Child Cognition test 2
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards
. What would you like to do?
Concious mental representation of sensory information
Mental groupings of similar things, events, or people (like Piaget's Schemas)
Higher level judgements or deductions based on perceptual information or concepts
Meltzoff & Moore (1983)
What did they prove?
- Neonate imitates facial expression (sticking out tongue) after seeing an adult do it for 20 sec.
- Successful imitation proved that neonates could represent the info, hold the info in their brain while adult was away, and reproduce gesture
What does most violation-of-expectation paradigm research prove?
- Covering something causes it to disappear
- A short container causes a tall object to disappear
- A wooden obstacle causes a drawbridge to stop rotating
Leslie and Keeble (1987)
- Launching events - red and blue block that hit each other
- When contact is short, causality is possible (as soon as red hits blue)
- When contact is delayed, causality is not possible (1 sec after red hits blue)
Attributing mental states like beliefs, desires, or goals as the basis for the action
True or false:
Gergely, et al. suggested that babies attribute an intentional stance to actions of objects
Tremoulet & Feldman (2000)
- Line moving up and diagonal (/), when it turns the "head" to move down and diagonal (\), adults attribute animacy (like it might be a real thing).
- If it's facing up and diagonal (/) and moves down facing the same way (/), they don't attribute animacy
Gergely et al. (1995)
What did they prove?
- Pg 45
- 2 balls - 1 big, 1 small
- Swell up (like talking) 1 at a time
- Little ball "revs up" and jumps over wall in middle
- When wall gone, little ball still jumps
- Babies looked because they "knew" it was irrational of the little ball to jump because the wall was gone
What are the 2 separable causal frameworks that children form?
- 1. Explaining the behavior of objects (Physical reasoning)
- 2. Explaining the behavior of people (Psychological reasoning)
Rochet et al. (1997)
What did they argue that this meant?
- 3-6 mos olds prefer to watch 2 dots chase each other rather than just move randomly
- Argued: that infants were sensitive to movement info (the 1st dot doesn't want to be by the 2nd dot)
- It specified social causality
Things that move on their own are called ____________.
Something that causes an effect on the environment is called ________.
Spelke, Phillips, Woodward (1995)
- Used box vs. person touching an object.
- Dishabituated to box touching because they dont have feelings, etc
- No dishabituation because people do have feelingss, etc
- Conclusion - infants reason differently about people and objects
- Adults tried to put beads in jar, or tried to put string on a hook and failed
- When babies imitated, they successfully complete the action intended by adult
- When saw done by a robot arm, they did not imitate
- Conclusion: Babies separate causal explanations by 18 mos. (understand unobservable traits like wants, desires, beliefs, goals)
Wynn and Bloom study
Babies picked a yellow square when it helps the blue square get up the hill, and not the red square because it pushed the blue down the hill
Special dedicated info-processing systems in the brain that recieve input from particular classes of objects in world
What are the 4 "Modules"?
All are Domain Specific
- Language and grammar
- Cause and Effect
What are the 2 types of causality?
- Theory of Mind (Psychological causality)
- Object mechanics (Physical causality)
What are the domain-general learning mechanisms? (4)
- Statistical learning
- Explanation-based (causality)
- Learning by analogy
Adult reasoning involves what 3 "ingredients"?
- Reasoner wants to reach a desired goal
- Sequence of mental processes must be involved
- Mental processes are effortful (not automatic)
Baillargeon's Bear in the cup
- Have a bear in a cup behind a screen, take cage out from behind screen and then bear.
- Babies have to reason that you can't get the bear out if you don't take cup out first
- Mickey mouse behind a wall -
- 10 mos olds dishabituate to equal relations only
- 14 mos olds dishabituate to equal and less than relations
Simon, Hespos, & Rochat (1995)
- Change mickey's number and identity -
- Babies showed surprise at impossible identity + impossible math, but not to impossible identity alone
What does it process?
- Visual "what" pathway
- Processes unique features, colors, shapes
What does it process?
- Visual "where" pathway
- Processes spatial and temporal info (coming at you, moving away, to the left), what you can do with something, how you can act on something
Learning by imitation depends on the ability to _______________
Understand the intentions of others
- Deferred Imitation (reproducing a novel action previously learned, at a later time)
- Showed 6 actions to 14 mos olds with 1 week delay
- 9 mos old retain 3 novel acts 24 hrs
- 14 mos olds = deferred imitation over 2-4 mos
- 14 mos olds = deferred imitation after seeing it on tv
- Delayed imitaion 14 mos olds:
- Pulling the dumbell apart 3 times, 45% kids did it after he showed
Learning by Analogy
Finding certain relational correspondences b/w 2 events, situations, etc then tranferring info knowledge form one to the other
Greco, Hayne, Rovee-Collier (1990)
- Conjugate reinforcement techinque a.k.a. mobile kicking
- Butterfly mobile used during recall, infants still kicked
Chen, Sanchez, Campbell (1997)
- Using "means ends" to solve problem
- 1)Remove box, 2)pull cloth to 3)get string to 4)pull earnie toy close.
(Who, and what)
- Based on Baillargeon's research
- Based on idea that infants identify event categories like containment or support
- Baillargeon thinks these are innate
- Fundamental notions or principles that guide understandings of events
- Relies on simple basic principles (partial contact= support, no contact = falls)
Why do babies make search errors in reaching and crawling?
What is the key?
- Perseveration due to pre-frontal cortex immaturity
- Do it over and over
- Inhibition is key - they can't inhibit the response tendency (they can't inhibit the previously executed motor pattern)
John Bowlby's theory
- Newborns come equipped with behavioral mechanisms for ensuring proximity to mother (crying, rooting, grasping, smiling)
- This ensures survival because mothers can't ignore a baby's cry, etc
DeCasper & Fifer (1980)
- Maternal voice preferences
- Babies heard more of mother's voice depending on how fast they sucked on binky.
- Change their sucking rate to hear mother's voice the most possible
- Lasted for 24 hours
- Could be unlearned by reversing the learned action (sucking LESS now makes you hear more mother's voice, and they changed)
DeCasper & Spence (1986)
- Mothers read 1 of 3 books while pregnant
- Baby preffered to hear that book (by mother or stranger) after birth (changed sucking rate to hear it)
- Demonstrates "Familiararity preference"
- Babies can form memories prenatally
- Ability to detect and learn contingencies (relationships) b/w one's actions and events in environment
- a.k.a. Associative Learning
They notice that certain things they do produce an action that they like, so they keep doing it
Bahrik & Watson (1985)
Indicates awareness and preference for contingency
- Babies shown 2 videos: own live movements and own pre-recorded movements
- Preferred to look at live movements
The Rouge test
- Put a dot on child's nose or forehead and show them in mirror
- Evidence of self-recognition shows at about 18 mos old
- They show signs of embarrassment or touching their body where it is
Striano, Henning & Stahl (2005)
- Mothers responded:
- 1- naturally (talking/reacting to babies normally)
- 2- noncontingently (wore headphones listening to what they said a week before and imitated that)
- 3- imitated babies
- 3 mos olds smiled more in natural condition and looked at mom more in noncontingent condition
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview