Cognition and Development AO3

Describe and evaluate Piaget’s theory of cognitive development 

Evidence for the individual formation of schemas > Howe et al. > Children placed into groups of 4 to investigate and discuss movement of objects down a slope > All children had increased understanding, but understanding had NOT become more similar > Each child picked up different facts and reached different conclusions > Mental representations formed individually as Piaget would have expected 

Real-world applications in teaching > Children learn by actively exploring environment > Changed classroom teaching, children now engage in active tasks which allow them to develop understanding of the curriculum > For instance, young children playing with sand >  COUNTERPOINT > Input is responsible, not discovery > Lazonder and Harmsen > Discovery learning with considerable input was needed for learning > Seems that  input was the crucial element > Discovery learning not as effective as expected 

Underestimates the role of others > Piaget claims that others can provide learning experiences and information, but learning itself is individual > However, other researchers like Vygotsky have found that having ‘experts’ or more knowledgeable others can greatly increase cognitive abilities > Piaget’s theory is an incomplete explanation for learning and doesn’t put enough emphasis on the role of others 

Exaggeration for the role of motivation > Piaget may have overexaggerated the role of motivation > Stated that learning occurs to escape negative feelings of disequilibrium and achieve equilibrium > His studies were mostly conducted on a sample of highly intelligent children from a university nursery > Unrepresentative, may have been more motivated to learn compared to most children > Motivation’s role on cognitive development is not as relevant as initially thought 

Describe and evaluate Piaget’s stages of intellectual development 

Flawed research on conservation > Piaget’s conservation studies were conducted by pouring water from different vessels or moving counters and asking if quantity had changed > Children may have felt compelled to answer yes > Naughty teddy study was conducted to make it appear as if counters had been moved by accident > ¾ said the number of counters was the same as before > Children could conserve as long as they were not put off with how the question was asked > Piaget may have been wrong about the age conservation develops 

Contradicting class inclusion findings > 100 5-year-olds given various class-inclusion tasks > When given feedback and explanations for class inclusion after each task, performance improved > Shows that children younger than 7 can understand class inclusion contrary to Piaget’s beliefs 

Lack of support for egocentrism > Hughes > Tested young children on a task which included 2 intersecting walls and 3 dolls > Were able to position other dolls where a ‘police officer’ doll could not see them > Children as young as 3 ½ were able to do this > With a scenario which made more sense, children were more able to perform better on these >  COUNTERPOINT >  Criticisms of the age, not the stage itself > Still the case that egocentric thinking is present in young children so theory is correct but methodology is flawed so timings were incorrect 

Domain-general and domain-specific > Piaget believed that cognitive development is domain-general > Research with autistic children suggests these occur separately > Some children have co-occurring learning disabilities, some do not > Should not be such great variability in abilities 

Describe and evaluate Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development 

Support for the ZPD > Roazzi and Bryant > Asked children aged 4-5 to estimate number of sweets in a box > Children either worked alone with the help from another child > Children did not give an accurate estimate when working alone, but expert children who offered prompts allowed children to provide better estimates > Suggests the ZPD is a valid concept 

Support for scaffolding > During learning level of help is reduced > Conner and Cross > Longitudinal study > Looked at 45 mother and children at different ages in their lives > Amount of help in problem solving tasks reduced as children got older  

Practical application in education > Social interaction in learning, teaching assistants, etc > Used to assist children via scaffolding > Keer and Verhaeghe > 7-year-olds tutored by 10-year-olds learnt better than those with just standard teaching > Alborz, review of teaching assistant usefulness > COUNTERPOINT > Not universal > Liu and Matthews found Chinese children learn better in structured, large, lecture-style classrooms  

Learning varies between individuals > Howe > If the process of interactive learning is correct, children should learn similarly when together > Not the case with looking at objects down a slope, different mental representations 

Describe and evaluate Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities 

Validity of the VoE method > Controls the confounding variable that babies look away because they are distracted > Only the baby looking is recorded, not when they are looking away > Provides support for theory of earlier cognitive development > COUNTERPOINT > Bremner > Just because babies look longer, does not mean they understand them 

May not be object permanence > Fantz > Conducted a facial recognition task > Babies may have only looked at the strange faces because they found them visually interesting, not because they violated their expectation of face-schemas 

Universal understanding > Hespos and Marle > We all have a basic understanding of the world > For instance, if we let go if keys they’ll drop to the ground > Doesn’t require previous knowledge > Suggests that a basic understanding of the physical world is innate > If it was not, there would be cultural differences > Suggests idea of PRS is correct 

