module 7: conceptual development

• introduction (pp. 232-235)

• undrestanding who or what, including boxes 7.1 + 7.2 (pp. 235-247)

• skip knowledge of living things (pp. 247-252)

  • understanding why, where when and how many

  • only need to read the Causality section and box 7.3

  • dont need to read the rest of the chapter

questions we ask in conceptual development:

• has hte child formed concepts of living and nonliving things that help her understand why hte dog runs around but the books never do?

• has she formed concepts of heavier and lighter that allow her to understand why she could pick up a sock but not a dresser?

• has she formed concepts of before and after that allow her to understand that her brother always puts his socks before his shoes rather than in the opposite order? or is it all just a jumble

what is a concept?

• concepts are general ideas that organize objects, events, qualities, or erlations on teh basis of similarity

• there are infinite number of concepts, cause theres an infit ways objects or events can be similar

• ex. objects can have similar shapes (all soccer fields are rectangular), materials (all diamonds are made of compressed carbon), tastes (all lemons are sour), colours, functions, and sizes

• concepts help us understand the world and act effectivley in it by letting us generalize from prior experience

  • ex. if we like the taste of one carrot, we’ll prolly like the taste of another one

• they also tell us how to react emotinally to new experiences

  • ex. got bit by a dog, that was scary, so now we fear all dogs

• life without concepts means everything would be new, and thats really stressful, not to mention it takes on such a cognitive load that can be used for anything else!!!

• several themes present in this

  • nature + nurture

    • the concepts reflect interaction btwn their specific experiences and biological predispositons to process info in particular ways

      • question: in what ways? what are examples?

  • active child

    • they take an active role in tryna figure out the wrold

  • how change occurs

    • we try to figure out the processes by which we form concepts to see how change occurs

  • sociocultural context

    • concepts we form are influenced by the society we live in

• controversies

  • natvisits: bleieve innate undersatnding of basic concepts plays a central role in development

    • argue infants are born with some sense of fundamental concepts, like time, space, number, causality adn human mind ORRR with specialized mechanisms that allow them to acquire rudimentary undersatnding of these concepts unusually quiclly

    • for nataivists, nurture plays an important role in furthering their knoweldge and understanding but they argue that basic understanding is heavily helped along by nature

  • empiricists: argue nature gives infants only general liearning mechanisms (ex. ability to perceive, attend, associate, generalize, remember)

  • they say that the quick formation of fundamental concepts like time, space, number… comes from the massive exposure to expeirences releavnt to htese concepts

  • empiricists also say that the data nativist arguents are based on, (like looking times in habitation studies) are not good enough to support the idea that infants understand the cocnepts

• so the overarching question: do children form all concepts through the same learning mechniamss or do they possess special mechanisms for forming a few particularly importnat concepts

we’re focusing on early conceptual devleopment (in first 5 yeras), but conceptual growth acc deepens in following years

UNDERSTANDING WHO OR WHAT

dividing objects into categories

• forming broad divsiions for inanimate objects, ppl and other animals

• some concepts for anything (ex. colour), some only to living things (ex. breathing), some for only people (ex. shopping)

• general cateogires let children draw inferences abt unfamiliar entities

• ex. “platypus is an animal”, “oh so it can move eat and have babies gotcha, cause thats what an animal does”

• children form way more specific categories, which are then organized into category hierarchies

• catgeory hierarchies:

  • like a funnel, to make finer distinctions among objects within each level

  • ex. furniture —> all chairs, chairs —> all La-Z-Boys

    • knowing a La-Z-Boy recliner is a chair lets them know that altho the name is weird, you can sit on it, cause it is a chair

  • ex. inanimate objects —> furniture —> chairs —> La-Z-Boys (literally ike a funnel, but each section can branch off into a million other things, like inanimate objects branches out to furniture, vehicles, kitchenware…)

• how do infants form cateogires that apply to all kinds of objects, living and nonliving?

CATEGORIZATION OF OBJECTS IN INFANCY

• even in the first months of life, infants form categories of objects

• 3-4 months, shown a series of photographs of cats, got used to general catgory of cats, but when shown a dog, lion or animal, looked more (tells us taht tehy were able to tell the difference, and first made a category of all cats (regardless of how diff they looked) to be cats, and once we got to lions or other animals they made htem into a new category)

  • so we know even at 3-4 months they can do this!!

