psy 105 exam 2

Human vs. Animal Communication

Many animals communicate (e.g., vervet monkey alarm calls, mate call recognition in birds, odor recognition in insects), but human language is uniquely symbolic (words represent ideas) and generative (finite sounds → infinite meanings)

Generativity in Language

A small set of phonemes + grammar rules creates an infinite number of possible sentences and ideas

Symbolic Property of Language

Words represent objects, actions, and abstract concepts (e.g., “dog,” “object permanence”), allowing flexible thought and communication

Levels of Language Structure

Language has hierarchical structure: phonemes → words → syntax/grammar → pragmatics

Universal Pattern of Language Development

Regardless of culture or input variation, children follow similar milestones in the same order; language development is robust and does not require explicit teaching

Speech Perception at Birth

Newborns can distinguish between languages and prefer the language heard in utero, indicating language learning begins before birth

Phoneme Discrimination in Infancy

Infants begin life able to discriminate all ~200 phonemes in human languages; by 6–8 months this narrows to the phonemes in their native language(s)

Categorical Speech Perception

By 1 month, infants perceive sounds like b vs. p categorically based on voice onset time, similar to adults

Effect of Experience on Phoneme Tuning

Exposure to native-language speech shapes which phoneme contrasts infants retain; certain kinds of experience (especially social interaction + audio/visual cues) matter for maintaining non-native discrimination.

Early Word Understanding

Infants as young as 6 months understand common words (Bergelson & Swingley, 2012) even before producing any, shown through longer looking at the named object.

Language Development Big Picture

Infants are biologically prepared for language: they discriminate languages, tune phonemes over the first year, and understand words before speaking

Domain-General Language Theory (Behaviorism)

Skinner's view that children learn language via reinforcement, imitation, and associative learning

Domain-Specific Language Theory (Chomsky)

Proposes a specialized Language Acquisition Device (LAD) that equips infants with innate rules and structures for learning language

Evidence Against Domain-General: Novel Utterances

Children say things they’ve never heard (“allgone cookie,” “it broked”), showing they don’t just imitate adults

Evidence Against Domain-General: Rule Use

Children apply grammatical rules to novel words (e.g., “wugs”), showing internal rule generation rather than memorization

Overregularization

Applying grammar rules in contexts where they don't apply (e.g., “goed”). Shows children are actively learning rules

Gavagai Problem

A single word could refer to many things (object, part, color…). Children solve this using innate assumptions

Whole Object Assumption

Children assume new words label whole objects rather than parts/features

Mutual Exclusivity Assumption

Children assume each object has one label; a new label must refer to a different object or feature

Using Social Cues for Word Learning

Toddlers use adults’ gaze and emotional expressions to infer the meaning of new words

Critical/Sensitive Period for Language

Language learning is easiest early in life. Extreme deprivation (e.g., Genie) leads to failure to acquire grammar; second-language learning declines after ~age 8

Sign Language Myths Debunked

Sign languages are full natural languages, not drawings in the air; there is no universal sign language; deaf people are not impaired cognitively

Iconicity in Sign Language

Some signs visually resemble their meanings; however, iconicity doesn’t make signs significantly easier for infants to learn—infants treat signs as symbolic, like spoken words

Creation of New Languages

When groups of signers interact (e.g., Nicaraguan Sign Language), children transform inconsistent systems into full languages through social interaction

Language Learning Big Picture

Children rely on domain-specific mechanisms, critical periods, universal developmental patterns, and social interaction—language is broader than speech

Vocabulary in Bilinguals

Bilinguals often score lower in each individual language but have equal or larger total vocabulary across both languages.

