Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Object Permanence (Constructivism vs core knowledge (Decalage (Looking…
Object Permanence
Constructivism vs core knowledge
Object permenance
Knowing hidden object exists in absence of perception
Mental representation
Developmental mile stone
Symbolic thought
Manipulate things in mind, not currently seen
Precursor to make believe/pretend play
Core knowledge
Humans born with a core system of knowledge for representing objects
Constructivist accounts
Humans gradually create knowledge about objects from experience
Piaget stages
Master each level before progressing
Sensorimotor period (0-2 yrs)
Confined to action schemas + sensory experiences, begins to develop
Primary circular reactions (1-4 mnths) - looks long time at place disappeared, no visual or manual search
(3) Secondary circular reactions (4-8) - visually anticipate, manual searches for partially concealed
(4) Coordination of secondary circular reactions (8-12) - search for completely hidden objects, but A not B error
Preoperational (2-7) - symbols to represent, lang symbolically, problem solving, pre-logic
Concrete operations (7-11) - logical reasoning (limited), physical elements of objects understood, classification + seriation
Formal operational period (11+) - flexible + abstract thinking, complex reasoning/problem solving
Decalage
Unevenness in children's thinking within particular stage
Evidence of object permanence knowledge
How variable child's ability can be depending on how testing
Looking time (2-4 mnths)
Reacting in dark (5-7)
Reaching w/ occluders (8-10)
Looking time
Violation of expectation
Don't require reaching - looking (can't talk/limited motor skills)
If surprised by impossible event = look for longer
No something about relationships between objects - can't occupy same space
Reaching w/ occluders
Reaching in the dark
Core knowledge: performance deficits
Action demands interfere with performance
Looking task taps core knowledge - reveal sophisticated knowledge
Reaching in dark tasks tap core knowledge + action
Occluder task tap core knowledge + means end action
Act to get goal - multistep sequence
End: get object
Means: reach for displace occluder
Neo-constructivism: graded representations
Mental representations of hidden objects develop gradually
Looking tasks tap weak representation
Reaching in dark tasks = moderate representation
Occluder task = strong representation
Older = more able in regards to mental representations
Testing predictions of contemporary accounts
Search with Occluders
Testing core knowledge predictions
If search failures due to means end motor problem
When means end demand equated for retrieving hidden/visible objects stage 3 infants should struggle with both
Pull screen study
Shinskey & Munakata (2010)
Ps: 7 mnth
IV 1: Equate means-end action demands for retrieving visible behind transparent barrier vs hidden object behind opaque barrier
IV 2: Vary whether object vs no object behind either barrier
DV: Measure whether infants do same means-end action for object vs no object in visible vs hidden condition
Results
Visible = much higher reaching for object (means end)
Goal directed means as long as seen
Hidden = no sig difference
Challenges core
Can do means end if seen
Not just completely intact knowledge with action deficit
Representation of hidden thing not strong enough
Failure to search for hidden objects in (3) not just mean ends motor problem
Search in dark vs w/ occluders
Incidental task differences
Procedural differences may give infants ad. in dark
Whether object makes noise while hidden
Number of trails with visible object (light)
Dark cover comparison
Shinskey & Munakata (2003)
Object dark vs no object dark
Object cover vs no object cover
More sensitivity to presence vs absence
Do search earlier in dark than with occluders
When incidental task differences controlled
7 mnths = advantage in dark
Why?
Graded = gradually learning things still exist
More sensitivity because representations can cont
Binding auditory cues
If representation persists in dark, infants may bind auditory cues
Not just looks but also sound - more features = stronger representation
Masked by occluder in light = no binding
Sound = cue object is still there
Prediction + auditory cues increase search for object in dark more than one hidden by occluder in light
Dark sound method
4 trial types in ether dark or light group
DV = 45 degree tilt (means end action)
Conc
unable to use sound to find object hidden w/ occluder in light
Sound does't help when hidden in light
Occluder wipes out representation of object while darkness doesn't
But not too weak to support to search in dark
Search familiar objects in dark
Graded representations prediction
Object permanence begins with familiar objects, later generalises to all objects
Before 8-10 mnths
Stronger representation for familiar
When hidden, reach more for familiar
When visible, reach more for novel (novelty preference)
After 8-10 mnths
Better representations for novel objects
Reach more for novel, whether visible or hidden (novelty preference always)
Switch between familiarity to novelty preference (hidden)
Strongly represent most objects
Core knowledge prediction
No switch
All object exist when hidden
Know from birth - no graded effect if hidden or not
Reach more for novel, whether visible or hidden
'Nov-Fam' Method
Shinskey & Munakata (2005)
7 & 11 mnths
Familiarise with 1 object
DV = hand crosses semi-circle - reaching
Stop reaching if familiar
Familiar vs novel, hidden vs. visible
Both reach for novel in visible
7 = familiar, 11 = novel in hidden
Instead early/innate principle of object permanence
May begin with familiar objects
Gradually generalise to other objects
Graded representation of object knowledge