Theoretical Approaches to Cognitive Development

1. Theoretical Approaches to Cognitive Development Piagetian Stage Theory • Invariant Sequence • *Qualitative Change • Hierarchical • *Domain General Information Processing Mechanisms: • Automatization • Encoding • Generalization • Strategy Construction Cognitive Development as Theory Change • Lay theories • Where notions of causality are embedded • Where ontological commitments are made • Theory change • Nature of the phenomena • Core concepts • Kinds of explanations Candidate Theories • Lay physics • Lay psychology (Theory of Mind) • Biology • Number • ???

3. I. Stage Theory • A. Invariant Sequence • * B. Qualitative Change • C. Hierarchical • *D. Domain General

4. II. Sensory Motor Stages • A. Stage 1 (0-1 mo.) Reflexes • B. Stage 2 (2-4 mos.) Primary Circular Reactions • C. Stage 3 (5-8 mos.) Secondary Circular Reactions • D. Stage 4 (8-12 mos. Coordination of Secondary Schemas • E. Stage 5 (12-18 mos.) Discovery of New Means through Active Experimentation. • F. Stage 6 (18 mos.) Invention of New Means through Mental Combination

5. During Sensory-Motor Development a child moves from a non-thinking, reflexive, organism to: an intentional being with symbolic representation who thinks about causality, space, and time comes to differentiate self from other and begins to acquire language

6. Lay PhysicsPiaget: The Development of the Object Concept • Stages 1-2 (0-4 months) • Stages 3 (5-8 months) • Trajectory conserved • Frees perception • Partially covered object (late) • Stage 4 (9-12 months) • Successful search for covered object • Stage 4 (AB) error • Stage 5 (12-18 months) • Overcomes Stage 4 error • Follows visible but not invisible displacements • Stage 6 (19-24 months) • Can follow invisible displacements

7. Spelke, Breinlinger, Macober, & Jacobson (1992): • Lay Physics • Active representations (from early infancy) • Core knowledge • continuity principle (objects move only on connected paths) • solidity principle (objects move on unobstructed paths. No parts of two distinct objects coincide in space and time. • Non core, later developing, knowledge • gravity (objects move downward in the absence of support) • inertia (objects do not change their motion abruptly and spontaneously. Baillargeon (2004): Lay Physics • Core knowledge • continuity • solidity • Non-core, later developing, knowledge • event specific representations • occlusion • containment • covering • metric and other properties of objects not encoded at once.

8. Spelke, Breinlinger, Macober, & Jacobson (1992): • Lay Physics • Active representations (from early infancy) • Core knowledge • continuity principle (objects move only on connected paths) • solidity principle (objects move on unobstructed paths. No parts of two distinct objects coincide in space and time. • Non core, later developing, knowledge • gravity (objects move downward in the absence of support) • inertia (objects do not change their motion abruptly and spontaneously. Baillargeon (2004): Lay Physics • Core knowledge • continuity • solidity • Non-core, later developing, knowledge • event specific representations • occlusion • containment • covering • metric and other properties of objects not encoded at once.

9. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Habituation Test Figure 1. Schematic depiction of the events in experiments by Baillargeon (after Baillargeon, Spelke & Wasserman, 1985)

10. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Experimental Habituation Consistent Inconsistent Control Habituation Test a Test b Figure 2. Schematic depiction of the events from Experiment 1. (Circles indicate the initial and final positions of the ball. Arrows depict the path of visible motion of the ball in the experimental condition events [In the control events, the ball was moved forward in depth.] Dotted lines depict the position of the screen when it was lowered into the display.) 3-4 month olds

11. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Figure 3. Mean looking times at the event outcomes during the last six habituation trials and the six test trials for the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 1.

12. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Experimental Habituation Consistent Inconsistent Control Habituation Test a Test b Figure 4. Schematic depiction of the events from Experiment 2. 3-4 month olds

13. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Figure 5. Mean looking times at the event outcomes during the last six habituation trials and the six test trials for the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 2.

14. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Experimental Habituation Consistent Inconsistent Control Habituation Test a Test b Figure 6. Schematic depiction of the events from Experiment 3 2 month olds

15. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Figure 7. Mean looking times at the event outcomes during the last six habituation trials and the six test trials for infants in the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 3.

16. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Figure 8. Adults’ mean looking times at the event outcomes during the last six habituation trials and the six test trials of Experiment 3.

17. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Experimental Habituation Consistent Inconsistent Control Habituation Test a Test b Figure 9. Schematic depiction of the events from Experiment 4. 3-4 month olds

18. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Figure 10. Mean looking times at the event outcomes during the last six habituation trials and the six test trials for the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 4.

19. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Experimental Habituation Consistent Inconsistent Control Habituation Test a Test b Figure 11. Schematic depiction of the events from Experiment 5. 2-3 month olds

20. Psychological Review 1992, Vol 99, No. 4, Origins of Knowledge by Elizabeth Spelke Figure 12. Mean looking times at the event outcomes during the last six habituation trials and the six test trials for the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 5.

21. Spelke, Breinlinger, Macober, & Jacobson (1992): • Lay Physics • Active representations (from early infancy) • Core knowledge • continuity principle (objects move only on connected paths) • solidity principle (objects move on unobstructed paths. No parts of two distinct objects coincide in space and time. • Non core, later developing, knowledge • gravity (objects move downward in the absence of support) • inertia (objects do not change their motion abruptly and spontaneously. Baillargeon (2004): Lay Physics • Core knowledge • continuity • solidity • Non-core, later developing, knowledge • event specific representations • occlusion • containment • covering • metric and other properties of objects not encoded at once.

22. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol 13, #3, 89-94, Infants’ Physical World by Renee Baillargeon Figure 1. Examples of violations detected by very young infants. The top row illustrates an occlusion violation: The toy mouse disappears behind one screen and reappears from behind the other screen without appearing in the gap between them (Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999). The middle row illustrates a containment violation: The checkerboard object is lowered inside the container, which is then slid forward and to the side to reveal the object standing in the container’s initial position (Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001b). The bottom row illustrates a covering violation: The cover is lowered over the toy duck, slid behind the left half of the screen, lifted above the screen, moved to the right, lowered behind the right half of the screen, slid past the screen, and finally lifted to reveal the duck (Wang, Baillargeon, & Paterson, in press).

23. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol 13, #3, 89-94, Infants’ Physical World by Renee Baillargeon Height in Occlusion and Containment Events Figure 2. Examples of lags in infants’ reasoning about the same variable in different event categories. The top two rows illustrate the lag in infants’ identification of the height variable in containment as opposed to occlusion events. Although 4.5-month-old infants detect the violation in the occlusion event, it is not until infants are about 7.5 months old that they detect the violation in the containment event (Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001a). The middle two rows illustrate the lag in infants’ identification of the height variable in covering as opposed to containment events: Although 9-month-old infants detect the violation in the containment event, it is not until infants are about 12 months old that they detect the violation in the covering event ( Want, Baillargeon, & Paterson, in press). The bottom two rows illustrate the lag in infants’ identification of the transparency variable in containment as opposed to occlusion events: Although 7.5-month-old infants detect the violation in the occlusion event, it is not until infants are about 10 month old that they detect the violation in the containment event (Luo & Baillargeon, 2004).

24. Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol 13, #3, 89-94, Infants’ Physical World by Renee Baillargeon Figure 3. A new account of physical reasoning in infancy (Baillargeon, 2002; Wang, Baillargeon, & Paterson, in press). Represent basic information Interpret with general principles Build physical representation