Mutual Exclusivity in Bilinguals

Bilinguals rely less on the assumption that objects have one label; trilinguals rely on it even less

Metalinguistic Awareness Advantage

Bilinguals understand earlier that words are arbitrary labels; they more easily accept renamed objects in pretend games

Phoneme Discrimination Advantage

Bilingual infants maintain discrimination for phonemes in both languages and are better at distinguishing unfamiliar phonemes later

Executive Function Benefits

Bilinguals practice inhibiting one language while using another, strengthening inhibitory control, selective attention, and working memory

Dimensional Change Card Sort Task (DCCS)

Requires switching rules; bilingual children perform better due to enhanced inhibition

Infant Executive Function

7-month-old bilingual-exposed infants show advantages in rule-switching, as measured by anticipatory gaze (Kovacs & Mehler, 2009)

Bilingualism and Aging

Bilingual adults receive Alzheimer’s diagnoses later and maintain cognitive function despite more brain atrophy (Bialystok et al., 2012)

Social Benefits of Bilingualism

Bilinguals track who speaks which language and code-switch appropriately; they show better perspective-taking in communication tasks

Exposure Without Fluency

Social benefits (like perspective taking) occur even with exposure to multiple languages, not only active fluency

Bilingualism Big Picture

Bilingual children learn language differently, show early metalinguistic understanding, retain strong phoneme discrimination, exhibit executive function benefits, and perform better in social communication tasks

Balanced Bilinguals

Individuals who have high fluency in two (or more) languages, usually with relatively equal proficiency. They can understand, speak, and often read/write both languages at near-native or native levels

Unbalanced Bilinguals

Individuals who know more than one language but have a clear dominant language. Their proficiency is stronger in one language compared to the other(s), and exposure or use is uneven across their languages

Brilliance Stereotypes in Academia

Fields believed to require “innate brilliance” have lower proportions of women and Black individuals; this trend is not about STEM vs. non-STEM (e.g., philosophy and music composition also show large gender gaps)

Parental Stereotypes about Brilliance

Parents are twice as likely to search online for “is my son gifted” compared to “is my daughter gifted,” indicating gendered assumptions about innate intelligence

Children’s Brilliance Stereotypes

By age 6, boys tend to associate brilliance with their own gender, while girls associate their own gender with niceness

Individual Differences

Stable variations in traits across individuals; studied to understand why children differ, inform interventions, identify at-risk children, and explore how genes and environments shape development

Behavioral Genetics

Field studying how genetic and environmental differences lead to variation in behavior across individuals

Sources of Individual Differences

• 1) Genes (heritability)

• 2) Shared environment (experiences shared within a family)

• 3) Non-shared environment (individual experiences that differ even within the same family).

Heritability

The proportion of variation in a trait within a population that is explained by differences in genes

• Genetic differences between individuals contribute to differences in traits

Family Studies in Behavioral Genetics

Twin, sibling, and adoption studies compare shared genes and shared environments to determine contributions to traits like intelligence

Shared Environment

Environmental factors that make individuals raised in the same family more similar (e.g., parenting style, SES, home resources). Increases similarity among siblings

Non-Shared Environment

Experiences that differ between siblings (e.g., different peer groups, teachers, illnesses). Makes siblings less similar

Identical (MZ) Twins

• 100% shared genes

• High shared environment
  -Used to estimate genetic influence because they are most similar genetically

Fraternal (DZ) Twins

• 50% shared genes (same as non-twin siblings)

• High shared environment
  Comparing fraternal vs. identical twin similarity reveals genetic contributions

Non-Twin Siblings

• 50% shared genes

• Moderate shared environment (less shared than twins because twins share age, peers, timing)

Lower similarity vs. twins helps separate environmental timing/demands from genetics

Carroll’s General Intelligence (g)

A broad, general mental ability that influences performance across many cognitive tasks

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Theory proposing distinct, independent types of intelligence (e.g., logical, musical, interpersonal) that may guide career interests

Intelligence Tests

Assess a range of cognitive tasks, compare performance to age norms, and score results using a normal distribution

Causes of IQ Differences

Both genes and environment contribute; identical twins raised together have the highest IQ similarity, followed by fraternal twins, then siblings

IQ Heritability

About 50% of IQ variation is explained by genetic differences; the rest is explained by shared and non-shared environments

SES Effects on IQ Heritability

• Low-income families: environment dominates; genetic effects are small.

