Children's Thinking Midterm 1

13) What does it mean for an infant to have a concept of occlusion? What does it mean for an infant to have a concept of containment? Do these concepts emerge at the same time? Support your answer.

- A concept of occlusion means the understanding that an object can not be in view or not be fully in view, but still be the same object.... knowing that an object can block another object without changing it. Requires a concept of solidity and object permanence. - A concept of containment means the understanding that one solid object can or cannot fit inside another solid object. This requires an understanding of solidity and object permanence and relative size/shape. - Hespos and Baillargeon (2001) studied occlusion and containment in infants using potential containers as occluders (tall or short PVC piping containers were used to occlude brightly colored cylindrical object w/ knob on top)... - Tall container completely concealed cylinder w/ only knob visible; short container did not conceal entire cylinder. - Hespos and Baillargeon lowered the cylinder behind both and showed the impossible event of the short container concealing the cylinder - 4.5 mo/olds looked longer at impossible event (knew that as occluder, needed to be big enough) - however the 4.5 mo/olds were not able to make this reasoning when the cylinders were put inside the containers - this experiment showed in 4.5 years olds an ability to reason about height in occlusion but not containment events - Containment emerges later than occlusion

3) What is a longitudinal study? Provide an example. Compare and contrast longitudinal studies to both correlational and cross-sectional studies.

- A longitudinal study is when a researcher examines a child at multiple points over time... for example tests their ability at 3 years and then again at 4 years old; requires time/resources on the part of the researcher... but allows researcher to study development pathways and changes over time rather than just differences between age groups, which can be confounded by generation - example of longitudinal study is Dunn et al. (1991): dinner table convo between parents and kids... measured frequency of "mental states" language and then tested kids 3 y/o on false belief task... also tested younger sib of 1 y/o two years later on FB task - Longitudinal study as opposed to cross-sectional study: longitudinal compares single group of participants at different ages/time points whereas cross-sectional compares different groups of participants at different ages/time points - longitudinal v. correlational: correlational studies relationship between two naturally occurring phenomenon such as (parents who are divorced and kids performance in school) ... raises questions of causality and directionality (more observational)

12) Describe Baillargeon's drawbridge experiment. What conclusion does it reach? What does this study tell us about the development of object permanence?

- Baillargeon (1987) - habituates 4-5 mo/old infants to a 180º rotating drawbridge and then introduces an object into the path of the drawbridge display [habituation event] - after introduction of object... 2 possible test events: drawbridge now rotates to 112º and stops when it hits the object (possible) or drawbridge continues to rotate to 180º (impossible) - The 4-5 mo/old infants looked longer at the impossible event - this result shows both an understanding of object permanence (the object blocking the drawbridge continues to exist even when the infant cannot see it) and solidity (the drawbridge is solid and so is the object blocking so the drawbridge cannot move through the object) - Also tested on 3.5 mo/olds... and found that they were not as reliably able to differentiate this (not fully understanding permanence/solidity); however Baillargeon differentiated between slow + fast habituators... and some 3.5 y/olds (fast habituators) definitely looked longer at impossible as well... understood object permanence/solidity like the 4-5 mo/olds - this tells us that understanding of object permanence happens around the 3-5 mo/old time period

8) Define domain. What does it mean for a theory of cognitive development to be domain-specific? What does it mean for a theory of cognitive development to be domain-general?

- Domain = body of knowledge that shapes and constrains conceptual understandings - domain-specific: each knowledge body has its own system for learning; knowledge is encapsulated - domain-general: small number of broad cognitive abilities; knowledge is all connected

1. Describe the habituation method. What is done? Why is it done? What are two different ways a researcher can interpret findings using this method?

