Psychology - Cognition

AQA A-Level Psychology Paper 3 Cognition

Piaget

children think in different ways to adults (not that they simply know less)

PIAGET + schemas

mental structures that represent a group of related concepts

e.g. dog = fur, four, legs, tail OR behavioural = grasping an object OR cognitive = classifying objects

‘early schemas’ = present when a child is born (innate) BUT only a few e.g. sucking reflex + mental representation e.g. distinguishing a humans face

STRENGTH of PIAGET + schemas

FANTZ = infants young as 4 days old show a preference for a face rather than same features jumbled up → time spent looking indicates interest and longest time spent looking at a face BUT infants too young to have learnt this

assimilation

occurs when a child tries to understand new information in terms of their existing knowledge about the world (information gained and incorporated into existing schema)

e.g. baby given toy car → suck in the same was as a bottle → existing schema used on a new object

accommodation

occurs when a child is forced to create a new schema to accommodate new knowledge as it does not fit into existing schemas

e.g. trying to fit cats into schema of dog → doesn’t fit as doesn’t bark → can’t be assimilated → a new one is developed

disequilibriation

the motivation to learn due to a feeling of imbalance when an existing schema cannot make sense of something new

cognitive development occurs as a result of adaptation between exiting schemas and environmental ‘demands’ for change

equilibriation

a balance between existing schemas and new experiences due to disequilibriation motivating us to adapt to the new situation y exploring and learning

LIMITATIONS of schema development (x2)

1. difficult to demonstrate equilibriation → INHELDER = mild conflict between what is expected to happen and what actually happened helped children’s learning BUT Piaget referred to major dissonance

2. some aspects of the theory are unfalsifiable (cannot be measured) as they are difficult to operationalise e.g. assimilation

sensorimotor stage (approx. between 0 and 2 years)

infant can carry out simple motor reflexes like grasping and sucking as well as circular reactions whereby they repeat actions over and over to test the relationship between these motor actions and physical sensations = trial and error learning through intentional actions

develop general symbolic functioning at the end = the ability to understand that one thing can stand for another

object permanence (8 months)

the understanding that objects still exist when they are out of sight (children under 8 months lose interest in an object when it is no longer visible)

requires the child to hold a simple mental representation of the object to remember it

Piaget research into object permanence

toy was removed and hidden under a blanket whist children f different ages watched

under 8 months = infants didn’t search for the toy

8 months = searched for toy but made A not B error (moved to a different place in front of them but would look in original hiding place)

12-18 months = child would search in new place

LIMITATIONS of object permanence (x3)

1. BOWER + WISHART → actually a lack of motor skills to search for it or language skills to explain → turned out the light and 4 month old babies still reached towards object despite not seeing it

2. BOWER → expressed surprise when a toy placed behind a screen was no longer there when lifted

3. BAILLARGEON disputes this

preoperational stage

approx. 2 - 7 years

egocentrism

the infant’s view is the only view that exists = unaware that other individuals may have different views or that individuals have access to different amounts of information

reflective of the difficulty in separating the self from the real world

E.G. illustrated in a game of hide and seek = child in early part of this stage think you cannot see them if they cannot see you

Piaget research into egocentrism

‘three mountains task’ = children shown a model of three mountains which are distinguished by height and feature on top

aged 4-5 = consistently selected photo showing their own view

aged 7-8 = correct photograph

LIMITATIONS of egocentrism (x2)

1. HUGHES = model with two intersecting walls and three dolls = children as young as 3 and a half were able to position one doll so it could not be seen by one of the other dolls (policemen) and 90% of those 4 could position it so neither could

2. BORKE = characters from Sesame Street were used in a similar task and children could rotate a turntable to represent a characters viewpoint = both 3 and 4 could do this as more realistic and familiar situation

conservation

unable to ‘decentre’ or think of more than one aspect of a problem at a time

PIAGET + SZEMINASKA = children developed the ability to conserve with age as those under 7 answered incorrectly

LIMITATIONS of conservation (x3)

1. ROSE + BLANK → asking same question twice was confusing as may cause children to think that their first answer was incorrect = first question omitted = fewer mistakes + could be language difficulties = ‘more’ means ‘fuller’ or ‘higher’

2. MCGARRIGLE + DONALDSON → deliberate transformation in the task by an adult acted as a demand characteristic, demanding an alternative response to the second question = used a ‘naughty teddy’ to accidentally mess up counters and less errors

3. PRICE-WILLIAMS → Mexican children of potters were able to complete conservation tasks with clay but not those less familiar with + AU → children could understand although sugar dissolves in liquid, it could affect weight and taste of drink

class inclusion

children have difficulty when classifying objects into smaller subgroups e.g. category of animals has dogs and cats but children would struggle to divide dogs further into spaniels and labradors etc.

