Cognition and Development Notes

Cognition and Development - Piaget's Theory

• Piaget proposed two types of learning: accommodation and assimilation.

• Accommodation:

  • Occurs when new information significantly alters existing understanding.

  • Requires forming a new schema to process the new information.

  • Example: A child initially mistakes a tiger for a cat but then develops a new 'tiger' schema upon observing the differences.

• Assimilation:

  • Occurs when new information can be incorporated into an existing schema without radical change.

  • Example: A child seeing a tabby cat for the first time assimilates this new appearance into their existing 'cat' schema.

• Differences between Accommodation and Assimilation:

  • Accommodation involves creating new schemas, while assimilation does not.

  • They occur in different situations, as shown in the examples.

• Motivation to Learn:

  • Arises from the unpleasant feeling of disequilibrium.

  • Disequilibrium occurs when new situations cannot be understood through assimilation.

  • Leads to exploration and schema development through equilibration.

• Equilibrium:

  • The desired mental state is achieved when new or existing schemas are complete.

• Schema:

  • A mental framework of knowledge and beliefs about specific concepts (place, object, person, time).

  • Influences cognitive processing by providing shortcuts for efficient processing.

  • It can lead to perceptual errors by distorting sensory stimuli.

  • Some schemas are innate (e.g., sucking and gripping reflexes in babies).

  • Schemas become more sophisticated over time, enabling understanding of more complex situations.

• Criticisms of Piaget's Theory:

  • Unrepresentative Sample:

    • Piaget's sample consisted of children from a university nursery, predominantly white, middle-class, and well-educated families.

    • This limits the ecological validity, as not all children have the same need to achieve equilibrium.

    • Children from poorer backgrounds with fewer educational opportunities may differ in intellectual curiosity.

    • Thus, Piaget's theory may not universally explain cognitive development.

  • Comparison with Vygotsky's theory:

    • Vygotsky emphasised learning as a social process involving interactions with experienced peers ('experts').

    • Piaget gave less importance to social elements, viewing peers and teachers as facilitators of discovery learning.

    • Vygotsky emphasised the importance of language as an external expression of thought, unlike Piaget.

• Supporting Research:

  • Howe et al. (1992):

    • Observed children (9-12 years old) discussing the motion of an object sliding down a slope.

    • Each child reported different details and understandings, despite seeing the same motion.

    • Supports Piaget's prediction that individual mental representations are formed through discovery learning.

    • Individual differences in schemas affect the understanding and accommodation of new information.

• Impact on Education:

  • Emphasis on active learning and exploration in the classroom (e.g., using a sandpit to develop conservation skills).

  • Implementation of the 'readiness approach', aligning learning with the 4 stages of intellectual development.

  • Project-based learning for 'concrete' subjects (e.g., science) between 7 and 11 years.

  • Shift from rote learning to teachers as facilitators of discovery learning.

Piaget’s Stages of Intellectual Development

• Piaget proposed 4 main cognitive abilities acquired through stages of intellectual development: object permanence, class inclusion, egocentrism, and conservation.

  • The order of the stages is fixed, but the age can vary.

• Sensorimotor Stage (0-2 years):

  • Focus on physical sensations, the development of basic language use

  • Discovery of movement through trial and error

  • Object permanence develops around 8 months: understanding that an object exists even when not visible

    • Before 8 months, infants don't search for hidden objects;

    • After 8 months, they do.

• Pre-Operational Stage (2-7 years):

  • Development of class inclusion, egocentrism, and conservation

  • More sophisticated language, but reasoning faults persist

  • Egocentrism: the tendency to view the world from one's own perspective

    • Tested using the Three Mountains Task (Piaget and Inhelder, 1956)

      • Children describe a doll's perspective of three mountains with different toppings.

      • Pre-operational children often recount their own viewpoint, demonstrating egocentrism.

  • Class inclusion: understanding that objects can belong to multiple classes

    • Measured by showing children pictures of 5 dogs and 2 cats

    • Pre-operational children struggle to understand that a single object can belong to multiple classes.

  • Conservation: understanding that quantity remains the same despite appearance changes

    • Liquid conservation task: pouring liquid into a taller beaker.

    • Pre-operational children often report more liquid in the taller beaker.