- Habituation refers to the phenomenon in which an infant that is exposed to a certain stimulus repeatedly over time, will become "less interested" in that stimulus, and their looking time will decrease. Habituation refers to some sort of recognition that the stimulus is familiar. - In a habituation study, an infant is shown a stimulus repeatedly and their looking time is measured. Typically looking time will decrease with time, and eventually plateau, at which point the infant is "habituated." - Habituation allows researchers to examine recognition on the part of infants. "dishabituation" occurs when an infant recognizes a stimulus as novel, which thus demonstrates recognition and understanding on some level - A researcher can interpret dishabituation to mean that the infant has recognized a difference //a perceptual observation (ex. sucking response to /ba/ or /pa/) or as evidence of another cognitive process or capability such as categorization (habituate to shapes of one category and dishabituate to shape of new category) or correlation (habituate to animals w/ correlated features and dishabituate to animals that disobey correlation) - also studies an element of memory... even if over very short time period... thus studies "recognition memory" - or violation of expectation versus distinguishing a difference

32) Besides facial imitation, how might we conclude that newborns register people as different from other objects? Use empirical data to support your response.

- Johnson et al (1991) Ping pong paddles; showed infants ping paddles that had faces of humans, a scrambled face, and were blank. - Johnson found that infants preferred to look at the paddle with the human's face

22) Describe a piece of empirical evidence that suggests young infants might categorize people differently from other objects.

- Johnson et al (1991) Ping pong paddles; showed infants ping paddles that had faces of humans, a scrambled face, and were blank. - Johnson found that infants preferred to look at the paddle with the human's face - also Meltzoff found that infants imitated facial expressions of lip protrusion, open mouth, and tongue protrusion... which shows a recognizing of human similarity to me

4) Describe Kellman and Spelke's experiment on object occlusion. What does this experiment tell us about infants' basic perceptual abilities? Link this conclusion to another experiment discussed in class or in the textbook.

- Kellman + Spelke (1983): Studied segregation by motion. Habituated 4 mo/olds to an object moving behind a barrier; tested to see if infants dishabituated to seeing the object as "one" or "two"... 4 mo/olds interpreted motion as from one object.. dishabituated to "two" - K + S interpreted this to mean that infants' that segregation by motion is innate and present at birth... infants perceptual abilities allow them to track motion in different spots as connected + deduce a singular object even if part of it is occluded; - Slater et al (1990) found that Kellman + Spelke did not replicate in newborn human infants.... however this is also partly attributable to different in visual acuity/depth perception... smooth pursuit eye motion v. saccade eye motion... - another group of researchers later reproduced experiments w/ saccadic motion and newborns did recognize rod as continuous

33) Piaget thought that the transition from the sensory-motor to the preopertation stage was indicated by children having an adult-like concept of object permanence and their ability to engage in pretense. Why? What's special about these abilities? How are they related?

- Object permanence and ability to engage in pretense marked transition from sensory-motor to preoperational stage. In a way, understanding of object permanence shows the ability to engage in pretense (make-believe)... object permanence ability requires infants to know that an object exists even when it is not visually available to them, which reuires them to entertain the idea of the object still existing in their mind... holding that mental representation

15) What is the difference between object permanence and object individualization? Describe Xu and Carey's experiment on individualization, which suggests this ability emerges after certain object permanence abilities.

- Permanence means the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they are not visible - object individualization is the ability to distinguish between separate objects based on perceptual features and make the connection that those two perceptually different objects will both exhibit permanence -Xu and Carey (1996): two occlusion events: property-kind and spatiotemporal; - in property-kind ....infants were habituated to two distinct objects were removed one at a time from behind a screen... test event was screen lifting to reveal either two or one object (infants would expect two if possessed object individualization abilities) - spatiotemporal... infants were habituatated to the two distinct objects being removed from behind screen at the same time - also baseline just tested preference for looking at 1 or 2 objects - Xu and Carey found that infants (10 mo/olds) preferred 2 objects in baseline. In spatiotemporal, infants looked longer at the 1 object, showing "surprise" overcame natural preference for 2 objects... but in property-kind, infants still looked longer at 2... showing "surprise" or ability to individualize the two objects did not overcome natural interest in 2 objects

26) Define proto-imperative and proto-declarative pointing. What is the difference between them?

- Proto-imperative pointing: infant wants the object... give me object!!! (only emerges around 12 months).... intention is means-to-end... get object. - Proto-declarative pointing: Look at this!! intention is to draw attention of other .. also means-to-end

9) What do newborns know about category formation? Can they generalize among category members? Use an experiment to support your answer.