Piaget + Szeminaska research into class inclusion

showed children beads (18 brown and 2 white) = child can say beads are wooden and there were more brown than white but not more wooden than brown beads (cannot understand ‘brown beads’ is a subclass to ‘wooden beads’)

LIMITATIONS of class inclusion (x2)

1. DONALDSON = used 4 plastic cows ‘sleeping (3 = black and 1 = white) → 48% answered correctly that more cows were lying down suggesting it is inaccessibility of objects causing it

2. SIEGLER + SVETINA = 5 year olds had 3 sessions of class inclusion tasks (6 dogs + 3 cats) = receive an explanation after each session (1) must be more animals than dogs as 6 dogs but 9 animals OR (2) accurate explanation that must be more animals than dogs as dogs are a subset of animals = scored improved for both but latter had true understanding

concrete operational stage

approx. 7 - 11 years

improved operations (class inclusion + egocentrism) only when they can do it in a concrete manner with physical objects (children struggle with abstract ideas and to imagine objects they cannot see)

Piaget study for concrete operational stage

presented children with sticks of different lengths = could understand if A is longer than B and B is longer than C then A must be longer than C = transitive inference

BUT, only when they cannot SEE the objects

LIMITATIONS of concrete operational stage (x2)

1. PEARS + BRYANT = asked children to build a larger tower that keeps the same relationship between coloured blocks = children as young as 4 could as long as presented in a way they can understand

2. DING = children had difficulty ordering pictures of pairs of people in a queue all facing left (9 years old better than 7 year olds)

formal operational stage

approx. 11+ years

logical operations no longer restricted to real objects but can be applied to abstract problems as children can use hypothetico-deductive reasoning (e.g. developing hypotheses and testing them to determine causal relationships)

show idealistic thinking → e.g. if children told ‘imagine all yellow cats have 2 heads’ and when asked about a yellow cat, a younger child would answer cats do not have two heads as thinking tied to real life

STRENGTHS of formal operational stage (x2)

1. SCHAFFER → supported hypothetical thinking in older children as when asked where to put an extra eye, 9 year olds = forehead but 11 year olds = hands to spy around corners

2. INHELDER + PIAGET → pendulum problem → children asked to explain what determines the speed a pendulum swings at depending on size of string and weight of pendulum = children before this stage change more than one variable at a time

LIMITATION of formal operational stage

only about half of adults may reach this stage + in cultures where the lack of schooling doesn’t allow children to learn mathematical sciences may mean infants don’t get the exposure needed to reach this stage = COLE

general STRENGTH of Piaget

successfully applied to educational practices → instrumental in the shift from traditional instruction to a child-centered approach as said cognitive development was dependent on maturation meaning children can only acquire concepts when they are ‘ready’ to do so

general LIMITATIONS of Piaget (x2)

1. under-estimated and over-estimated children’s abilities e.g. preoperational children have a better understanding of conservation and class inclusion (especially when the task is understandable/relevant to them) BUT suggested formal operations are not acquired by all and so not biologically determined

2. VYGOTSKY = development can be explained in terms of social rather than individual factors (underplayed role of language)

VYGOTSKY

children’s reasoning abilities develop in a particular sequence due to a social process and the abilities are qualitatively different at different ages, with a child typically capable of particular logic at particular stages

gain knowledge through interacting with others who were more experienced

inner speech

believed language was vital for cognitive development (outer monologue → private speech = when children speak to themselves when working out difficult problems → inner speech → internalised thought)

STRENGTH of inner speech

BERK → children talked to themselves more when doing difficult tasks than easy ones (decreased with age)

LIMITATION of inner speech

cultural differences in cognitive development, with children picking up mental tools needed to fit their physical, social and work environments of their culture

zone of proximal development (ZPD)

the gap between a child’s current level of development and what they can potentially do with the right help from an ‘expert’ (adult or more advanced child) as they can understand more of a subject or situation

argued moderate challenge was the best way to encourage development and for others to help them to complete tasks that they cannot do alone

STRENGTHS of ZPD (x2)

1. ROAZZI + BRYANT = children estimating number of sweets in a box → half of children worked alone and other half with an older child → with help = more successful as older children observed to offer prompts to child

2. MCNAUGHTON + LEYLAND = young children working with their mothers on jigsaw puzzles of increasing difficulty → intervention increased as difficulty increased

scaffolding

the help that adults and advanced peers give to a child in order to help them cross the ZPD (involves support/clues rather than the answer) + support gradually reduced until they can do it alone

process of scaffolding (x4)

1. gaining and maintaining a child’s interest in the task

2. encouraging the child to keep[ them motivated

3. demonstrating the tasks

4. highlighting the most important parts of a task

STRENGTHS of scaffolding (x2)