    • Demonstrates a lack of understanding of 'reversibility'.

  • Impairments in egocentrism, class inclusion, and conservation prevent pre-operational children from learning ‘concrete’ subjects like science, which require abstract reasoning.

• Concrete Operations Stage (7-11 years):

  • Development of skills in egocentrism, class inclusion, and conservation

  • Reasoning limited to physically present objects ('concrete' reasoning).

• Formal Operations Stage (11+ years):

  • Capable of scientific thinking and reasoning about abstract ideas

  • Tested by Smith et al. using neologisms.

• Criticisms of Piaget’s Methods:

  • Flawed Experimental Methods:

    • Some methods caused confusion (e.g., McGarrigle and Donaldson's conservation task).

    • Piaget's research involved spreading out the coins, leading children to believe the quantity had changed.

    • Lack of statistical analysis makes the data unreliable, as it is unclear whether the results were significant or not.

    • Failure to adhere to standardisation and control procedures during clinical interviews.

    • He was wrong to assume that task failure equates to a lack of ability

  • Conflicting Empirical Evidence:

    • Martin Hughes (1975) demonstrated that children aged 3.5 years could hide a doll from a policeman 90% of the time.

    • Challenging Piaget's assumptions about egocentrism in pre-operational children.

    • Suggests that the original experimental method may have been confusing to children, which may have biased the findings.

  • Domain-General Approach:

    • Piaget's domain-general approach viewed intellectual and cognitive abilities as developing together.

    • Vygotsky adopted a domain-specific approach, emphasising language as critical.

    • A moderate interactionist approach (a 'middle-ground') may be more suitable.

Vygotsky’s Theory of Cognitive Development

• Vygotsky proposed that learning is a social process where children acquire knowledge and reasoning skills from 'experts'.

• Language:

  • Crucial cognitive skill that develops at its own rate (domain-specific).

  • Contrasts with Piaget's domain-general approach.

  • Agreed with Piaget that cognitive development occurs in stages.

• Knowledge is first 'intermental' (through interaction) and becomes 'intramental' as learners cross the zone of proximal development.

• Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):

  • The distance between independent problem-solving and potential development with guidance.

  • Defined by Vygotsky as "The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers".

• Scaffolding:

  • Help received from experienced peers to cross the ZPD.

  • Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) identified 5 scaffolding techniques:

    • Recruitment

    • Reduction of degrees of freedom

    • Direction maintenance

    • Marking critical features

    • Demonstration

  • The level and frequency of help decrease as the child crosses the ZPD.

• Implications for Education:

  • Highlights the limits of what a child can learn based on their current developmental stage and the size of their ZPD.

• Criticisms of Vygotsky’s Theory:

  • Individual Differences:

    • Does not account for individual differences in social aptitude and personality.

    • Some children are ill-suited to social learning.

    • Limited practical applications for teachers in facilitating peer learning.

  • Incorrect Universal Assumptions:

    • Assumes that children experiencing the same interactions should develop the same understanding.

    • Contradicted by Howe et al. (1992), who found that children observing the same motion developed different understandings.

• Supporting Evidence:

  • Roazzi and Bryant (1998):

    • Children (4-5 years old) receiving help from experienced peers estimated the number of sweets in a box more accurately.

    • Supports the Vygotsky-Bruner model of scaffolding.

    • Social interaction enhances logical inferences.

  • Conner and Cross (2003):

    • Mothers showed systematic decreases in support and increases in contingent interaction over 3 years.

    • Children became more successful during interactions.

    • Supports the idea that the level and frequency of help given towards the learners by experts decreases as the learner crosses the ZPD.

Baillargeon’s Explanation of Infant Abilities

• Baillargeon challenged Piaget's assumption that infants lacking object permanence do not understand it.

• Developed the Violation of Expectation (VOE) research method.

• Violation of Expectation (VOE):

  • Suggests that if a child understands the physical world, they will have expectations about object behaviour.

  • When expectations are violated, the child looks longer at the scene because they are surprised.

  • The Physical Reasoning System (PRS) pays attention to scenes that may improve understanding.

• Baillargeon et al. (1985):

  • Tested object permanence in 24 infants (5-6 months old).

  • Possible condition: a short rabbit can't be seen passing behind a window, but a tall one can.