• also more genral cateogries, like “mammals” (ex. habituated when seeing a bunch of mammals, show them a bird or fish, got dishabituated)

• perceptual categorization

  • infants frequently use this

  • its when you group together objects that have somewhat similar appearnces

    • ex. due to colour, size or movement

  • sometimes categorization is just on specific pars of an object, rather than the object as a whole

    • like “oh it has legs, alright then its an animal. it has wheels? vehicle”

• ALSO they care a lot about overall shape

  • a shadow of something is more useful than just knowing what colour it is, cause its a lot more speicfic and more unique to that object

  • study showed that when 15mos were given an unfaimiar object with a specific property (ex. it squeaked), adn they were shown another object of the same size of the first one but a diff colou, they were ilke “oh yeah this one squeaked. yes okay i know its green an the other one was purple, its the same shape okay”

CATEOGIRZATION OF OBJECTS BEYOND INFANCY

• category hierarchies

  • young children from one of 3 of the levels

    • general, medium, very-specific

    • general —> superordinate

    • medium —> basic

    • very specific —> subordinate

• first, they form cateogires of mediium (ex. tree)

  • them they go into superordinate plant, and subordinate oak

• this makes sense, cause tree is spefic enough that they all have osmething in common, but general enough that it accounts for variety. if you were to go with just plant, theres like a ton of ways plants can look, in sizes, shapes, colours

• but why not subordinate you ask? well, subordinates have tehe same consistent hcarcteristics and basic ones, butttt since theyre more specific, and have more specific characteristics there, its harder to differnetiate (ex. maple vs oaks, nly really that they have diff bark and pointed leaves which is hella specific)

• young childrens basic categoires dont always match those fo adults

  • ex. instead of going “oh okay cars, motorcycles and buses are diff things that all look difff” they go “oh wheels, you’re all the same thing”

• but ithese initial caeogires are ess general than “moving thigns” and more general then “toyotas” so theyre just all basic level

• now how do we get from basic level to superordinate and subordinate?

  1. parents teaching!!

     • when parents teach kids to specify and generalize, they typically talk about properties with eaxmples te child alreayd kons

     • like “oh furniture includes allllllllll these things that you konw, like chairs, tables, adn sofas and what they do is you put them in your hosue and it makes it more comfortable!!”

       • which helsp them take these basic level things and put them in a bigger group

     • subordinate: “belugas are a kind of whale” really helps. preschoolers are super sensitive to nuances, so if you go “this beluga is a whale” they go “its only that beluga” but if you say “belugas are a kind of whale” they go “oh alright, theyre part of this bigger category”

     • sensitivity to nuances emerges early on in development (with 30mos learning english more likely to generalze when they heard a cateogrical-type statment like “wugs drink milk” rather than “these wugs drink milk")

     • statments that specify relations among categories of objects allow children to use what they already know aobut basic level cateogires to generalize adn specify!!!!!!!!!!

       • but funny stuff can happen like “this is a fruit cup”, tried to drink the fruit, cause that’s what you do wtih cups

CAUSAL UNDERSTANDING AND CATEOGRIZATION

• even in first months, infants have a rudimentary understnding of causal interactins among objects

• ex. gravity, inertia, support

• this undesatnding increases during first year

• at 3 months of age, they look longer if a box that is released in midair remains suspended rather than falling (bcz gravity wtf whered you go)

• but if thers any contact at all, theyre liek ‘oh yeah that makes sense, theyre attached”

• by 5mos, infants get the relevance of the type of contnact involved. they know the box will only be stable if its on the top cause itll have bottom support, by a month later they get the importance of AMOUNT of contact, and look longer hwen box stays put with only a smal portion of bottom surfaceo n spport

• after 1st birthday, they take into account the shape of the object and are surprised if an asymmetrical object remains stable

causal understanding extneds to moving objects as well

• 5 month olds look longer at an object that travels more slowly as it rolls down a slope than one that picks up speed as it descends

• also seem to know that object cant pass thorugh a grid with openings smaller than objects, but liquids can

development of understanding of causal relations continues long after infancy

• young children wanna know more about causes and reasons

• “why do dogs bark?”

• “how does the phone know where to call?”

• “where does rain come from?”

understanidn gcausal relations imp in forming categories

• how can children form category of light switches if they dont know that flipping or pushing cerrtain objects CAUSES lights to go on and off?

study

• 4-5 year olds, two cateogires of imaginary animals: wugs and gillies

• some preschoolers only given physical descriptions, others given physical descriptions and causal story that explained why they are the way they are (ex. wugs have spikes cause they like to fight, gillies dont like to fight so they hide in trees, and their big ears let them hear the wugs and fly away)

• the children who were told why wugs and gillies have teh physical features they do were better at classifying pictures into appropriate catogies.

  • same thing when tested the day after!!

  • understanding cause-effect relations helps children leran and remember?

UNDERSTANDING ONESELF AND OTHER PEOPLE

• naive psychology

  • commonsense level of psychological undresatnding

  • its crucial to normal human functioning, major point of what makes us human

• the center of naive psychology are 3 concepts we all use to understand human behaviour

  • desires

  • belifs

  • actions

• we apply these to learn about why someone did something

• ex. why did billy go to abdul’s house?