Credibility > Although the validity of the PRS can be challenged, we understand other visual system developments > Babies can use patterns to judge distance 

Describe and evaluate Selman’s work on perspective-taking 

Research support for stages > Tested 60 children on hypotheticals > Significant positive correlation between level of perspective-taking and age > Although cross-sectional, has support from longitudinal studies > Gurucharri > Longitudinal studies have better validity > Solid support from multiple lines of research that perspective-taking improves with age 

Research support for perspective-taking > Perspective-taking required for good social development > Valkenburg and Buijzen > observational study on child-parent interactions in supermarket > negative correlation between coercive behaviour (unhealthy social behaviour) and age / perspective-taking level > COUNTERPOINT > Inconsistent findings > Gasser and Keller > Assessed perspective-taking levels in bullies / victims / non-participants > Bullies had no trouble with perspective-taking > PT may not be a key element in healthy social development 

Too cognitive > Perspective-taking is cognitive > More to children’s social development than increasing cognitive abilities > Other factors such as emotional self-regulation and empathy > Parenting style (VCD) and opportunity to learn may also impact > Selman’s approach is too narrow 

Too biological > Wu and Keysar > compared perspective-taking abilities in both Chinese and American children > Chinese children were more advanced > Selman claimed that cognitive ability was biologically driven and therefore universal > If this were true, Wu and Keysar’s findings would not be possible > Must look at both biological and environmental factors 

 

Describe and evaluate research into theory of mind 

Heavy reliance on false-belief tasks > Lack validity > Bloom and German > FBTs require visual memory, so failure on FBT may be due to this rather than a lack of ToM > Lots occurring in Sally-Anne task > Some children who can partake in pretend play (which requires some ToM) still struggle on FBT 

Violation of expectation may be better > Children as young as 6 months were made to react to a visual demo of Sally-Anne task > Were Sally when children searched for ball in box (more staring and shocked expressions) than if she looked at basket (less staring and boredom) > Implies children have innate understanding that Sally is acting on information she does not have > Also eliminates need for visual memory > Perhaps VoE is better  

Real-world applications to autism > Children with autism struggle with false-beliefs tasks > Have a hard time getting a sense of others’ feelings > Could explain why they struggle in social interactions > COUNTERPOINT > ToM does not provide a complete explanation for autism > Not all children with autism lack ToM > Does not explain superior cognitive abilities of those with autism > Link between ToM and autism may be weak 

Nature or nurture? > Conflicting theories on the origins of ToM > Perner suggests ToM is an innate ability which develops alongside other cognitive abilities (similarly to Piaget’s theory) > Cross-cultural studies such as those done by Liu show similar development pattern in cognitive abilities > Astington > ToM develops due to our interactions with others > ToM is gradually internalised  

Outline and evaluate the role of mirror neurons in social cognition 

Gender differences > Females have greater social sensitivity than males, better at understanding each other > Cheung > Measured EEG activity for men and women when watching a moving dot / hand gestures > Activity for dot was the same, females showed stronger responses to hand gestures (only hand movements should arouse MNs) > Shows there is more MN activity in females > Supports existence of MNs and their role of helping understand feelings in others whilst accounting for gender differences 

Helps to explain autism > Daprett > Observed which parts of the brain were active when autistic and non-autistic children observed different facial expressions > Only difference was reduced activity in frontal gyrus (associated with MN system) in autistic children > Slack suggests that those with autism can strengthen their MNs through activities which require imitation of others > Suggests that social impairment in autistic people is due to malfunction in MNS, supports broken mirror hypothesis 

Difficulty in studying mirror neuron activity in humans > Evidence for MN activity comes from brain scans > Only identifies activity in brain REGIONS > Can’t look at individual brain cells > Cannot insert electrodes into human brain for ethical reasons > Researchers are generally measuring activity in a part of the brain and inferring this means activity in mirror neurons > Lack of direct evidence suggests study support is WEAK 

Support for mirror neurons in social cognition > Haker > Area of brain responsible for contagious yawning is rich in mirror neurons which was activated when PPTs yawned in response to seeing others yawn > Yawning is thought to be an example of displaying human empathy >   COUNTERPOINT > Mirror neurons may be oversold > Heyes > Suggested that MNs are the result of classical conditioning rather than evolution as suggested by Ramachandran > Mirror neurons do not have as great of a role in social cognition as initially thought