the infant�s view
@11 on Wednesday, 13 October 1999
Piaget &
the construction of knowledge
Stage 4
error �searching in the wrong place
Stage 5
error - Inferences about invisible displacement
understanding the significance of environ � understanding that objects are permanent, independent entities
do they understand the stability of their environment
jean piaget � raised this question and went � answering
don�t really understand the permanence of objs initially
swiss biologist � became interested in children � nature in which childrens� understanding of the phys & soc world around them D as they grow older
A
child�s construction of reality
arg:
children
construct all knowledge through interactions with their environment (from
birth �
late adolescence)
built-in behaviours (called reflexes), e.g. looking, sucking, moving etc.
these basic patterns of behaviours = building blocks
when born, babies have no idea of themselves as separate independent entities (build up in first 6 months of their lives � stages 1 & 2) � after 6 months, they have worked out the difference between themselves & objects in the environment
they do not yet understand that objects have continuous + independent existence � still think of objs as dependent on the baby�s own actions � very capricious unpredictable world � can�t rely on instinct
<15 months: imperfect undersanding of the continued existence of any object once it disappears from sight
set of stages: babies� reaction to hidden objects and the nature of their understanding of objects (especially their permanence)
6-9
months
much interest in things � moving their arm, holding things in their hands
babies who have repertoire of movements: can reach for things, lift up covers etc.
arg:
babies are shown an interesting object
then watch while it is placed under/behind a cover
when they see it disappear, they immediately lose interest (even though capable of retrieving the object)
but they do retrieve partially covered objects (and may attempt fully-covered objects)
at this age, children do not understand that the covered object still exists � believe it has been obliterated
believe that when they retrieve a partially-covered object, they think that their own movements have reconstituted the missing bits
9-12 months old
arg:
as with partially-covered objects, they believe that it is their action of removing the cover which reconstitutes the object
begin to retrieve objects which they see covered
but if the hiding place is changed, they make mistakes
if an object is hidden behind A, and the baby is habituated to it being there
if the object is then re-hidden behind B, the baby still looks for it in A
the object has become: �the thing of the place�
the child thinks that moving
his/her hand � the place recreates the object � the object is a
�practical object�
object <> indep
thinks that actions � recreate the object
>12 months � no longer makes the AB error
invisible displacement - moving the object from its container
1. child sees the object being placed in a container
2. the container is moved under a cloth and emptied (the object is left there)
3. container retrieved
4. baby looks in the container
5. having found the container empty
6. does not make the inference that the object must be under the cloth
arg:
first recorded example of proper logical inference in young babies
the phonomena are not in dispute � but many alternate explanations for the AB error
1. could be that the baby knows that the covered object exists, buut not what to do about it (i.e. to uncover the object)
doesn't understand the nature of covering/uncovering, even though they appreciate the independent existence of the obj
soln: if it�s about not understanding the uncovering, then look for a different response
Bower � heart rate
Baillargeon et al. - surprise
Hood & Willats� - readhcing for a (not covered) object in the dark
all produced positive evidence for <9 months: showed some udnerstanding of the continued existence of the object
French
psychologist working in America
5 month babies
measured babies� surprise at physically possible vs impossible events
first habituated to drawbridge rotating 180deg with no object behind
possible: drawbridge is raised to cover the object from the baby�s sight, but stays propped up by the block behind
impossible: drawbridge is raised and rotates all the way through 180deg back flat on the ground (object is invisibly removed from behind)
measured surprise as measured by llooking (babies will look more at asurprising event)
post-hab: possible/impossible event
would they look more at the impossible event?
looked consistently more at the impossible events
indicating surprise at where the object had gone, i.e. conceived its permanence
went straight against Piaget�s theory (although he said �independent of their own actions� so not direct refutation)
if understand continued existence of hidden objects, then stage 4 error may not be cos of lack of understanding of permanence
everyone assumes the AB error = something to do with permanence
Butterworth: showed mistake just as much when the object is not hidden, i.e. completely visible
so to check the AB error, tried it without hiding the object
i.e. checking object as �thing of the place�, but not purely in a visual way
habitutating them to putting the object in A (transparent container with the object visible) then moving it to B, with the object remaining visible at all times
suggests: stave 4 error <> due to a problem about space (Bremner�s book)
if Baillargeon is right, young (stage 3) babies DO have understanding of the continued existence (and solidity � block getting in the way of drawbridge) of hidden objects
does not necessarily establish one way or the other Piaget�s point about the independence of objects independent of their own actions
stage 4 & 5 observations: obviously of great importance, implications still to be worked out (especially in stage 5)
1. baby sees itself as independent, i.e. an object itself
2. baby sees other objects around it, when not covered