  • Impossible condition: neither rabbit can be seen passing behind a window.

  • Infants looked at the impossible condition longer (7.96 seconds).

  • Concluded that infants believed the rabbit existed, represented its height, and expected to see the tall rabbit in the window.

  • Suggested that infants acquire object persistence at 5 months, instead of 8 months as Piaget suggested.

• Other Ideas:

  • Concepts of containment and support.

  • Physical Reasoning System (PRS): An innate predisposition to pay attention to ‘surprising’ events which are not in line with our expectations, in an effort to improve and advance our understanding of the physical world, and event categories.

• Each event category represents one way in which two or more objects interact.

• Comparison with Piaget’s Test of Object Permanence:

  • Limitations of Piaget’s method: Children may lack motor abilities, attention, or interest.

  • Baillargeon’s method removes this by requiring children only to look at the scene.

  • Baillargeon’s VOE research may be a more accurate and reliable measure of infantile cognitive abilities.

• Evidence Suggesting the PRS is Universal:

  • Innate understandings: sucking and gripping.

  • Basic physical understanding is developed through experience.

  • Supported by Hespos and van Marle (2012) as early as we can test for them, and the nature of the underlying representation is best characterised as primitive initial concepts that are elaborated and refined through learning and experience”.

• Criticisms:

  • Distinction between Behavioural Response and Behavioural Understanding:

    • Bremner emphasised that looking longer does not necessarily mean understanding.

    • Baillargeon may have overestimated the significance of the results.

  • Causal Conclusions:

    • Difficult to judge what infants actually understand.

    • Infants find a certain scene more interesting than the other

    • It cannot be certain that they even experience expectations about the physical world in the first instance.

Social Cognition: Selman’s Levels of Perspective-Taking

• Perspective-Taking:

  • Taking on another person’s viewpoint in physical and social situations.

  • Physical examples: Piaget and Inhelder’s 3 Mountains Task.

  • Social examples: taking on multiple perspectives in an argument.

• Selman developed stages of perspective-taking based on tasks administered to children.

  • Assessed 60 children (10 boys and 10 girls, each of ages 4, 5 and 6) using perspective-taking tasks. These included the ‘Holly and her kitten’ task, which involved identifying the emotional status of Holly, her father and her friend, whose kitten is stuck up a tree. Holly must therefore make a decision to decide whether to rescue the kitten or not, after promising her father not to climb trees.

• Selman’s Stages:

  • **Level 0 (3-6 years): Socially Egocentric

    • Children are unable to take on the perspectives of others and so are egocentric.

  • **Level 1 (6-8 years): Social Information Role-Taking

    • Children are now able to take on only a single perspective at a time.

  • **Level 2 (8-10 years): Self-Reflective Role-Taking

    • Children can fully identify with and take on the viewpoint of another person, but again, only focusing on one perspective at a time.

  • **Level 3 (10-12 years): Mutual Role-Taking

    • Children can fully identify with and take on multiple perspectives at the same time.

  • **Level 4 (12+ years): Social and Conventional System Role-Taking

    • Children understand that social rules are needed to maintain order when simply understanding the other person is not enough.

• Additions to Selman’s Explanation:

  • Schultz, Selman, and La Russo (2003) added interpersonal understanding, negotiation strategies, and awareness of the personal meaning of relationships.

• Criticisms:

  • Lack of Clarity:

    • There is a lack of clarity over the precise role of perspective-taking, and specifically whether it is important for the development of prosocial or antisocial behaviour.

      • The role of perspective-taking in prosocial and antisocial behaviour is unclear.

      • Buijzen and Valkenburg (2008) suggested that perspective-taking abilities become more advanced with age and so reduce the number of infant-parent conflicts when in supermarkets.

      • Gasser and Keller (2009) found that bullies suffer from no perspective-taking impairments.

      • Perspective-taking may have little theoretical value.

  • One-Sided Approach:

    • Over-emphasis on cognition.

    • Other factors, like theory of mind and mirror neurons, are also critical.

• Practical Applications:

  • Improved understanding of those with autistic spectrum disorders, such as ADHD, as suggested by Marton et al (2009).

  • Pinpointing impairments experienced by autistic children can lead to more efficient treatments.