  • he WANTED to play (desire), he EXPECTED he’d be home (belief), so he WENT to house (action)

• 3 properties of naive psychological cocnepts are notewothy

  • first, many refer to invisible mental states

    • no one can SEE a desire or belief or other psychological concept like percption or memory. we can only INFER (like oh he went cause he mustve WANTED to)

  • second, psychological concepts are linked to one another in cause-effect relations

    • ex. billys annoyed abdul isnt home, makes him mad, so hes mean to younger brother

  • they devleop surprisngly early in life

    • how early? we’re not sure

NAIVE PSYCHOLOGY IN INFANCY

• sharp disagrements have arisen btwn nativists and empiricists regarding source of early psychological understanding

• nativists argue early undrstanding is possible only cause children are born with basic understanindg of human psychology

• empiricists argue expeirnces iwth other ppl and informaiton-processing capacities are key sources of the early understanidng of other people

the emergence of self-consciousness

• infants seem to be born with a kind of implicit self-consicousness, a rudimenatry undresatnidng they are seperate from toehrs and can act in ways that accomplish their golas

• if another person touches infants cheek, they turn in that direction, but if they touch ther own cheek they rarely turn in that direction

  • showing that they know who they are

• by 4months, they sem to know what they can and cnat do, only reahcing for rhings within their grasp nad not for larger fatrther away objects

• by age 18-24, they try to wipe smudges off faces when they see in mirrors, to look good to thers, which is a mroe explicit kind of self-consciosness

understanding pther people

• infants in first year find others interesting, pay atteniton to them, learn about them, prefer to look at faces than other objecs, imiate their facial movements more often that imiate similar looking mtions of inanimat eobjects

• prefer to watch movements of cartoons of human bodies over just random stuff moving around

• basically imiating other pppl, forming emotinal bonds with them, encourages more interaction, more opps for infants to laearn more baout people

• infnats learn early that tohers behaviours have purpose and are goal directed

  • they are surprised when hand whent to object they had not reached to previously bcz you would assume tehy want that one thing so even when its switched wouldnt you want that object still

  • infants evne move eyes to the goal object before hand gest there, but onlyfor human hands. if its mechanical they dont do this, suggesting they undersatnd that living things have intentions but not non living intentions

• under some condtions, infants seem to attirbute intentions to nonvliving thigns (like in cartoons)

  • observing 3 objects inteacting with each other, all having googly eyes, one object tyrna go up a hill, but it keeps falling. one shape was being a bitch and made it harder to go up, and the other shape was helping

  • after, infants were shown 3 objects, and observed the mc iether go to the helpful or unhelpful one. when they saw it go to the unhelpful one theylooked longer cause “wtf why would you go t he one thats making it harder for you????”

    • meaning they expressed confusion at its intentions.

  • a recent metaanalsis indicates it does replicate but its inconsistent

understanding differences btwn people

• infants undrsatnd indivdual diffs among ppl, as reflected by fact preferences for specific ppl vary based on people’s ations adn characteristics

• ex. 10mos more liley to chose food offered by speaker of their language athan speaker of another object

• by age 12 monhs, more likely to accept one chacker from nice puppet htan 2 from mean puppet

• this preference has limits tho!! when mean puppet gave 8 crackers and nice puppet only one, most babies took the 8

  • noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

NAIVE PSYCHOLOGY BEYOND FIRST YEAR

• 3 importnat aspects of spychological undesatnding emerge in second year

  1. sense of self (children realize that they are individuals distinct from tohers)

  2. joint attention (two or more ppl focus intentioanlly on same thing)

  3. intersubjectivity (mutual undestanding that ppl share during communication)

• some are li,e oh this undrstanding of other ppl offers insight into emtoins!!

• “michael and paul strugging over a toy. paul starts to cry. michael appears concerned, legs go of toy. pual still crying. michael goes to next room, gets security blanket, gives tot him. paul stops crying”

  • this implies that michael understood that giving paul something he liked would make him feel better

  • interpretation consistent with evidence that 1 year olds offer physical comfort and comforting commments to unhappy playmates

    • experience with own emotions and what soothes them wehn theyre upset is basis

THEORY OF MIND

• for the first few yeras, children build on early-emerging psychological undersatnding to develo undrestanding of idfferences and smiliarites btwn how they think and others

GROWTH OF A TOERY OF MIND

• what is theory of mind?