• High-income families: environment is uniformly supportive; genetic differences account for most IQ variation

IQ as Predictor

IQ correlates with academic achievement but is not the strongest predictor; self-discipline and executive function predict success as well or better

Theory of Mind

The ability to understand others’ actions in terms of beliefs, desires, knowledge, and intentions

Agents

Entities that can move on their own, perceive the environment, and interact based on internal mental states. Includes people, animals, and things that appear to have self-directed, goal-oriented behavior

Objects

Non-agent entities that behave according to physical laws (e.g., gravity, inertia). They do not move on their own and do not have mental states or goals.

Understanding Others’ Goals (Infants)

By 6 months, infants interpret agents’ actions as goal-directed (e.g., hand reaching), but not non-agents (e.g., claws

Rational Imitation

18-month-olds imitate a person’s intended goal, not just the physical motion, and do not imitate machines the same way

Conflicting Desires

Around 18 months, infants understand that others can want something different from themselves

Pretense

Begins around 18–24 months; requires children to separate real states from imagined mental states

False Belief Understanding

Tests whether children understand that others can hold beliefs that differ from reality; 3-year-olds fail, 4-year-olds pass

Deceptive Box False Belief Task

Children must report their own past false belief and predict another person’s false belief; 3-year-olds fail, 4-year-olds pass

Look-First Procedure / Posting Procedure

Simplified false-belief tasks reduce inhibitory demands, enabling many 3-year-olds to pass

False Belief in Infancy

15-month-olds show surprise when an agent acts inconsistently with their false belief, suggesting early belief understanding

Theory of Mind in Autism

Autistic children often fail false-belief tasks despite passing matched non-mental tasks (false photograph), indicating selective difficulty with belief reasoning

Competence vs. Performance in Theory of Mind

Younger children (and autistic children) may know more than they can show due to task demands (e.g., inhibition, attention)

Piaget and Kohlberg

• Thought that we can study morality by looking at children’s explicit reasoning and justifications about moral situations 

• Both creates stage theories of moral development

Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement

Studied children’s moral reasoning using open-ended interviews about rule violations. His theory focused on how children’s understanding of rules, intentions, and punishment develops with age. He argued that young children treat rules as fixed and focus on outcomes, while older children understand that rules are social agreements and consider intentions when making moral judgments

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Judgment

Expanded on Piaget by focusing on children’s justifications for moral decisions rather than the decisions themselves. Using dilemmas like the Heinz scenario, he created a stage theory describing how moral reasoning progresses from avoiding punishment, to seeking social approval, to using universal ethical principles. His theory emphasized why people think an action is right, not just what they decide.

Moral Realism

Piaget Stage 1: Under 7 years

• Rules are seen as fixed and unchangeable

• Morality is based on outcomes, not intentions

• Punishment is determined by authority figures

Transitional Period

Piaget Stage 2: 8-10 years

• Increased peer interactions teach children that rules are created by people.

• Understanding that rules can be negotiated and changed.

• Beginning to consider intentions.

Moral Relativism

Piaget Stage 3: 11+ years

• Rules are products of social agreement and can be modified.

• Morality considers intentions more than outcomes.

• Punishment should be “fair” and fit the situation.

Preconventional level

Kohlberg’s Stages 1 & 2

• Rules should be followed because they are rules, avoid punishment 

Conventional level

Kohlberg’s Stages 3 & 4

• You should do things so that people see you as “good”

Postconventional / Principled Level

Kohlberg’s Stages 5 & 6

• Universal principles (e.g., equal human rights) should be followed

Moral vs. Conventional Rules

Preschoolers treat moral violations (harm) as more serious than conventional ones (social norms), contradicting Piaget & Kohlberg

Considering Intentions

Young children and infants use intentions to evaluate others’ actions long before age 11

Moral Evaluation in Infancy

Infants prefer helpers over hinderers, showing early moral evaluations

Early Helping

By 14 months, infants help others achieve goals, even at personal cost (physical or social)