AO1
EARLY RESEARCH ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD
- PIAGET: BABIES at 8-9 months have a VERY SMALL UNDERSTANDING of the nature of the physical world – e.g. NOT AWARW objects CONTINUE TO EXIST when not in a PHYSICAL FIELD (OBJECT PERMANENCE)
- BUT BAILARGEON: YOUNGER babies have BETTER DEVELOPED UNDERSTANDING of the PHYSICAL WORLD (VIOLATION OF EXPECTATION METHOD)
VIOLATION OF EXPECTATION RESEARCH
- VOE: INFANT sees 2 EVENTS = an EXPECTED EVENT (CONSISTENT with EXPECTATIONS) – the CONTROL and UNEXPECTED EVENT (VIOLATES the EXPECTATION) and they test OBJECT PERMANENCE
- showed 24 INFANTS aged 5-6 MONTHS a TALL and a SHORT REBBIT PASS BEHIND A SCREEN with a WINDOW – POSSIBLE: TALL CAN be seen, SHORT CAN’T + IMPOSSIBLE: NEITHER CAN BE SEEN
- infants: 33.07s at the IMPOSSIBLE and 25.11s at the POSSIBLE = SURPRISED BY THE IMPOSSIBLE
- SUPPORT: object SHOULD FALL when UNSUPPORTED but NOT when it’s on a HORIZONTAL SURFACE – MORE surprised when the BLOCK DIDDN’T FALL when there was NO SUPPORT than when there was and THEY LOOKED FOR A LONGER TIME
BAILLARGEON’S THEORY OF INFANT PHYSICAL REASONING
- HUMANS are BORN with PHYSICAL REASONING SYSTEMS (PRS) – with BASIC UNDERSTANDINGS of the PHYSICAL WORLD and the ABILITY to LEARN MORE DETAIL + MORE SOPHISTICATED with AGE and EXPERIENCE
- one aspect is OBJECT PERSISTANCE – object remains in EXISITENCE and DOESN’T SPONTANEOUSLY alter in structure
- FIRST FEW WEEKS: IDENTIFIES EVENT CATAGORIES – how an object interacts e.g. OCCULSION EVENTS take place when one object BLOCKS ANOTHER and because the child is VORN with BASIC UNDERSTANDING of OBJECT PERSISTANCE, it learns this QUICKLY
- the IMPOSSIBLE EVENT grabs the ATTENTION as their PRS means they are PREDISPOSED to ATTEND NEW EVENTS that may DEVELOP their understanding of the PHYSICAL WORLD
AO3
- A BETTER TEST OF UNDERSTANDING THAN PIAGET: PIAGET ASSUMED when the baby LOOKED AWAY from an OUT-OF-SIGHT object that they had LOST INTEREST BUT BAILLARGEON eliminated the confounding variable as LOSING INTEREST doesn’t explain why they LOOKED LONGER = HIGHER VALIDITY
BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSE IS NOT THE SAME AS UNDERSTANDING: BRENNER: the child may be showing SURPRISE or INTEREST but have they actually understood the principle of OBJECT PERMANENCE – PIAGET: distinguished between acting in ACCORDANCE with A PRINCIPLE and UNDERSTANDING that PRINCIPLE = can’t see the CHILD’S PERSPECTIVE on the SITUATION so we don’t actually know whether it has been UNDERSTOOD
- THE PRS EXPLAINS WHY PHYSICAL UNDERSTANDING IS UNIVERSAL: HESPOS + MARLE: WITHOUT LEARNING and ANY EXPERIENCE we still have a GOOD UNDERSTANDING of the BASIC PROPERTIES of PHYSICAL OBJECTS e.g. we all know if you let go of a keyring of dangling keys that they will fall – this requires a PRS (PHYSICAL REASONING SYSTEM) = UNIVERSAL and therefore is INNATE as there is LACK OF EVIDENCE for CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
- PRS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW OF OTHER INFANT ABILITIES: it is DIFFICULT to test BAILLARGEON’S ideas of an innate PRS and that it becomes more sophisticated with AGE BUT the INFANT’S ABILITIES to use PATTERNS to JUDGE DISTANCE from an early age and with experience shows to improve SO this means that like DISTANCE PERCEPTION, the PRS could also be innate
- IT IS HARD TO JUDGE WHAT AN INFANT UNDERSTANDS: VOE research shows what an infant can do if they DID UNDERSTAND the physical world as we are GUESSING and never know how a baby might ACTUALLY ACT in response to VOE AND even if they DO LOOK for LONGER PERIODS of time, it may be because they are DIFFERENT or any other factor that the child may see it has MORE INTERESTING = REDUCES VALIDITY