- Quinn et al (2001) studied the categorization abilities of infants; tested using shapes; categorization abilities include: distinguish between categories; distinguish within categories; and generalize (similar treatment of category members); both perceptual and conceptual strategies for categorization... perceptual is based on external features and conceptual is based on mental representations - Quinn habituated newborns to a triangle and then tested preferential looking at same triangle or novel square... infants preferred novel square meaning they could tell the difference, between-category differentiation - Quinn then habituated two groups (infants and 3-4 mo.olds) to categories of shapes (6 of each)... then tested new exemplar from old category vs. new category ... so all novel... - newborns looked equally long at both objects (no ability to generalize) - 3-4 mo. olds looked longer at the new category exemplar (ability to generalize). - exception: when crosses were the habituation stimulus, newborns do show discrimination - So basically newborns may be able to differentiate between categories but not yet show generalization abilities

17) What do newborns know about numbers? Describe two different ways infants could conceptualize number. Support at least one of these possibilities with empirical evidence.

- Researchers have suggested that infants have two separate systems to understand numeracy. The first is the object files system, in which infants understand quantities 1,2,3 as separate objects. - The second system is the analog magnitude (ratios) system, in which infants compare quantities larger than 3 in terms of ratios, but do not distinguish quantities such as 4 or 5 differently - Support for this 2-system theory comes from the Graham Cracker Test of 2004 in which crawling infants (12 months), were tested to see which of two buckets with graham cracker they crawled to. (assumption is that they always want more graham crackers!) - infants crawled to 2 over 1 and 3 over 2 reliably... showing a differentiation between, 1,2, and 3 as well as knowledge that 3 is bigger than 2 is bigger than 1 - infants crawled to 4 over 0, but not 4 over 1 - interpreted by 4 over 1 asking infant to use two different systems of numeracy

11) What is statistical learning? Describe an experiment that suggests infants are capable of recognizing statistical structure. What does the capacity for engaging in statistical learning mean for cognitive development?

- Statistical learning is infants ability to recognize statistical structures among events; for example: x event always leads to Y event... or X event usually leads to Y event... or X event sometimes leads to Y event... or X event never leads to Y event.... statistcial learning is ability to form these representations and act on them in making predictions about the world - Kirkham et al (2002) habituated 2-, 5-, and 8- mo/olds to sequences of shapes; always occured in an order of 3 diads... (probablity of seeing square after cross is 100%), but order of diads varied so that probability between each one was 1/3; - Kirkham found that all 3 groups dishabituated to a sequence that suddenly became random (did not obey the transitional properties)... showing that even 2 mo/olds have capacity to learn statistical structures!! - This experiment was analogous to 3 2-syllable words... shows its relevance to learning language - also shows that we learn mostly from our environment about how the world works

21) What do infants know about support relations between two objects? Describe an experiment that demonstrates a developmental difference in this knowledge.

- Support relation understanding refers to the understanding that an object will fall if not supported and that another solid object can prevent an object from falling - Needham and Baillargeon (1993) created a set up in which shown blocks balanced on boxes and pushed across to the edge - 4.5 and 5.5 mo/olds seemed to think that boxes that were at all supported were fine ... even just like 20%! - Whereas 7.5 mo/olds had a richer understanding of objects needing a certain degree of support in order not to fall... expected things to fall when supported less than 70%. - of course, expectation to fall would be measured by looking time

16) What is the A-not-B error? At what point does it emerge? At what point do children stop making it? In class, I never talked about why infants might stop making this error. For the last part of this question, speculate as to why.

- The A-not-B error is a search error in reaching observed by Piaget. - It refers to when the infant attempts to retrieve an object from a previously hidden location (A), despite having seen the object newly relocated to location (B) - The A-not-B error reflects an incomplete understanding of object permanence ... Piaget described it as a cognitive confusion - the A-not-B error emerges around 9 months and children stop making it by 12 months. - Researchers have speculated that it may be caused by immaturities in the prefrontal cortex that predict preservative behaviors... thus infants might stop making this error when their prefrontal cortex is more mature and they are able to sort through a breaking of a rule ... an immature prefrontal cortex cannot sort through /understand the sudden breaking of an established rule and preserves the rule as it has been come to be known

2) Define the following terms: independent variable, dependent variable, between-subjects design, and within-subjects design

- The independent variable is what you manipulate/what explains (age/treatment, etc) and it often varies in different levels of treatment.... - the dependent variable is the outcome/what you measure... you do not control directly. - between-subject design is when subjects are assigned to different groups for treatments... receive only one and then the two groups are compared - within-subjects design is when the same subjects are given two or more treatments and their results while in each group are compared... this allows researchers to attribute differences in dependent variable to treatments imposed rather than individuality

28) Define assimilation and accommodation. Provide examples of each. How does Piaget characterize them as mechanisms of cognitive development?