  • an organized undrstnaidng of how mental processes like intentions, desires, beliefs, percpetions and emotionsl influence behaviour

  • preschoolers thoery of mind is knoweldge about how mental process work like like “oh belifs come from seeing an event or hearing somene describe it, desires can ceom fomr phsyiological states ilek hunger or pain or psychological ones like wanting to see a friend,

    • and that these desires and beliefs produce ACTIONS nad people bleiving diff thigns lead to differences in their actions

• one important component of thoery of mind

  • WHICH IS JUST UNDRESATNIDNG THE CONNECTION BTWN OTHER PIEOPLE’S DESIRES AND ACTIONS

  • comes at the end of first year

• 12-month-olds saw an experimenter look at one of two stuffed kittens and say in a joyful voice '“ooh look at kitty” then expeirmenter ws holding either the kitty they gushed over, or the other one

• the 12 mont olds looked longer when they held the other kitty, sugesting they expeted to see them holding the one they gushed over (connection between deisres and actions)

• 8 months tho, they look the same at both times, suggesting undresatnding thatppl’s desires guide actions develops towardsend of the first year (as 10 month olds can do this)

• understanidng that desires lead to acitons established by 2 years.

  • ex. schildrne rpedict characters ins tories will at in accordance with their own desires, even when the desires differ from teh kid’s own preferences

  • ex. “oh anabelle likes trucks over dolls. what do you think shes gonna pick up?” “trucks, even tho i prefer dolls”

• by 3 years

  • children show some undesatding of erlation btwn beliefs and actions

  • “why is billy lookigng for dog”, they think of what he thinsk happened (beliefs) over what he wants (“he think its ran away”)

• false-beleif probelms

  • a eprson bleievs soemhing to be true that the child knows is false

  • will the child think that the other person will act in acord with what they think (their false bleief), or what the child' knows to be true?

    • in one sutdy, where pereschoolers shown box thats supposed to have smarties in it but acc has pencils, 5 year olds would go “oh theyd go smarties cause its supposed to ahve smarties” but a 3 year old would be like “theyd say penciles cause theres pencils in them. yeah okay tehy dont know but idk what you’re saying theres pencils in them”

      • showing a difficulty understanidng that other ppl act on their own beliefs, even when belifs are rasle.

      • difficulty getitng other perspective in beliesf there

• a review of childre’s undrstanidng of false belifs across cultures showed the same thing!!!! super super robust

• although 3 year olds genrally err on false-belief problems, a few suceed when task is presented in a way that faciliates undrsatnidng

  • ex. 3 year old is told theyre gonna play a trick wehre theres pencils instead of fmarties, theyll say the other kid thinsk theres smartiest bcz by taking the role of deceiver theyre able to see waht the other kid thinks

• 14 year olds who gained experinece acting in plays over school year showed greater undersatnding of other ppl’s thinking at end of year than before.

  • ppl who received other types of arts education over same peroid did not show comparable improvments

explaining development of theory of mind

• ppl’s lives clealry differnet iwthout a reaonably sophsiticated theory of mind

• findings on improvmenets in typical child’s theory of mind between ages 3 and 5 DONT TELL US WHAT MAKES IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!

• nativists have proposed the existence of a thoery of mind module (TOMM), a hypothesized brain mechnaism devoted to undestadnding other human beings

  • they believe typical children exposed to typical enviornment,t his TOMM matures over first 5 years, producing increaingly sophisticated understanding of people’s minds

  • they say “oh brain imaging shows that certain areas of the brain are consistently active in repping beliefs across diffenet tasks, and the areas are diff from those invovled in other complex cognitive processes, like undrestnidng grammar”

• also ASD is used to cite this

  • that ppl with ASD have difficulty with false belief problems, and with undersatnding ppl more generally

  • consist with idea of a TOMM, having diffuclyt undresanting social world semes to be duue to typical siees and acitivty of brain areas crucial for understanidng peiople

• theoriests who take an empiricist stance suggest diff explanations for emergency of theory of mind

• some say its lenaring from experineces,

  • ex. alshtough infants follow gaze of adults weraing blindfolds, expeirnece with wearing it thesmelves reduces them following gaze of blindfolded adults (cause tehy go “oh yeah they dont know what theyre doing they cnat see shit”?)

• others emphasize interactions with otehr ppl

  • preschooelrs with siblings do better on false-belief tasks, possibly cause they interact with otehrs and ahve to take into account their perspective

  • strongest when siblings are older or opp gender, cause theyre so diff they have to braodenbt heri underandingo f hter ppl and how they differ tfrom tehmselves

• repeated exposure to other ppl acting on fasle beleifs, found to produce substantial improvmenets among 3 year olds who had ore undersatnding before experiences, but not on peers wth less advanced undestadning

  • sooo it makes sense that the tendency of autistic children to not interact much with others seems likely to be a major contributor in difficulty in undersatnding others

    • dont wanna be around ppl, dont hang out wth them, dont understand other ppl

• empiricist stamce: emphasize growth of genera info-procesing skills as essential in undresatnidng other people’s minds

  • cite that childre’s understanding of false-bleef problems is correlated wtih ability to reason about complex counter-factual statemnets, ANDDD WITH ability to inhibit their own behavioural wants hwen necesary (correlatin of perspective taking with ability to take other perspective in counter-factual statemnts, as well as inhibiton)

the ability to inihbit is imp cause false-bleif problems require children to supress assumption that preson would act like they would

