Lecture 7 - Early Conceptions of the Physical World

Question 1

What do children and well informed adults know about the physical world

Answer 1

Composed objects and surfaces governed invariant laws
3D environment occupied by objects, varying attributes
Objective reality

Question 2

What perspective does Piaget 1954 take on physical knowledge

Answer 2

Constructivist

Question 3

Outline Piaget’s 1954 Constructivist theory of physical knowledge

Answer 3

Chaotic perceptual input early infancy
Action necessary construction knowledge
Responsible own knowledge
Watch objects and their consequences
Late development of conceptual understanding
Prior learning conceptual chaos, could not mentally represent objects - out of sight, out of mind

Question 4

Who takes a Nativist approach to the theory of physical knowledge

Answer 4

Spelke

Baillargeon

Question 5

Outline the Nativist approach to the theory of physical knowledge

Answer 5

Core knowledge Hypothesis
Possess innate knowledge object concepts
Solidity, Cohesion, Contact, Continuity
Evolutionary, adaptive
No huge change between infancy and adulthood
Developmental change - refinement of core concepts

Question 6

Outline Solidity as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach

Answer 6

No two objects occupy same space at one time

Do not merge together

Question 7

Outline Cohesion as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach

Answer 7

Objects are connected masses stuff move as a whole

Question 8

Outline Contact as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach

Answer 8

Objects move through contact i.e. do not move spontaneously

Question 9

Outline Continuity as a core principle of the Nativist Core Knowledge Hypothesis approach

Answer 9

Objects move in continuous paths

Question 10

Who reconciles the two opposing views of Constructivism and Nativism

Answer 10

Karmiloff-Smith 1992

Question 11

Outline how Karmiloff-Smith 1992 reconciled the 2 competing views of constructivism and nativism

Answer 11

Not born innate knowledge but have constraints that channel attention
Genes specify initial biases/predispositions channel relevant environmental inputs
Non-chaotic system from outset
Implicit understanding
Developmental change necessary - implicit –> explicit
“representational redescription”

Question 12

Outline Piaget’s Constructivist approach on object permanence

Answer 12

Understanding objects continue to exist even when they cannot be perceived
Infants believe it is their action that brings an object into existence
A not B error task

Question 13

When is Object Permanence acquired

Answer 13

9 months

Question 14

Outline the A not B Error Task

Answer 14

Look for object where they last found it, not where it currently is.
Object continuously hidden under cloth A and revealed. Then hidden under cloth B
Continue to look under cloth A
Manual Search Task

Question 15

When does the A not B error occur

Answer 15

8-12 months

Question 16

Why do infants fail the A not B error task

Answer 16

Search/reach/grasp –> memory difficulty

Hard inhibit potent response pattern

Question 17

Criticism of the A not B error task

Answer 17

Reliance on search tasks - could be underestimating infants knowledge

Question 18

Outline Bower and Wishart 1972 Motor Skill counter argument and support of Object Permanence

Answer 18

Infants who failed retrieve object from opaque upturned cup were successful when cup was transparent
Ability retrieve object when action plan in place - not memory

Question 19

Outline Butterworths 1977 counter argument and support of Object Permanence

Answer 19

Infants still make A not B error when object in full view at B (transparent covers or hidden)
Not just memory

Question 20

Outline the Violation of Expectancy Method

Answer 20

Looking time study
Familiarise infant to an event
Present test behaviour that is consistent/inconsistent with prior familiarised event
Infant looks longer at inconsistent event, evidence they are surprised
Some level knowledge about physical world

Question 21

Outline Baillargeon et al 1985 permanence and solidity experiment 1 method

Answer 21

Object permanence in 5 month olds
Habituated to drawbridge of 180 degrees
Then saw block placed in way of trajectory
Possible event; touched solid wood then went back
Impossible event: appears drawbridge went through block

Question 22

Outline Baillargeon et al 1985 permanence and solidity experiment 1 results

Answer 22

Looked longer impossible events
Earlier than Piaget suggested
Understand object continues exist when hidden from view

Question 23

Outline the Skeptics view on perceptual or higher level learning

Answer 23

Cohen and Marks 2002
Cautious about attributing sophisticated cognitive processes to infants when simpler processes will suffice

Butterworth 1998
Perception and knowledge not the same thing. Can regard event as odd without knowing why

Question 24

Outline Rivera et al 1999 alternative explanation for the drawbridge study

Answer 24

Result of perceptual preferences rather than understanding
Preference for more motion
120 degrees less motion = look less as less interesting

Question 25

Outline Rivera et al 1999 alternative STUDY for the drawbridge study

Answer 25

Replication drawbridge study but without a block, just rotated Looked longer at 180 degrees rotation even though there was no block Motion preference

Question 26

Outline Haith 1998 alternative explanation for the drawbridge study

Answer 26

Perceptual persistence Nothing tells us if they are mentally representing blocking May just have lingering memory of block Lingering activation causing an illusion Against interpretation of high level knowledge

Question 27

Outline Permanence and Solidity 2 experiment

Answer 27

Habituated to truck moving down slope and behind screen emerging out the other side Shown block either out side track or on the track behind the screen Still see car going through trajectory But if understand object permanence should be surprised see car come through other side

Question 28

When does Baillargeon 1986 argue object permanence exists in the Truck study

Answer 28

6.5 - 8 months

Question 29

When does Baillargeon and DeVos 1991 argue object permanence exists in the Truck study

