age.
Therefore, egocentrism may not be biological innate, based on age but through using scaffolding and the role of experts, such as parents can increase the dev of perspective taking (as Vygotsky assumed)
However, there seems to be a biological component to egocentrism
Ev - Baron-Cohen studies on mirror neurons with those with ASD found a bio deficit in activity of mirror neurons.
Ex - hence perspective taking could develop through bio maturation with age as mirror neurons develop.
L - but could lead to argument of if the support from others and language (Vyg) could develop mirror neuronal connections quicker in children than if not encouraged to perspective take.
Paiget - class inclusion
Strength: scientific evidence to support the fact that children below 7 years cannot class include
-Ev - Paiget showed infants models of 5 dogs and 2 cats. Asked them - ‘are there more dogs or animals?’
2-7 = more dogs
7+ = animals.
-Ex - so children older than 7 understood that dogs and cats are a subset of the classification ‘animals’. Children below 7 could only understand one classification which is dog or cat but not the larger category of animal.
criticised as didn’t consider role of experts teaching children an understanding of class inclusion
-Ev - A study tested 100 5 yr olds from Slovenia. Each child undertook 3 sessions of 10 class inclusion tasks either in condition 1/2.
Condition 1 - received feedback after each session. e.g. more animals than dogs as 9 animals and 6 dogs.
Condition 2 - received feedback that there must be more animals as dogs were a subset if animals (true expl).
Scores across 3 sessions improved more for condition 2 suggesting they had aquired a real understanding.
-Ex - Suggests that teaching children about class inclusion increases ability to develop skills before age of 7. So Piaget underestimated age at ehich children could class include.
Criticsm- Piaget overemphasises role of bio maturation
Ev - Piaget believed class inclusion dev was based on age and that all children could class include by 7. However, Vygotsky suggested that development can be explained more in terms of social rather than individual age factors.
Ex - childrens dev is based on peers, teachers, parents and right scaffolding to help them dev rather than it being based on age. By teaching them the skills, e.g. mathematical knowledge of conservation and bio knowledge of class inclusion, children can class include far earlier than Piaget supposed.
L - But Piaget didnt dispute the role of env in constructing dev of skills. Though he did undervalue the role of others and placed more emphasis on child learning for themselves through ‘trial and error’ play. This may have been a researcher bias as bith Piaget and his children were more introverted than Vygotsky’s.
Piaget’s theory of intellectual development
Scientific evidence used to test children, however methodology flawed
Ev - Same beakers and liquid, asking same standardised question of whether beakers had same or diff in amount of liquid and change in appearance that causes the cog error to occur as all other variables were kept the same.
However, we cannot draw this conclusion as the use of repeat questioning made the children believe their first response was incorrect and changed their answer due to social desirability as child re are more susceptible to pleasing others.
This was supported by Samuel and Bryant who removed the first question. told same, asked if same or diff. Children over 5=more accurate in conservation saying liquid same. Therefore Piaget underestimated age conserve.
Also lacked realism that children could relate to - 3 mountains. When made more realistic with the police and boy doll, children as young as 3.5yrs were able to position the boy where one police officer could not see him 90% of time.
So underestimated age of egocentrism (could argue still unrealistic for children - police)
however doesn’t mean ability to conserve isn’t bio innate - children questioned once still needed to be 5, 3.5 years still egocentric. So we do construct knowledge as we age in fixed age ranges.
but, he still downplayed the role of the env
Ev - underestimates children’s intellectual ability. Many studies on pre-operational thinking have shown children develop the skill earlier than supposed.
Ex - Supports idea that env is important in dev of intellectual skills not just biological maturation. Such as the role of experts in teaching children how to conserve, class include etc. (e.g. Class inclusion counter study - 100 5yr olds slovenia. When given a real explanation(cond 2) from an expert of class inclusion, s across 3 sessions improved more for condition 2)
L - but Piaget would argue he never intended the ages of his stages to be fixed. He appreciated it was a range and that some children develop cognition sooner than his maximum age.
However, Piaget had provided important RLA to education
Ev- prior to his theory, education was taught formally to both children and adults. Piaget recognised children think differently to adults and learn more through self-discovery. Activities should be planned for the child’s dev age.
Ex - This brought about the change in gov policy on education, e.g. the Plowden report (1967). Changed the curriculum within primary education in the UK to include the use of ‘trial and error’ and play in early years.
L - criticised of emphasis on play and self-discovery. Ignores role of the expert in passing on knowledge, and need for scaffolding to enable children to reach their academic potential (Vyg). Could be researcher bias - introverts
We accept Piaget’s conclusions within education alongside the role of experts - Vyg.
So incorporating both env factors and age= important in developing cognition.
Vygotsky’s theory of intellectual development
RS for importance of scaffolding for ZPD
Ev - Study used set of wooden blocks that a 4yr old would struggle to assemble on their own.
The children were observed interacting with parents doing the task.
They found at first the parents would demonstrate to their child how the blocks fitted together but as the child became more skilled, the level of support would reduce,
e.g, lining up blocks (preparation), pointing to next block (indication of next step - reduction in degrees of
freedom), speaking directly to the child and giving them specific instructions or giving general prompts (direction maintenance).
Ex - this proves that scaffolding is important to ensuring children stay within the ZPD.
L - this has pos applications for education. It gives specific guidance on how to differentiate for students to ensure they cognitively develop rapidly.
Criticism-Vygotsky ignored individual differences in children’s mental representations
Ev - Howe studied children ages 9+12yrs in groups of 4 to discuss the movement of objects down a slope. Their understanding was assessed before and after the discussion. The children had increased their knowledge but hadn’t come to same conclusion/picked up same facts as each other.
Ex - shows that even when the same scaffolding and knowledge is given, not all children mentally represent the info in same way. This is due to their existing schemas affecting how they interpret the info taught by experts. So children will all learn diff. This is something Piaget can explain but not Vygotsky.
L - However, RS for importance of culture in cog dev. Primitive counting method in Papua New Guinea (thumb of one hand, up arm and down to other fingers, ends at 29). This supports Vygotsky as he believed cog dev = culturally specific, signs and symbols (semiotics) used to display higher mental functions.
RS for role of lang in cog dev
Ev - Carmichael et al gave pps 1 of 2 labels for certain drawings, e.g. shown a kidney shape and told it was either a kidney bean or a canoe. When pps were then asked to draw the shape, it differed according to the label they’d been given.
Ex - Supports importance of language as it changes how we mentally represent our learning. Vygotsky believed lang dev happened before schemas and that’s schemas are shaped by lang. Whereas Piaget believed schemas develop before pre-intellectual speech.
L -only when children could conserve after the age of 7 did they use more complex language (‘larger’ rather than ‘bigger’) Supports Piaget’s view that cog maturity is important for language and not the reverse as suggested by Vygotsky.
Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities.
Strength - more carefully controlled than Piaget
Ev - Used less biased sample compared to middle-class children of Piaget. she looked at birth announcements in local newspaper.
Also had other controls like children on parents lap, and parents keeping their eyes shut, not interest with child to avoid any demand characteristics from unconscious cues. Double blind to avoid observer effects.
Ex - So, we can conclude infants eye contact increased due to change in VoE - good causation. Criticises Piaget as shows infants can have object permanence earlier than 8-9m Piaget supposed.
L - Piaget would argue showing surprise not same as understanding object permanence - still supports concept that mental abilities appear with bio maturation.
Researchers have Q’ed internal validity of VoE method
Ev - Might not be surprised at VoE but that the impossible event was more interesting to watch.
Evidence has found infants gaze differently at the possible and impossible task.
Ex -suggests just more interested what happens rather than it being surprise at a violation.
L - but Baillargeon’s explanation of infant’s cog dev= more highly supported than critics. She believes infants have innate ability to acquire knowledge rapidly, other critics have argued infants are born with the core knowledge already. If this was the case - all infants would dev cog ability to recognise VoE at same time+ don’t. so correct.
Culturally beta biased
Ev - Assumes all object persistence is same across world, irrespective of culture. Her studies of VoE are based on infants from Canada which is western and individualistic. not specifically researched infants from diff cultures to own.
Ex - If there are cultural differences, this would challenge her assumption that infant’s knowledge of physical world=innate.
Vygotsky would argue that she ignores the role of experts and language in the dev of their knowledge, hence being reductionist.
outline evaluation for development of social cognition: Selman’s levels of perspective taking.
Research support for stage theory of perspective taking
Ev - Selman gave perspective talking tasks to 60 children aged 4-6yrs. found significant correlations between age and ability to perspective take.
Ex - Perspective taking is a bio process and we have innate ability to perspective take as we get older.
L - But Selman has flawed methodology. Dilema has a high cog load on children. Could be that children found the dilemma harder to remember. Baillargeon found children understand false beliefs hence could perspective take at 14.5m. Signif younger than 6-8yrs.
RLA to Selman’s theory for disorders like ADHD and ASD
Ev - 50 8-12yr old children with ADHD compared to a control group of non-ADHD children. Found ADHD performed worse on understanding feelings of others in scenarios and evaluating the consequences.
Ex - so certain disorders like ADHD and ASD have problems in perspective taking as are bio diff to those without disorder. Fits with research done on mirror neurons, as those with ASD have less activity and this is a bio process. So perspective taking could develop with age as mirror neurons develop.