Social Cognition: Theory of Mind (ToM)

• Theory of Mind (ToM):

  • The ability to understand/identify what other people are thinking and feeling, through a ‘mind-reading’ -like process.

  • Understanding others' thoughts and feelings ('mind-reading').

  • Autism may involve a deficit of ToM.

    • Autistic individuals may struggle to understand that others have different emotions.

  • Deficits cause impairments in empathy, social communication, and social imagination.

  • Deficits cause impairments in empathy, social communication, and social imagination.

    • Lack of understanding behaviour impacts others.

    • Difficulty differentiating fact from fiction.

    • Poor performance on 'false-belief' tasks like the Sally-Anne task:

• Assessment (Sally-Anne task):

  • In the Sally-Anne task, the participants were asked to identify where Sally would like her marble after it had been moved without her knowledge. 85% of the control group, which includes (14 children with Down’s Syndrome and 27 neurotypical children, correctly answered, compared to 20% of the autistic group. This supports the idea that a ToM deficit is responsible for autistic children being unable to understand that people can believe something that is not true.

  • 85% of the control group, compared to 20% of the autistic group, passed the task.

  • Supports the idea that a ToM deficit is responsible for autistic children being unable to understand that people can believe something that is not true.

  • Difficulties predicting the behaviour or emotional states of others.

• Assessment in Young Children:

  • Meltzoff (1988) used intentional reasoning tasks for children under 2.

  • 18-month-olds imitated the intention of an adult struggling to place beads in a jar.

• Imitate the intention of the adult, as opposed to the actual action.

• **Assessment in Adults with Asperger’s Syndrome:
  * Adults struggle with ‘The Eyes Task’, which involves identifying the emotion displayed in the eyes of a character that can only be seen.

• Criticisms:

  • Doesn't explain the desirable characteristics of AS sufferers.

  • Limited as a universal explanation for autism.

  • Close Links with Perspective-Taking:

    • Meltzoff’s tasks can be explained both in terms of the child taking on the perspective and intention of the adult.

    • It can be difficult to differentiate between the mechanisms of ToM and perspective-taking.

• Low Mundane Realism:

  • The Eyes Task has low mundane realism.

  • We usually see the whole face and hear verbal cues in real life.

  • Findings may have limited ecological validity.

Social Cognition: The Mirror Neuron System

• Mirror Neurons:

  • Located in the premotor cortex, supplementary motor area, primary somatosensory cortex, and inferior parietal cortex

  • Activated when we observe the motor actions of others, but are also activated when we perform motor actions ourselves.

• Understanding Intention:

  • Goldman and Gallese (1998) suggested a link between mirror neurons and understanding intention.

  • The activity of mirror neurons can also be considered as the neural mechanism for this process too!

• Role in Social Development:

  • Ramachandran (2011) emphasised the role of mirror neurons in human evolution as a social species.

    • Evolution increased the likelihood of survival.

    • Mirror neurons facilitate the learning of language

  • Mirror neurons facilitate learning of language and skills (communication, hunting, cooking).

• Autistic Spectrum Disorders:

  • Oberman and Ramachandran (2006) link neurological deficits involving mirror neurons to autism.

  • The ‘broken mirror neuron hypothesis’ may result in an inability to understand the intentions and emotions of others.

    • Leads to problems in social communication, awkwardness and manifests itself as adults who struggle to ‘read’ others.

    • In terms of their intentions, goals, emotions and perspectives.

• Criticisms:

  • Correlational Research:

    • Most research is correlational, with some questioning their existence at all.

    • Indirectly studied.

    • Hickock (2009) argues that understanding intentions is very different to simply using observed motor actions in others to make our own judgements about appropriate behaviour.

  • Incomplete Explanation for Autism:

    • The link between mirror neuron deficits and AS may have been overstated, and is not as ‘exclusive’ as once believed.

    • Hadjikhani (2007) found that despite autistic participants having an abnormally small average thickness of the pars opercularis, there has been evidence to suggest that not all AS sufferers have atypical mirror neuron patterns.

• Supporting Evidence:

  • Role in Social Cognition:

    • Oberman and Ramachandran (2006) link neurological deficits involving mirror neurons to autism.

    • Increased activity in the pars opercularis during sexual arousal while watching pornography (Mouras et al., 2008).