1. WOOD + MIDDLETON = observed interactions between 4 year olds and parents when building a model with a set of blocks (beyond current capabilities) → parents began by showing how to assemble it and then verbal suggestions (inc. encouragement and praise)

2. CONNER + CROSS = conducted a longitudinal study and observed 45 children and their mothers at 16, 26, 44 and 54 months → changes observed over time with mothers using less and less direct intervention and more hints and prompts as the child gained experience

general STRENGTHS of Vygotsky (x2)

1. positive application → children can learn more and faster with appropriate scaffolding used in schools and social interaction through group work, peer tutoring and assistance from teachers

2. VAN KEER + VERHAEGHE = children aged 7 who were tutored by 10 year olds + whole class teaching = progressed further in reading than controls with standard class teaching

general LIMITATION of Vygotsky

assumed the process of learning is the same in all children (not accounting for children learning in different ways depending on personality and style of information processing)

BAILLARGEON

early infant abilities (3 - 8 months)

object permanence by Baillargeon

the understanding the objects continue to exist when they are out of sight

believes occurs much earlier than Piaget as suggests infants are born with a small number of systems of core knowledge that serve to represent inanimate objects + relationships with each other (innate ability)

violation of expectation research

measures the time infants look at something as a measure of whether they see something as surprising (tells us what they expect to see and hence what they understand)

Baillargeon + Devos

1. habituation task = showing an infant a scenario that is new to them until they demonstrate by looking away that it is no longer novel to them

2. shown a similar but IMPOSSIBLE scenario e.g. a tall carrot should be seen through a window as it passes through but isn’t seen

= infants as young as 3 months were surprised suggesting they knew it should be visible

STRENGTHS of VOE research (x2)

1. Baillargeon = familiarised 3 month old infants with a scenario where a truck rolled down a ramp and went behind a screen → block placed behind screen in direct path → truck was not blocked = infants looked longer at impossible event

2. AGUIAR + BAILLARGEON = used Minnie Mouse with a window on the lower half showing true object permanence and not just not understanding the height of the object

LIMITATIONS of Baillargeon (x2)

1. infants did look longer at some events BUT the inference is that this meant they were surprised but could instead be one is more interesting

2. other explanations of looking for longer = SCHONER + THELEN → drawbridge should’ve hit a coloured box but carried on = could look for longer due to more movement instead of surprise

general STRENGTH of Baillargeon

samples less biased that Piaget (Piaget = all middle class children) + potential effect of the parent was controlled as asked to keep eyes shut so couldn’t communicate cues to their child

social cognition

the role of thinking in our behaviour with others e.g. decisions based on our understanding

Selman’s theory of perspective taking

refers to understanding what someone else is thinking or feeling and it is believed that social perspective-taking develops separately from physical perspective taking (Piaget assumed together)

Selman’s research on perspective taking

dilemma of Holly being told by her father not to climb trees yet when a kitten was stuck in one, only she could climb it

• asked 60 children (30 boys and 30 girls) with 20 of each age group (4, 5 or 6)

• developed 5 stages

socially egocentric stage (x4)

1. 3 - 6 years

2. child cannot reliably distinguish between their own emotions and those of others

3. can identify emotional states but not what caused them

4. predict Holly will rescue the kitten as she doesn’t want to see it harmed and believe Holly’s father will feel the same so not be cross

social informational role-taking (x4)

1. 6 - 8 years

2. child can tell the difference between their own point of view and that of others

3. only focus on one of these perspectives at a time

4. child will believe that Holly’s father will be cross if he didn’t know about the kitten OR not cross when shown the kitten

self-reflective role taking (x4)

1. 8-10 years

2. child can now put themselves in the position of another person and fully appreciate their perspective

3. can still only focus on one at a time

4. child will believe Holly’s father won’t punish her as he will see the situation from Holly’s POV

mutual role-taking (x3)

1. 10 - 12 years

2. can look at a situation from their own and another’s point of view at the same time

3. think Holly will think she should not be punished as her father will understand why (viewing Holly’s and her fathers perspective simultaneously)

social-conventional role-taking (x3)

1. 12+

2. can understand that even seeing things from another’s perspective may not be enough for agreement and instead social conventions are needed

3. Holly shouldn’t be punished as the ethical requirement to treat animals humanely justifies why Holly broke her promise and her father will understand

STRENGTHS of perspective taking (x4)

1. GURUCHARRI + SELMAN = ‘followed’ children as they grew older and found 40/41 developed perspective-taking in the way Selman’s theory suggests (+ removes individual differences)

2. SELMAN + BYRNE = presented two interpersonal dilemmas and interviewed children aged 4-10 to discuss perspectives → 4-6 = egocentric, 6-8 showed informational role-taking and 8-10 increasingly able to see things from different perspectives

