physical concepts

Question 1

What is the sensorimotor stage of development according to Piaget’s developmental stages

Answer 1

Infant (0-2yrs) explores world thru direct sensory/motor contactObject permanence and separation anxiety develops in this stage Lays foundation for future stages (preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational)

Question 2

What is Piaget’s Constructivist theory of physical knowledge?

Answer 2

Children are born with chaotic sensory input and build understanding of objects through their own actions and experiences. Object permanence develops late (8–9 months).

Question 3

What is the main prediction of Piaget’s theory?

Answer 3

Infants lack object permanence until 8–9 months; knowledge is constructed by acting on the world.

Question 4

What is object permanence?

Answer 4

The understanding that objects continue to exist even when they are not visible.

Question 5

What is the A-not-B error?

Answer 5

A classic mistake where an infant searches for an object where it was last found (A), even after seeing it hidden at a new location (B); supports Piaget’s claim of incomplete object knowledge.

Question 6

What is the Nativist/Core Knowledge theory?

Answer 6

Children are born with ‘core knowledge’ about physical objects, including principles of solidity, cohesion, contact, and continuity (Spelke, Baillargeon). Knowledge is present early and refined with experience.

Question 7

What are Spelke’s four core knowledge principles?

Answer 7

Solidity (objects can’t share space), cohesion (objects move as a whole), contact (motion requires contact), and continuity (objects follow continuous paths).

Question 8

What does the core knowledge hypothesis predict?

Answer 8

Infants will show understanding of physical rules even before they can act on them.

Question 9

What is Karmiloff-Smith’s Representational Redescription theory?

Answer 9

Genes set initial constraints so infants focus on key features. Babies have implicit (unspoken) knowledge that is gradually re-described to become explicit and usable for action.

Question 10

What is the Violation of Expectancy (VOE) paradigm?

Answer 10

A research method where infants are shown possible and impossible events; longer looking at the impossible event suggests surprise and expectations about how the world works.

Question 11

Describe Baillargeon et al. (1985) ‘Drawbridge Study’.

Answer 11

Infants watched a panel (‘drawbridge’) rotate through a hidden box (impossible event) or stop when hitting the box (possible event).

Question 12

What did Baillargeon et al. (1985) find?

Answer 12

5-month-old infants looked longer at the impossible event, suggesting they expected the box to continue to exist and block the panel.

Question 13

Why was Baillargeon’s finding important?

Answer 13

Challenged Piaget’s idea that object permanence develops late; showed evidence for early object knowledge using looking-time methods.

Question 14

What is the main criticism of VOE studies like Baillargeon’s?

Answer 14

Longer looking may be due to a preference for more motion or novelty, not true understanding.

Question 15

How did Rivera et al. (1999) test the motion hypothesis?

Answer 15

Used VOE with extra control: infants saw 180° rotation even when no object was present, and still looked longer at more motion.

Question 16

What did Rivera et al. (1999) conclude?

Answer 16

Infants’ longer looking might be explained by interest in movement, not understanding of object permanence.

Question 17

What do later Baillargeon studies (1986, 1987, 1991) show?

Answer 17

Infants as young as 3.5 months look longer at impossible events involving hidden or changed objects. Infants also represent some hidden object properties.

Question 18

What is the violation of solidity principle in VOE studies?

Answer 18

Showing infants events where an object appears to pass through another solid object (impossible); longer looking suggests expectation of solidity.

Question 19

What do Spelke et al. (1992) contribute?

Answer 19

Found 4-month-olds look longer at impossible events involving hidden objects, supporting the idea of core knowledge.

Question 20

What do manual search studies (Hood et al., 2000; Berthier et al., 2000) show?

Answer 20

Older infants/toddlers can act on their knowledge and find hidden objects, but often show a gap between looking-time knowledge and action ability.

Question 21

Why is there a gap between looking and action in infants?

Answer 21

Knowledge is initially implicit and not connected to action. Babies may know about objects but can’t use knowledge to guide searching until older.

Question 22

What is Keen’s (2003) perspective on ‘smart’ infants vs ‘dumb’ toddlers?

Answer 22

Infants appear smart in looking-time tasks but fail in action/search tasks. Early knowledge may be recognition-based and not yet guide prediction or action.

Question 23

What is the gravity error (Hood, 1995, 1998)?

Answer 23

Children expect a ball dropped into a curved, opaque tube to fall straight down instead of following the tube. Shows reliance on naïve physics over real world evidence.

Question 24

How does transparency affect the gravity error?

Answer 24

Children do better if the tube is transparent and they can see the ball’s path.

Question 25

What is a naïve physical theory?

Answer 25

Simple, intuitive beliefs about the physical world that persist even when wrong (e.g., things always fall straight down or balance at the centre).

Question 26

Describe the balance scale problem (Karmiloff-Smith & Inhelder, 1975).

Answer 26

Children balance asymmetrical blocks. 4–5yo succeed by trial/error, 6–7yo stick to a 'centre' theory and fail, 8–9yo adapt based on evidence.

Question 27

What does the balance scale problem teach us?

Answer 27

Children move from implicit understanding to rigid rules, and eventually to flexible, evidence-based reasoning.

Question 28

When do children begin to show understanding of object use?

Answer 28

Around 1 year, children start to use objects functionally (e.g., spoon to mouth, cup to mouth, key in lock).

Question 29

How did Hunnius & Bekkering (2010) test infants’ knowledge of object use?

Answer 29

Anticipatory looking: 6–16mo infants watched adults use familiar objects. Researchers tracked if infants looked to the correct goal (e.g., mouth for cup) before action finished.

Question 30

What did Hunnius & Bekkering (2010) find?

Answer 30

Infants as young as 6 months looked ahead to correct goal area more often during functional actions, showing expectation about object use before acting themselves.

Question 31

What does anticipatory looking suggest about learning?

Answer 31

Infants learn from observing others and detecting patterns, not just from acting on objects themselves.

Question 32

Why do some researchers doubt looking-time studies show real knowledge?

Answer 32

Because infants might look longer at more motion or surprising events due to novelty, not true conceptual understanding.

Question 33

What is representational redescription?

Answer 33

Process by which implicit knowledge is re-worked into explicit, verbal, and usable knowledge. Explains why action lags behind expectation.

Question 34

What are open questions in early physical knowledge research?

Answer 34

Is early knowledge innate or learned? Does looking-time really show understanding? Why does action lag behind expectation? How does implicit become explicit knowledge?

Question 35

Why is understanding naive theories important?

Answer 35

Children’s misconceptions persist into school years and even adulthood. Knowing about naive theories helps teachers and parents correct misunderstandings.

Question 36

What’s the main takeaway from early physical knowledge research?

Answer 36

Babies have more understanding than Piaget thought, but knowledge starts implicit, often disconnected from action, and develops gradually through observation and experience.