Prof. Greg Francis 7/10/081Piaget and his researchIIE 366: DevelopmentalPsychologyGreg FrancisLecture 15I. Piaget: A BriefBiographyII. Piaget’s Account ofObject PermanenceIII. Core Knowledge ofObjectsI. Piaget: A BriefBiography (1896-1980)A. A precocious youthB. Turning from biology topsychologyA. A Precocious Youth Early interest in livingthings (molluscs) Published first scientificpaper at age 10. Ph. D. in biology at age21B. Turning from biology topsychology Interest in epistemology (theory of knowledge) Test children to study epistemological questions Toured European psychological laboratories,including:>clinical psychology>intelligence testing Laboratory of Claude Binetand Théodore SimonThe influence of the“Simon years” A more flexible testing format needed Errors more revealing than correct answers Children’s thinking had a logic at its own Not just poorer than adult’s Fundamentally differentProf. Greg Francis 7/10/082The rest is “history” Piaget spent the rest of his life--from 1920 to 1980--studyingcognitive development Late in life, returned to theepistemological questions thatinterested him initially; created aninterdisciplinary research center tostudy these questionsII. Piaget’s account ofobject permanence Understanding of objects progressesthrough stages and not fully achieved until2 years of age. For 8-month-olds, “out of sight is out ofmind” For 10-month-olds, object concept linked toactions performed on objects“out of sight is out of mind”A not B error Experimenterhides a toyunder box A(red) Infant looks fortoy and finds itunder box AA not B error Experimenter hidesa toy under box A(red) Infant looks for toyand finds it underbox A Repeat for manytrialsA not B error Experimenter hides a toyunder box B (green) Infant continues to lookfor toy under box A Piaget believed thisbehavior indicated a lackof understanding aboutobject permanenceProf. Greg Francis 7/10/0834.5-month-olds look longer at theimpossible eventBaillargeon’s counter evidenceBaillargeon’s counter evidence To young children thismovie seems perfectlynormal They watch it for a whileand then get boredBaillargeon’s counter evidence To young children thismovie seems unusual They watch it longer thanthe normal video They stare longer at the“impossible” situationInterpreting the A not B error A not B errors increase with delay A not B errors decrease if containers aremore distinctive Interpretation: memory that the toy washidden at B is fragile compared to therobust memory that the toy was hidden at A Another interpretation: failure to inhibitprior responses and maturation of PFCIII. Core Knowledge ofObjects Starting point for this work was Piaget’swork on object permanence. Later investigators, particularly ReneeBaillargeon and Elizabeth Spelke,doubted that children knew this littleabout objects.What knowledge would a creature—humanor artifact—need to know about objects?Prof. Greg Francis 7/10/084A. Support 5.5-month-olds look equally at the two events but6.5-month-olds look longer at the impossible eventB. CollisionA medium-sized orange ball collides with a yellowbug and pushes it a medium distance.B. Collision 6-month-olds are surprised by theimpossible event but not younger infantsBottom line• Even though some of the details of Piaget’stheory are not correct, he provided the modernview of children as “scientists” constantly tryingto understand the world. And his work inspiredothers to reveal some fascinating aspects ofchildren’s thinking.• This research has shown that Piagetunderestimated infants' understanding ofobjects.Next time Cognitive development Memory Problem solving Academic