- assimilation: transforming the environmental information to fit infant's existing understanding/representations... - ex: grasp-to-mouth motion: they will try to reach for everything in the same way... fit new objects into their familiar reaching knowledge - Accommodation: changing representations to fit new environmental information - ex: infant changes grasping motion to fit the new object's characteristics - Piaget: disequilibrium is when representations don't match environmental info... which requires accomodation and assimilation until equilibrium is restored

23) What is the difference between a dyadic and triadic representation? At what age does each develop? Describe a behavior consistent with infants possessing each representational capacity.

- dyadic representation: self and other person; dyadic representation can be observed at 3 months in which infants engage in social smiling and flirting behavior - triadic representation: self, other person, and object; can be observed after 9 months... if infant is exposed to novel toy, they will play with or not play with depending on mother's positive or negative reaction

38) Baillaregon's (1987) paper talked about the difference between fast and slow habituators, and showed that these two groups of infants performed differently on the drawbridge task. In class, I referred to this as a "will-o-the-wisp effect" - meaning that it's rare. In truth, the difference between fast and slow habituators is rarely seen in many habituation experiments. Why do you think this is the case? Use an experimental procedure (not the drawbridge experiment) to support your answer. Note: An easy answer would be that it's just a failure to replicate, but that's inaccurate. There's a much better answer.

- often fixed looking time is used for habituation, which does not allow experimenter to distinguish between fast and slow habituators (Quinn + shape categorization)

36) We've spent most of the first half of the course on infant cognition. But here's a puzzle: as adults, we don't remember much about infancy. In the second half of the term, we'll talk about the phenomenon of infant amnesia - the fact that we can't remember our autobiographical experiences as an infant. Assuming this is a true phenomenon, what do infants' memory capacities indicate for their cognition? What might infants be remembering when they succeed in memory experiments?

- short-term memory; they remember important survival things ... - Memory for contingencies is evolutionariliy important ... how to get fed and stuff

25) What is social referencing? How does it indicate that the infant understands triadic interactions?

- social referencing is when infants use the response of adults to modulate their behavior. example is an infant following an adult's gaze or taking cues from adult's emotions about whether or not to play with a toy. - If infant decides whether or not to play with a toy (modulates behavior) based on adult's emotions... shows that infant undertands that adult has relationship to object and so does infant and infant has relationship to adult (values their opinion) - Indicates triadic interaction bc that is a 3-way understanding of relationships

14) Knowledge of the physical world begins with knowing what an object is. In class, I described three problems infants must solve in their reasoning about objects. What are they? Be sure to define each problem. Provide empirical evidence that infants solve at least two of these problems at different point during development (be sure to mention when they solve each).

1) object segregation -- ability to use perceptual features to distinguish between two objects that may be placed near each other... knowing that an object is a whole that is separate from other things. - Object segregation possibly emerges as early as in newborns - Valenza et al (2006) replicated Kellman + Spelke segregation based on motion with saccadic motion of the rod and found that newborns predicted the objects as separate. --> this is segregation based on motion - Main study we discussed that looked at segregation based on perceptual features was Needham, which showed 8 mo/olds predicting object segregation of slinky + box 2) object permanence -- ability to understand that objects continue to exist even when they are occluded and not in view - Baillargeon's drawbridge experiment (1987) showed that some 3.5 y/olds contained had solved the problem of object permanence and most 4-5 mo/olds had 3) Object individualization -- ability to know that an object is separate from another based on perceptual features and that each perceptually distinct object will obey object permanence and object segregation

35) Object segmentation and occlusion has often been studied from a Nativist perspective. Provide an example of this. Then explain how an alternate theory of cognitive development could explain these same data, but also inspired a new experiment. Full credit on this question will only be given if you present at least two experiments.