Answer 29

3.5 month olds | Understand objects continue to exist

Question 30

Outline Permanence and Solidity 3 study by Baillargeon 1987

Answer 30

Testing infants understand and reason about properties of object even when out of sight Either squash sponge or hard woodblock put in way of drawbridge Only surprised when drawbridge went through block 7 months represent properties of hidden objects

Question 31

Outline Spelke et al 1992 study on Infancy and Beyond

Answer 31

Habituated to ball falling down to shelf behind a screen Screen lifted and found as expected Saw additional shelf being put on top Possible event = ball lands on higher shelf Impossible = ball fell to bottom shelf as if it went through the top shelf 4 months look longer impossible event

Question 32

Outline Hood et al 2000 and Berthier et al 2000 study on infancy and beyond

Answer 32

Familiarised ball dropping behind screen then shelf introduced Cups at the bottom as containers Ball dropped and child asked to look for ball If understand solidity they should look for ball in cup on top shelf

Question 33

Outline Hood et al 2000 and Berthier et al 2000 RESULTS on infancy and beyond

Answer 33

2 years 40% correct 2 1/2 years 93% correct Look for longer impossible event but search in wrong place Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge

Question 34

Outline Search Errors

Answer 34

2 year olds have knowledge but unable use it to guide their actions Early cognitive development involves constructing knowledge action links rather than constructing knowledge itself Looking measures however should not be dismissed they are still the building blocks of what knowledge builds on May not be able to use this knowledge to predict

Question 35

Outline what Keen 2003 says on Speech Errors

Answer 35

Reasoning may be limited to recognising after the fact incongruent events Perceptual recognition of implausible event outshines seems like a valuable building block to construct further knowledge and prediction about physical world

Question 36

Outline the Limited Problem Solving reason for Speech Errors

Answer 36

In search task having to predict where a ball has fallen there is more problem solving than looking Might not have ability to do this

Question 37

Outline the Frontal Cortex Immaturity reason for Speech Errors

Answer 37

Diamond 1985 Frontal cortex late developing and important for planning actions and inhibitory control Inhibit habituation knowledge e.g. going to familiarised cup

Question 38

Outline the Weaker Representations reason for Speech Errors

Answer 38

Weaker representations that are sufficient for looking tasks but not manual retrieval Representing solidity but aren’t strong enough to guide actions

Question 39

Outline the Early Representations Implicit reason for Speech Errors

Answer 39

Karmiloff-Smith 1992 Not available to child to intentionally use Not aware of them to use them Only later when explicit can they act on them

Question 40

Outline Karmiloff-Smith 1992 representation re-description model of cognitive development

Answer 40

Implicit: procedural knowledge, in the mind, innate Then representational re description Explicit: declarative knowledge, available to the mind

Question 41

Outline VoE study on support and gravity

Answer 41

3 months - surprise when block appears to float 5 months - didn’t understand slight contact still mean object can fall 6 1/2 months - did not understand amount contact mattered 12.5 months - understood proportional distribution determines support

Question 42

Outline Baillargeon et al 1992 study on the elaboration of core knowledge

Answer 42

In first pass understanding of physical events Construct an all or non representation Capture essence of events but few details Further experience initial core representations are progressively elaborated

Question 43

Outline Children’s naive intuitive theories

Answer 43

Conceptual frameworks Children spontaneously generate (not taught) make explanations and predictions Resistant to counter evidence

Question 44

Outline Hood 1995-8 Tubes Task of naive physical theories and the gravity error

Answer 44

Paradigm of holes at top and cups at the bottom connected by tubes Persistent error 2-3years understand ball has gone down tube Instead look cup directly below not exit of tube Infer trajectory falling object always be straight down

Question 45

Outline REASONING for Hood 1995-8 Tubes Task of naive physical theories and the gravity error findings

Answer 45

Transparent tubes solve it But when return to opaque still don’t understand Up vs down motion. When ball placed bottom and sucked up tube , gave right choice in cup Real life have no experience things going up in straight lines so do not believe that is the expected motion

Question 46

Outline Karmiloff-Smith and Inhelder 1975 naive physical theory on all things must balance in the centre

Answer 46

4-5 years perform well by trial and error. No expectations. Data driven. 6-7 years rigidly stick to naive centre theory of balance and fail the task. Resistant to counter evidence, not flexible. Internally driven. Give up on task. 8-9 years flexible and switch strategy evidence contradicts their centre theory. Reconciling data and internal drives. More explicit knowledge and more flexible. Better ability to reason.

Question 47

Outline knowledge of object use

Answer 47

1 year old begin exhibiting object function through action: Begin show correct use everyday objects Play with objects functionally not just exploration

Question 48

Outline knowledge of object use by Hunnius and Bekkeding 2010 method

Answer 48

Anticipatory looking technique find if 6-16 month olds have expectations about how number of everyday objects are used Shown videos actress using objects in conventional or unconventional ways E.g. bring hairbrush up to hair vs bringing hairbrush up to mouth Analysing where infants look anticipation where actress putting object

Question 49

Outline knowledge of object use by Hunnius and Bekkeding 2010 results

Answer 49

Infants more frequently looked mouth and ear area when they watched the correct object being lifted than when observed the unrelated object being lifted Displayed this from 6 months They know which actions associated with which objects for 2 everyday objects - phone and cup (Brush results negative)

Question 50

Outline the conclusion of knowledge of object use

Answer 50

Child’s own action on objects not prerequisite for having expectation about other people’s actions when using objects Learning arises through observations people and their actions, detect statistical regularities Different interpretations data: Do infants know which action should be done use object properly Or have simply learn which action associated with which object Unclear which is the right interpretation