3. positive applications e.g. primary schools as young children learn through play (natural way to take another’s perspective) + social skills training programmes

4. MARTON ET AL → those with ADHD struggled with understanding the scenario, identifying feelings + evaluating consequences (+ so offer additional skills/training)

theory of mind (ToM)

the ability that each of us has to ‘mind-read’ and attribute mental states, knowledge, wishes, feelings and beliefs to oneself and others e.g. ‘I think she is upset’ as involves realisation other people have feelings, desires and beliefs different from our own

• develops as decentering occurs, at around 4

• associated with the ability to manipulate and deceive others by hiding one’s emotions and intentions due to biological maturation involving the amygdala and basal ganglia

false belief tasks

witnessing a scene and being asked to interpret it from the viewpoint of one of the characters in the scene E.G. Sally-Anne task

Sally-Anne task

3 = egocentric answers

6 = perform the task

STRENGTHS of ToM (x3)

1. WIMMER + PERNER with Maxi putting chocolate in blue, mum moving it to green and 3 year olds said green cupboard vs. some 4 and all 6 said blue

2. Smarties task - Smarties box had pencils in and asked what someone else would think is inside → 3 year olds say pencils as don’t understand they don’t have the same knowledge

3. cross-cultural research supports biological maturation → AVIS + HARRIS = developed and non-developed countries had 3 year olds with false beliefs

LIMITATION of ToM

BLOOM + GERMAN = false belief tasks require more cognitive abilities apart from ToM e.g. memory and complex language as may interpret question as ‘Where would you look for it?’ THEREFORE lacks validity

autism

developmental disability characterised by problems in communicating and building relationships with others and in using language and abstract concepts

FRITH about ToM as an explanation of autism

suggested those with autism may not be able to understand that other people’s thoughts and feelings as autism is associated with ‘mind blindness’

LESLIE about ToM as an explanation of autism

ToM is an innate ability that biologically matures in most children, but for autistic ones, it cannot develop due to physiological damage either shortly before or after birth in autistic children

BARON-COHEN about ToM as an explanation of autism

lack of ToM explains social interactions being difficult for those with autism as they are unable to predict and adjust to the behaviours of others

• uses Sally-Anne task with autistic, Down’s syndrome and neurotypical children

• Where is the marble really? (reality), Where was the marble in the beginning? (memory) and Where will Sally look? (belief)

• 20% autistic children correct Q3 vs 85% neurotypical + 86% of Down’s syndrome

STRENGTHS of ToM as an explanation of autism (x2)

1. BARON-COHEN = ‘eyes task’ → one of two emotions e.g. attraction vs repulsion when looking at an image of a small area around the eyes → autism = mean is 16.3 vs 20.3 of neurotypicals

2. HAPPE = PET scans when performing ToM → Asperger’s had different brain activity in medial PFC as neurotypicals suggesting involved

LIMITATIONS of ToM as an explaation of autism (x2)

1. lack validity e.g. not usual to view a pair of static eyes in isolation in everyday life

2. not all children with autism lack ToM meaning not complete + could be an effect instead of a cause as condition prevents communicating and engaging with others, meaning may lack social skills and language for ToM

mirror neurons

brain cells distributed in several areas of the brain

fire in response to personal action and in response to an action of someone else as if we have carried out that action ourselves (so may allow us to interpret intention and emotion of others)

brain areas involved with mirror neurons (x2)

1. Broadmann area of the frontal lobe

2. pars opercularis = rich in mirror neurons and so involved in planning and executing movement

RISSOLATTI study for mirror neurons

when researchers reached for food, neurons fired in the motor cortex of monkeys in the same way as when the monkeys themselves reached for the food (despite not moving) so thought to be mirroring the activity of another individual

STRENGTHS of mirror neurons (x4)

1. HAKER ET AL → fMRI scanning with volunteers watching yawning = increased activity in Brodmann area

2. MOURAS → brain activity + sexual arousal when males watched either fishing documentary or pornography → activity in pars opercularis seen immediately before sexual arousal suggesting mirror neurons produced perspective-taking that made it arousing

3. STUSS ET AL → damage to frontal lobes = unable to empathise with and read other people’s intentions as well as being easy to deceive so emphasisees importance to normal social cognition

4. DAPRETTO → facial expressions for 2 secs = autistic children showed no mirror neuron activity in pars opercularis w. a negative correlation between severity of autism and activity in brain

LIMITATIONS of mirror neurons (x2)

1. fMRI scans do not measure activity in individual cells and so researchers are measuring activity in part of brain and making inferences it means mirror neurons

2. role may have been exaggerated as cannot measure directly that cause empathy but only correlated with it → other suggestions include involved in using others’ behaviours to plan our own