1983) Kellman + Spelke: 4mo olds had a rod moving behind a barrier. Testing that whole objects move together. The infants looked longer at the broken object. They thought that the motion as signifying one object. Infants perceive one object to move as one. Infants use perceptual features and motion ton segregate objects. Kellman + Spelke interpreted results as showing innate ability, even though tested on 4 mo-olds. - Slater et al (1990) could not reproduce with infants... thus providing evidence that segregation is not innate, and develops in first four months of life... but it could be because smooth pursuit eye motion is not present at birth. - Valenza, Leo, Gava, Simion (2006) reproduce experiment with saccadic movement and newborns thought the rod was continuous.... newborns possessing the ability provides more evidence for its being innate (nativist) - nativist would say this is evidence for the ability of object segmentation to be present at birth and only affected through visual development - theory theory might say that infants are born with a representation of segmentation that they amend as they come to know their environment + refine their theory

37) Baillaregon's (1987) paper talked about the difference between fast and slow habituators, and showed that these two groups of infants performed differently on the drawbridge task. Describe this study in detail and then why Baillargeon thought fast habituators respond differently from slow habituators.

Habituated4-5 mo olds to 180 rotation, put object in then rotated either 180 (impossible) or 112. Diahabituated to the 180 rotation. Infants have object permanence .- object permanence could be innate or develops early. 3 month old fast habituators looked longer at impossible and slow habituators showed no preference. Slow habituators were more fussy so maybe they were bored or paid less attention. They also had to look longer during the habituation phase. Fast habituators were more efficient at processing information

30) Describe how nativist theories, information processing theories and the theory theory each differ from Piaget's theory of cognitive development.

Nativist theories- innate structures in individual domains triggered by environment, internal brain maturation= development . domain specific Starting state nativism, born with some things learn others, develop through environmental exposure, nurture and domain general. Paiget- constructivist, domain general and more nurture.- sensory-motor: active exploration of the world (object permanence, pretense/ play, means-end behavior), pre-operational stage (focus of single relation/ fail conservation tasks, egocentric), concrete operations (no abstract reasoning, class inclusion, conservation, causal knowledge, categorization), formal operations (age 13, ability to form hypotheses). Information processing- broad info processing accounts for cognitive development, limited my information processing abilities- more nativist and domain general Theory theory- children are born with theories/ representations that change through exposure development= theory change -paradigm shift. Constructivist and domain specific

6) Describe an experiment that shows that infants can segment objects through static perceptual information. Define the static perceptual information infants are using in the experiment you present.

Needham et al (1997): Studied 8 mo. old infants; presented display containing blue, rectangular wooden box and yellow plastic slinky; objects are presented together. Then objects are moved both apart and together. Violation of expectation (looking longer) results when objects move together ... Needham went on to argue that ability to segregate objects based on static perceptual information was innate; - infants are using shape (rectangular v. circular), texture (smooth of rectangle, and slinky craziness), and color, and material: wooden v. plastic

27) What was Onishi and Baillargeon's (2005) experiment on infants' understanding of false belief? Why do infants perform as they do on this experiment, but do not succeed on some false belief tasks (like the candles-crayon box task) until they are age 4? (Hint: there is no right answer to this question - pick a side and support your answer the best you can).

Onishi and Baillargeon (2005): - person places watermelon in a green box. There are 4 conditions: True Belief green/yellow and False belief green/yellow. - TB green condition: yellow box shown to be empty -- person knows where watermelon is in TB - TB yellow condition: watermelon moved to yellow box in front of person - FB green: watermelon moved to yellow box when person not watching -- person does not know where watermelon is in FB --- in all trials the infants (15 mo/olds) knew what the mental state of the person was... looked longer when reaching was inconsistent with their mental state whether that was TB or FB - Was important study bc said that maybe the challenge with the candles-crayon box task is the language... this shows FB understanding in under 2 y/o!

31) Describe an experiment that suggests there is a development in infants' category judgments between birth and 6-months-old. Make sure to include a discussion of what might be developing.