• empiricists argue that ytpical children younger than 4 yeras, and some uatistic children lack info processing skills needed to understand other’s minds, but older children CAN do this

• so they say, ahhh its something that actaully develosp through the growth of general info-processing sills

ALL EXPALNATIONS HAVE MERIT

• normal develpmet of brain regions related to undresatnidng others, specific experiences that build undrestanding of perception and cogniton, interactions wtih others, ANDDD improved info processing ALLLLLLLL contirubte to growth of psychoogical understanding

THE GROWTH OF PLAY

• children learn about how other ppl think and other aspecst rhough play

• pla is just activiites for fun ,with no motivation excpet just having fun

• earliest play occurs in first year, includes behaviours lke banging spoons on high chair trays, throwing foodon floor repeatedly (literally playing with food)

• 12-18 months of age, pretend play is what they engage in

  • which are make-believe activites where they create new symbolic relations

• hwen engaged in rpetend play, tehy act as if theyre in diff situtoin than they are (while using object substituion, where they ignore what the object can do so they cab pretend its something else)

  • ex. using a cylindrical wooden block as a bottle, pretending to drink from it, plastic soap dish is a boat, floating it on water while taking a bath

• early pretend play emergences in itnerctions btwn infants and parents

  • ex. mother bites into cookie and says yum, kkid may do the same

  • through storng eye contact, oddly timed movements, and smiles parents convey to infants that such actions are not SERIOUS, and infants indicate they both understand the messages pretend

PRETEND PLAY BECOMES MORE PLEX AND INVOVLS MORE PPL LATER ON

toddlers —> sociodrmatic play

• enact mini dramasiwth others like “mother comforting baby”, “tea party” rituals

  • pouring team from imaginary teapot, sipig it, eating imaginary cookies

• typically more sophisticated hwen playing with parent or older kid who can scaffold it (ex. kid playing with figurines, parent going “oh no hespushed down, oh no hes running away”)

  • where thsi elaboration of implict sotrylies provides a model for children to follow in later pretend play

elemnetary school —> play becomes more complex and social

• activites such as asports and board games, which have conventional rules they must folllow

• frequent quarrels among young elementary school students regarding whos right and whos wrong and whos cheating, attest to hte cognitive and emo challenges of these games

pretend play goes far beyond eary childhood

• 10-11, still do

• less when 12-13

• boys and only children reporter higher rates at older ages thatn girls adn children with siblings

• chilren who engage in greater amounts of pretend play tend to show greater understanding of other people’s thinking and emotions

TYPE OF PRETEND PLAY MATTERS

• social pretend play, more related to understanding othersthinking than nonsocial

• wathing other pretend play also helps

• high levels of prtend play causally related to increased social understanding

• some children with high social skills may enjoy engaging in prtend play adn thinking of others (how activities kids pick shapes theri development, active child)

• children’s interest in social play so strong that many will use imaginary companions just so they hav esomething to hang out with

BOX 7.1: Children with ASD

• most children readily handle false-bleief problems by 5, butchildren with ASD have more difficulty with it

• ASD —> difficulties in socia interaction, communication, other intellectual and emotioanl functions

• great degree of variabiity across spectrum, but ASD can engage in solitary, repetive movements, interacting minimally with peers and adults, rare close relationships, little or no language, more into objects than people

• soem researchers speculate that limited engagmenet in social wordl might by why they ahve difficulty undersatnding other ppl

• autistic children tend to have trouble with joint attention, hshow less concern when others become distress, have poor lagnuage skills

  • which all supports what resarchers think, cause all of these are enhanced when you form social connections

• same thing with not beinggreat at false-belief questions

• they have some underatnidng how desire affects behaviour but not realy beliefs affecting behaviour

• impaired TOMM not the only issue, general deficits in planning, adapting to change, controlling working memory

• impaired TOMM makes shit harder cause its hard to undersatnd how ppls’ belief differ from reality

• many problems caused by ASD can be fixed with early adn prolonged treatment

  • ESDM treamtnet of 15 hours a week of sessions with therapists, where therapistsa nd children praciced everyday activities (lilke eating and playing), used oepratnt conditoning to promote those

  • the aprents used appraoch for 16 hours a week beyond these sessions

  • those who used ESDM showed consdierably greater gains in IQ score, lagnuage, and daily living skills than control

• so early and intesnive treamtnet olf ASD can have great benefits!!! may even be more effective in infancy than toddler period

BOX 7.2 —> Imaginary Companions

• many children have an imaginary companion, hearing one’s child talk about invisible friend someti es leads parents to worry about santyBUT IMAGINARY FRIENDS ARE NORMAL CCROSS THE WORLD

