Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities: Cognition and Development
BAILLARGEON’S EXPLANATION (SUPPORTS
NATURE)
Baillargeon was interested in the extent to
which infants understand how the physical world works (eg. object permanence
and perception). She developed the ‘violation of expectation’ method in order
to investigate infants’ understanding of the physical world – she challenged
Piaget’s views, by believing that even very young babies have a well-developed
understanding of our world, including knowledge of object permanence.
Definitions:
1. Knowledge of the physical world: refers to the extent to which we understand how the physical world works. An example of this is object permanence (the understanding that objects continue to exist when they leave the visual field)
1. Knowledge of the physical world: refers to the extent to which we understand how the physical world works. An example of this is object permanence (the understanding that objects continue to exist when they leave the visual field)
2. Violation of expectation research: an approach to investigating infant
knowledge of the world. The idea is that if children understand how the
physical world operates then they will expect certain things to happen in
particular situations. If these do not occur and children act accordingly, this
suggests that they have an intact knowledge of that aspect of the world.
Baillargeon and DeVos (1991) showed children younger than 8 months a
carrot moving left to right behind a screen. The child sees a short carrot
pass from left to right of a ‘cut out’ screen (a possible event) and a tall
carrot pass left to right (impossible event). They found children stared longer
at the impossible event, suggesting that their expectation has been violated –
leading us to conclude that even 3-month old babies show object permanence
(which is a lot younger than what Piaget suggested), therefore supporting
Baillargeon’s explanation of infant abilities.
EVALUATION OF BAILLARGEON’S
THEORY:
Strength:
P: Findings of research studies (eg. Baillargeon and DeVos (1991)) suggest that Piaget underestimated the perceptual abilities of young children.
E: For example, it has now been found that infants have awareness of object permanence earlier than the age of 8 months (proposed by Piaget)
E: This supports Baillareon’s theory and highlights potential areas of weaknesses in Piaget’s theory.
P: Findings of research studies (eg. Baillargeon and DeVos (1991)) suggest that Piaget underestimated the perceptual abilities of young children.
E: For example, it has now been found that infants have awareness of object permanence earlier than the age of 8 months (proposed by Piaget)
E: This supports Baillareon’s theory and highlights potential areas of weaknesses in Piaget’s theory.
Strength:
P: It is a better method of testing than alternative theories (Piaget’s, for example)
E: Piaget doesn’t account for confounding variables (eg. when a baby’s attention shifted he assumed this meant that the child believed the object no longer existed, when it may have been another factor, eg. they just weren’t interested), whereas the VOE method eliminates these confounding variables.
E: Suggests that the VOE method has better validity than some alternatives.
P: It is a better method of testing than alternative theories (Piaget’s, for example)
E: Piaget doesn’t account for confounding variables (eg. when a baby’s attention shifted he assumed this meant that the child believed the object no longer existed, when it may have been another factor, eg. they just weren’t interested), whereas the VOE method eliminates these confounding variables.
E: Suggests that the VOE method has better validity than some alternatives.
Weakness:
P: It is difficult to judge whether an infant understands something or not
E: For example, there may be other reasons why they look longer at one event that the other – we are just assuming it is because an expectation has been violated (Baillargeon and DeVos’ (1991) study)
E: This is based purely on assumptions and so the research may not be a valid way to measure an infants’ understanding of the world; therefore, questioning the credibility of such theory.
P: It is difficult to judge whether an infant understands something or not
E: For example, there may be other reasons why they look longer at one event that the other – we are just assuming it is because an expectation has been violated (Baillargeon and DeVos’ (1991) study)
E: This is based purely on assumptions and so the research may not be a valid way to measure an infants’ understanding of the world; therefore, questioning the credibility of such theory.
Weakness:
P: VOE experiments are very difficult to conduct with new-borns
E: And so, we do not yet have reliable research evidence about whether such cognitive abilities (for example, object permanence) are present at birth
E: Although they found that it is present in infants of 3 months, we can’t say whether such cognitions are innate and therefore we cannot be certain of when these abilities are actually present from, thus making this research questionable in terms of credibility and validity.
P: VOE experiments are very difficult to conduct with new-borns
E: And so, we do not yet have reliable research evidence about whether such cognitive abilities (for example, object permanence) are present at birth
E: Although they found that it is present in infants of 3 months, we can’t say whether such cognitions are innate and therefore we cannot be certain of when these abilities are actually present from, thus making this research questionable in terms of credibility and validity.
Comments
Post a Comment