b1 ch4 narrative
An investigation of Piagets theory
into how children dev:- object permanence,
- imitation- use of models as repr. of the real world

Object permanence: objects continue to exist even when they are not seen - foundation for memory and cogntive. dev.

Discussion

Methods

any methods that do not require much coordination are good

gaze is good because no coordination required + viewing shows cogntive processes like attention or expectation

violation of expectation

habituation

egocentrism / empiricsm vs. nativist / core knowlege

Def. the konwledge that objects continue to exist even when they are not seen

foundation for memory and cognitive developement

Piaget : children develop this through touching and handling. Thus for him understanding dependends on motor development.

Childern in sensimotor lack object perm:
9m: when an object (which they showed interest in before) is hidden under cloth the do not make any attempt to retrieve it

Piaget:
The children are egocentric:
for them object exist cease to exist when when they do not see them. As if they would bring the object into existance.

Bower: viol.expect

2m train moving toward screen in was expected to reappear behind a block. But fail to inhibit stop of gaze

stopping train before

child gaze continues

Baillargon: imp:event

5m Block and Bridge

a) habituated to 180 rotation

b) Look longer at the impossible "going 180" through event vs. rotaion stopped at 120

sugg that they expact the objec to be permanent

Good: controlled for rotation time

6-8m Car and blocked road

If the road is blocked and the car still appears (surprising event) chidren spend more time looking

when they controlled for the differnt rotation times there was no difference

3, 5 same reaction

suggestive of children having
a core knowledge

(a) the block continued to exist,
(b) the car continued to exist
(c) the car could not roll through the block

P. task demanded a level of coordination they were not capable of

dev sequence 2,5 / 3,5

Object hidden behind occluder

2,5 any object hidden

3,5 integrate the hight and shape

Hood and Villats

5m object and Lights out

chilren make more movements in the direction of where the object was suggestive that they do not suppose that the object ceases to exist

Good: Controlled for baseline reaching behav

A - not B- error
(robust finding)

Piaget

9m-12m looked under location A even though they saw object position was changed to B

sugg: egocentrism

Harrris

Memory trace fades when obect is hidden

Diamond

older children are better in longer delays

habituation takes over when trace is faded

Buttworth

fail even with see though cloth

egocentric and allocentric

if both codes are used both must be updated

Dicussion: Issue if memory or inhibition not completely resolved

Piaget: 2-7 3 mountains task:
inablity to show what another percptective woul look like

taken to suggest inablity to decenter

Counterevidence

Huges et al: 90% of 3-5 could hide the doll from the police

Suggesting that the P method placed to many cognitive demands on the children.

Imitation: foundation for social developement

Piaget

Imitation not possible before 12 m:
imitation:
- needs memory, so only imitation for what is alredy known
- only imitation of body parts that can be seen
- true imitaion has a time lag (cogntion)

obsevation of own kids:
<1 from no imitation to
>12 deffered and new imitation

Supported by Uzgiris and Hunt

<6m no imitation of new behavior

>9m: imitation with body parts they can see

> 12 m: imitation of new actions

Methods

but: small sample, no generalization

good: longitudinal observation in econatural circumstances. study / within participant study w. fewer variation

Counterevidence

Meltzof + Moore: early Imitation of
a) new behaviour in b) blind body parts

6 infants aged 12- 21 days: were shown one of 4 gestures

judges: likelyhood of imitaion

but some error because "not applicable" was not possible

but: small sample

Meltzoff+Moore: 6w imitation and adaptation/learning even after delay

6 w: after delay of 24h were still abel to imitate tongue protrusion to the side.

- Also adaptation shown to make it more similar – even though not see body part

Meltzofff + Moore: developmental progression

- 2-3 m vs. 6 weeks old.
- > 18m they understood unsuccessful inteded beh

Methods

good larger, and many differnt samples

good: experimental allows to manipulate conditions

but: low response rates (large variation) making it difficult to see age related changes

Suggestive

Likely an inborn abilty to imitat which facilites social interaction