• most imaginary friends were ordinary boys and girls who were visible, some were colourful, some weere fantastical,

• children have complaints about them!! (didnt come, didnt leave when no longer welcome), they seem to act independently and argue and criticize creator

• those who didnt have imginary friends than those who did acc didnt have difference in personality, intelligence and creativity

  • later on, not as ppular, but just as well-adjusted

• children who create dimginary playmates were more likely to be firstborn or only children, watch little television, be verbally skillful, advanced theories of mind

• companionship, entertainment, enjoyment of fantasy irent only reason

• they also use them to deflect blame, vent anger, convey info child doesnt wantt o say directly

• many also reprot when sad, they comfort them

UNDERSTANDING WHY, WHERE, WHEN, AND HOW MANY: CAUSALITY

• causal connnections unite discrete events into coherent wholes

• children rely heavily on undersatnding of causal mechanisms to figure out why physical and spychological things work

  • ex. wehn they tae apart otys to figure out how htey work, “why dose flipping a switch make hte light go on?” “why is mommy upset?”

    • all tryna figure out what caused what

• nativists and empiricsts

  • NATIVISTS HTINK THAT WE HAVE A LFIPPING INNATE CAUSAL MODULE or core theory that allows us to extract causal relations from the events they observe

    • why? bcz its hard to make sense of world without bsaic causal undrsnatidng and kids can do this super early on, so theyre like “Oh we must have a module in our heads”

• EMPIRICISTS THINK that causal undersantding arises from observations of a bunch of events in environment, adn causal effets ot heri own actions

CAUSAL REASONING IN INFANCY

• 6 months, infants perceive causal connecitons among some physical events

• expeirment

  6-9 month olds, shown moving object collidting with stationalry object, and stationalry object moved how one would expect

• after seeing a few, and they got habiutated to it, they sowed one where it started moving before it was struck

• infants looked at that longer like “wtf,why is it moving nothing hit it”

  • perhaps that new video cliip violated sense that inanimate objects dont move iwthout an external force

what infants and toddlres think of physical causality also influences thier ability to remember and imitate sequences of actions

• 9-11 month olds, shown actions that are causally related (ex. making a rattle by putting small object in 2 cups and connecting the cups), they usually can reproduce the actions

  • in contrast, when siialr but causally UNRELATED actions are shown, tehy cant reliability preprouce until a year later

by end of 2nd year, children can infer causal impact of one variable based on indirectly relevant info aout another

• ex. blicket dector —> played music when a type of objec called blicket placed on it

• then 2 objects A and B on blicket detector, music played. when object A online, no music. then wehn told to turn it on, they always chose B cause they were like “oh we tried A, but it lowkey asn’t working, so B has got to be the blicket”, but 19 month olds chose A as often as B, suggesting they did make the connection

1-2 year olds tool use

• toddlers presented attractive toy on a table beyond their reach

• between child and toy, were 6 tools that were all different

• to get hte toy, they needed to figure out what would make one tool mroe effective than others

• 2 yera olds did way better than 1 year olds, both in intial efforts to get it on their own and after being shown how they could use optimal tool to get it

• oldr was better at it, bcz they more often used the tool to get it than trying to reach with hands

• they also used the right tool more often

• tey also generalized what they learned on first problem to diff problems involving all kinds of toys

  • idicating that older otddlers (at 2 years) had a deeper undrsantidng of causal relations btwn tools features and its usefulness for pulling in the toy

CAUSAL REASONING DURING PRESCHOOL PERIOD

• causal reasoning continues to develop in preschool period

• preschoolres expect that if variable causes an effect, it should do consistently

• wehn 4 yera olds se something happen iinconsistentl ythey go “oh something else must be causing that change” when it happens consistenlty they dont question it and think something else might be important

• preschooolers emerging understanind that events must have causes influences reaction to magic tricks

  • 3-4 year olds fail to se point of magic tricks. they know something wacky happened but dont see whats cool or funny about it

  • by age 5 they become fascinatid tho cause theres no obvious causal mecahanisms for it

  • increains ungdersatng of mechanisms that connect causes and effects are importnat parts of growth of causal reasoning

BOX 7.3: MAGICAL THINKING AND FANTASY

• by age 5, chilrens causal reasoning as advanced as adults

• preschoolresa nd yougn elemtnary school chilren live in a world where fantasy and reality are more intertwined than they are for adults

• young children belief in magic is evident in many wyas (most 4-6 year olds believe they can influence other ppl by wishing them into doing something )

• they blieve effective wishing takes a bunch fo skill, but it can be done

• yougn children not only believe in magic, but act on it

  • when told that certain box magical, if they put a drawing in and magical words appear they believed it, and were disapponited when that didnt hapen

• in many sitautions, children believe contraictoring ideas, they may think magic can cause things to happen, but dont depend on it when doing so could be embarrasing

  • they believ ein magic, but not strongly enough to stick to it

• how to move beyond this?