L - But Selman can’t explain how children progress through stages. Likely this is env. (encouragement from parents and teachers to empathise). So Selman may underestimate the age of development of perspective taking. Maybe Vygotsky has better explanation of how PT develops over time.
Even though research has shown importance of perspective taking, it’s correlational - lacks causation
Ev - Research has found a negative correlation between perspective taking and aggression, and positive correlational with pro-social beh. Selman also found pos correlation between poor perspective taking and difficulty in maintaining social relationships.
Ex - suggests PT skills lead to important social dev and can help understand relationship problems and aggressive beh. But is correlational - no causation. Can’t say lack of PT causes aggression and difficulties maintaining relationships with others.
L - SS to suggest those with difficulties PT have more anti-social beh - ASD/ADHD.
If bio caused, how do we dev perspective talking in those with a deficit. Hard bio determinism and suggests those with disorders like ADHD should be controlled through eugenics/selective breeding. Highly unethical, offensive to those with this cog disorder.
Development of Social Cognition: Theory of mind
Criticims - low validity of false belief task
Ev - Maxi and Sally-Anne tasks are high in cog load. Require working memory functioning which is low in 3yrs. Children who use pretend play and have good ToM don’t perform well on Sally-Anne task.
Ex - Other reasons apart from lack of ToM. So validity of Baron-Cohen’s method can be Q’ed. Likely he is testing ability to memorise a complex story rather than ToM.
L - But Baron-cohen research does help increase our understanding of neurodivergent ppl (ASD) and can help offer diagnostic tool. Eyes task is used as such within UK alongside other diagnostic measures.
Criticism-diff to distinguish ToM from perspective taking as you need PT to have ToM
Ev - ToM= ability to understand the mental states and intentions others. Sally-Anne task could be argued to measure PT more than ToM as doesn’t measure intent behind Sally or Anne’s actions - more an understanding of false beliefs. Very sim to false beliefs task from Baillargeon.
Ex - So ToM may not be a distinct concept but just perspective taking under another name. Whole theory of Baron-Cohen could be argued low validity compared to Selman’s perspective taking.
L - but created Eyes task which does look at intention behind facial expression of people. Would involve more understanding of emotions and internal mental state of people with the expressions. Did find diff in those with ASD. So can help educational psychologists and other educators to understand more bout how to facilitate people with ASD coping within an emotional and unpredictable world.
Criticism-only partial explanation for ASD
Ev - Recent research Q’ed assumption that deficit in ToM is specific to those with ASD. Have other symptoms such as issues in coping with change, alongside sensory difficulties.
Ex - Baron-Cohen can’t say ToM causes or can diagnose ASD outright. Only correlation - no causation between ASD and ToM.
L - No clear explanation of how ToM develops and whether it’s bio maturation or env dev.
But with introduction of brain scannning tech - have identified mirror neurons that are responsible for imitation of mirror neurons and being able to consider intentions of others. So ToM could = deficit in activity of mirror neurons.
mirror neurons (Dev of social cognition)
Research supporting role of MNs
Ev - Contageous yawning study. Pps were in a fMRI scanner whilst watching a video of someone yawning (empathy). They found high levels of activity in the Brodmann’s area which is know for having a high density of MN’s.
Ex - Suggests areas of the brain high in MN’s are responsible for empathy and PT. So the ability to have ToM is bio and poss due to MNs.
L - However these brain scans are making inferences as to whether there is MN activity. cannot be directly observed on a cellular level. Unethical to insert electrodes into active brain.
RLA for diagnosing ASD
Ev - research support for a link between ASD and MNs. fMRI scans have shown less activity in the Brodmann’s area in those with ASD + thinner Pars Opercularis.
Ex - Brain areas could be used to diagnose ASD, assuming the smaller structure and lower activity in Brodmann’s area is unique to ASD. Link between ASD + MN = ‘broken mirror’ theory.
L - Not all research is consistent and finds a unique pattern of activity or change in brain structure. Could be due to ASD having various deficits (sensory issues rigidity as well as ToM/empathy)
Gender diff in level of social cog
Ev - Study used EEG and measured brain activity in males and females.
Control group - watching a dot moving (non-MN)
Exp group - watching a hand action (MN)
Found no difference in makes and females in control group.
But significantly greater activity in females than males in exp hand action group.
Ex -shows MNs explain empathy in females and demonstrates empathy and ToM isn’t equal amongst genders. This study could be exaggerated gender differences (alpha bias).
Also assuming MN activity correlated to emphathy.
L - May be exaggerating importance of MN. Can’t say evolutionary mechanism. Could be imitation (SLT) or CC by associating an action with a response.