  • well when tehy learn mroe about the true causes of things, they explain them in magical terms less

  • also hearing the idea of santa claus being promoted or dismissed plays a factor

• although world of imagination most striking btwn 3-6, in one study, many 9 year olds some adults revert to magical exlantins when confronted with trick hard to explain physical terms (oh that doesnt make sense, must be magic!!!)

• superstititons stay through life, and adults generate supernatural explanations more than children, so apparently we never entirely outgrow magical tinking

LECTURE NOTES:

7A: 4 videos

CONCEPTS

what are they?

• ideas or understandings used to group together objects, abstractiosn that have some sort of shared quality

• can be very borad

• ex. dog is a concept, dogs vary in shapes sizes colours features

• but also dogs vs cats, those are two seperate caegories. broad but not everything

• kids do have concepts of real things, like colours and animals and stuff but also more abstract things, like death, causality

• children also need to develop cocnept that others have minds of their own that are differnet from mine

CATEGORICAL THINKING

what is it?

• if you know an object is in same cateory as another object, you know it has some similar core properties

• ex. show them a starfish theyre gonna think its arock or something. tell them its an animal, theyll go “oh okay so it breathes and can feel pain, like dogs and lions, cause those are animals too” (among othe rconclusions they can draw)

category hierarchy

• layers that divvy up concepts,

• big broad category of animal, over to mammals, reptiles, amphibians, over to frog, thats part of amphibian

  • some are higher up some are lower, its just a way of catgorizing, going all the way from like kingdom down to species

• hierarchal cateogircal thinking emreges at 3 MONTHS

  • study: show them a bucnh fo dog pictures, they get habituate, then you show them a cat, see if they dishabutaited

  • by 3 months, they do dishabituate!!

• tells us they formed category of dog, adn thatsseperate from cat

• by 6 months they get better at this

when shown a bunch of mammals that all look different but are still mammals, they can still habituate to this

so theyre going up to a more broad one

kids are sensitive to shape ifrs tnad foremost

doenst matter if colour or ssize changes, if it has the same shape, its a DAX

• thats at 2-3 years

but at age 5, they focus on fucntion more. so if its a tool and its floppy they go it can’t be a dax

children under 5 —> superficial chracteristics

children 5+ —> focus on function

HIERARCHAL CATEOGIRES

• dog —> in the middle.

  • develosp first. can find more common, can find more specific

• a pomeranian —> super specific

• animal —> overarching, general, broader

• we make judgments off the fly (ex. dog has 4 legs, but if a dog has 3 legs, its still a dog. we dont alwyas tgo through a mental checklist, sometimes its more inuitive we jjust go on the fly)

  • like dogs aren’t always fluffy, wehn we group things in cateogrioes, its intuitive, cateogriizing isnt objective, its more intuitive

• kids learn about categories from others, which is social

  • ex. “kids go oh yeah thats a fish it has a tail its in the water”

    • but if adult goes “yeah actualaly its a mammal tho, it just is in the watr, but it needs to come upf or air” and expains that them they will adapt their undersatnidng (accomodaiton and assimilation)

• also kids are snenstive to you go “this boy does this” vs “boys do this”

DEFINING VS CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES

• catogires have defining categories, theat define membership

  • ex. all cats are carnivores, billionairs have got to have money

  • essenital qulaities, they have to exist for membership into the group

• characteristic features —>

  • common but not essenital

  • youd prolly associate these features iwth them, but its not compulsory

  • ex. billionaires drive expensive cars. yeah they tend to, but they dont have to. what tehy HAVE to have is money.

• yougn children more likley to say that something belongs to the cateogry it does based on charactersitic features rather than defining features

• wehn they do have defining but not characteristic, they sitll focus on the presence or absence of hcaracterisitc, and eventually as they get older pay attention to defining chracteristics

• you ge better at disregarding characteristic features and focusing on defining features with age!!

• stereotyping

  • we see something, make ajudgmet bsed on charactersitic features, but we’re not paying atetntion to defining characerstics, so do they really belong in that ccateogry? STEREOTYPING

  • we get better at not doing this over time, but cleraly not everytone and not enough

7B: 2 videos

NAIVE PSYCHOLOGY

what is it?

• baseline undersating of how humans and others behave in the wrold

• we know they can make decsios by themselves, and they are agents, but they may not undresatnd all dimensions of psychology

3 mai ncomponents

1. intention —> ppl act on the wrodl independently and in line with their ogals

2. desire —> people have their own wants and needs that vary across time and situations

3. understanding of belief —> blief that people’s actions are guided by what they expect or what they think they know

   • just bcz i believ esum doesn’t mean you do

ages 1-2

• good undersatnding of people’s desires

age 5

• getting understanding of beleif

mental states —> invisible, cant see hunger or goals or beliefs, only have observatble actions. so you’re takinng a jump from what you’re observing and internal states and beleifs

self-concept in early childhood

• how infants see themselves!!

newborns

• seem to know that they are serpeate from others, adn if tehy touch themselves they touched themselves its not that someone else did

by 4 months

• undersntd limitations of body, reaching for things only in reach, only stuff they can reaonably lift, not like a whole ass piano tahst 5 feet away

at 2 years

• mirror self-recognition,

under age of 18 months, see the smudge, touch the mirror

18-24 months, see the smudge, touch their own face

body as obstacle task

• aby taken and put on rug. they push cart along and take it to caregiver. problem is body is on top of cart, anchoring it down.

kids in zambia africa, tehy have physical self concept, they go “ah im the problem” and they like lif themselves up even if they struggle iwth mirror task

but western babies who pass mirror self task at age of 2, have hard time with this

careful about external validty and generalization of findings iwth either of these bcz of cultural differneces in upbringing

multisite cross cultural research is imp but its hard so the point is we ask good quesitons

attributing intentinot ot he actiosn of others

• at 6 months, interpet actisn of others as goal directed.

• habiutation studies, overal esveral trials, grabbed ball in particular location, ball always on the left, doll on teh right.

• naive psychology

  • by 6 months, can perceive actions as goal directed

hand consistnetly grabs ball in one location, infants tested in 3 condtions

• grab new object in new location, surprised cause “whoa weren’t you tryan get that one”, surprise again if they went o the saem area but got antoher object, but if the same object in a new locaiton no surprise, cuase its the intention of getting that one object

human hadn, assigned inteiton, mechnical clase, dindt give intention

also triangle square study up a hill, if one as being a bitch infant would be like “wtf is going on” if the thing approached hte hinderer, cause wouldnt you wanna go to teh nicer one

• infants may use social cues of movement patterns ad googly eyes to attribute intentions

7C: 3 videos

TOMM

• undersatnding others have diff thoughts, desires, beliefs, and emtoinos

• young chilren assume eveyrone has the asme mental states

by 8 months

• no surprise when actions contradict express desires (cause not undresnarind others have diff thoguhts desires and stuff)

by 12 months

• they start using desire to predict othesr behaviour

2 years

• get that others can have diff prefernces than their own

• go “oh yeah makes sense theyll act to their own preferences, not mine”

at 1 year

• they go “ah expressed desires influence actions”

by 2 years

• undersantidn people’s desire can differ and guide bheaivour

TURE AND FALSE BELEIFS

• bleief: ppl act based on what they think is true about he world

• false belief: someone can hold an incorrect bleief and act accordingly

• smarties and marbles task, the kid knows there are marbles, but hey dont take into account that the other one doesnt’t

3 year olds FAIL false bleief tasks

5 year olds get that others hold incorrect beliefs and act based on them

FOUNDATIONS OF TOMM

TOMM —> ability to undersand others mental states, innate or leraned

• across cultures, chilren read ToM at similar ages, suggesting universality

• some go “oh we have a module for this”, these rae the naturalistics

• having older o rother gender siblings enhances ToM because they ahve to take in perpecitves of pplt hat are so different form them, and exposre to false belifs improves ToM

• associate with reasoning, executive function, suggesting it develops alongside general cogntiion

• mnay ASD struggle with ToM, but do well in other cognitive areas (at 14 being worse at it than those at 5)

• reduce attention to social cues may contirubte to thsi

• interventiosn for ASD

  • early start denver model (EDSM), posite reinforcemnet to improve soical engagmenet in toddlers

  • applied behavioural analysis (ABA): devleoping adaptive skills through structued reinforcemnet strategies

7D: 2 videos

CAUSAL REASONING

infants

• physical causality

• moving object coliding with another, it moves

• when showing it moving before collison, theyre surprised, so

at 6 months understnad physical causality

at 19 months, can’t pass blicket test (if two objects placed on scale, and music starts playng, then only one place dnad no music and then the other placed nad music, which one is blicket? causality of the blicket object)

at 24 months, pass blicket test

6 months, basi cexpecations fo physical causliaty

by 24 months, logical inferences

HOW “MAGICAL” IS CHILDREN’S THINKING REALLY?

• folk wisdom goes “oh childre are more magical”

but studies of children 4-6 years, correctly identified real and mythological events and calimed improbabileevents were impossible, defalting to practical reasoning

• wehn asked to explain a fantastical event, tehy expected magical explanations, but rather were given mundane ones like “oh got a pet unicorn? prolly got it from the pet store my dude”

children alwyas gave mundane rsponses even for magical storeis

cilren tend to think in straightfoward literal ways than fantastical ones, challenging assumption that children are naturally imagintiive