Quinn et al (2001) studied the categorization abilities of infants; tested using shapes; categorization abilities include: distinguish between categories; distinguish within categories; and generalize (similar treatment of category members); both perceptual and conceptual strategies for categorization... perceptual is based on external features and conceptual is based on mental representations - Quinn habituated newborns to a triangle and then tested preferential looking at same triangle or novel square... infants preferred novel square meaning they could tell the difference, between-category differentiation - Quinn then habituated two groups (infants and 3-4 mo.olds) to categories of shapes (6 of each)... then tested new exemplar from old category vs. new category ... so all novel... - newborns looked equally long at both objects (no ability to generalize) - 3-4 mo. olds looked longer at the new category exemplar (ability to generalize). - exception: when crosses were the habituation stimulus, newborns do show discrimination - So basically newborns may be able to differentiate between categories but not yet show generalization abilities

34) Throughout the semester I have suggested that data can be interpreted differently by different theories. Provide an example. Pick any experiment we have discussed in class or in the reading during the semester and explain how two different theories of cognitive development would explain those data. Use empirical evidence to support your answer.

Quinn et al. (2001)- can distinguish between categories (square and triangles), can distinguish within a category (dashed v solid triangles) can not generalize- (could not tell the difference between a novel shape from a familiar category and a novel shape from a novel category) - could tell if familiarized with 6 members of the cross family- tell open and closed - Nativists would say that the infants are born with generalization ability but are limited by perceptual systems. - A theory theory believer would say that infants cannot generalize because they rely on their perceptual system had not get developed and changed to include generalization. -conceptual development

5) What is Rovee-Collier's mobile experiment? What was it trying to study? How did it go about accomplishing this goal? What conclusions can be drawn from using this procedure?

Rovee-Collier (1987): studied infants ability to form contingent understandings and also their memory of continent relationships; put babies in crib w/ interesting mobile and ribbon tied to foot. Thus kicking of foot caused mobile to move. ... tested how long infants will remember this asociation; - found that 2 mo/olds remember association for 1 day (kicking immediately resumes when infants are placed in crib w/ mobile) - the range of delay to remember association increases with age of baby: at 6 mo, delay can last 2 weeks.. - also at all ages infants were able to remember association for longer when they were "reminded" via jiggling of the mobile ... "reactivation" - conclusions drawn include that infants as young as 2 mo. are able to form an understanding about a contingent relationship and that they possess memory capacities to remember this association

29) In class, we discussed distinct Piagetian substages of the Sensory-Motor stage regarding object permanence. What are they? Describe (in terms of task performance) what is occurring during each substage that is relevant to object permanence.

Sensory-motor- active exploration of objects under covers 1-2: 0-4 mo- search for interesting objects under covers --> no reaching 3: 4-8mo --> reaching for objects when cover is transparent, but no permanence ... do not reach when cover is opaque 4: 8-12mo A-not-B error 5: 12-15mo... multiple displacements error.. when they don't find an object they know exists, they give up 6: emergence of pretense; success on multiple displacements and A-not-B and reaching under opaque! End of sensory-motor stage.

20) Describe one experiment from the Spelke et al. (1992) paper that suggests that infants' knowledge of objects in space is present at a very early age. Make sure to include what principle of object or spatial knowledge the experiment you are describing tests.

Spelke et al experiment focused on solidity and continuity in 3-4 mo/old infants - one of the experiments from Spelke et al (1992) studied understanding of solidity. - Infants were habituated to ball falling to the ground. and then shown 2 test events: ball falling and stopping at barrier (possible) or ball falling through barrier to original spot in habituation event (impossible) - infants looked longer at the impossible event, showing an understanding of solidity

7) True or False: At birth, infants' categorization abilities are based only on direct, observable perceptual features of objects. Describe an experiment that supports your answer. If you said true, make sure your experiment shows a developmental difference from perceptual to conceptual features. If you say false, make sure the experiment you describe really supports the idea that this is available at birth.

True. At birth, infants' categorization abilities are only based on direct, perceptual features of objects. Later we develop the ability to categorize as well based on conceptual features. - Quinn et al (2001) habituated newborns to a triangle and then observed infants dishabituated to novel square (shows between-category differentiation) - Quinn tested by habituating infants to multiple members of a category and then seeing whether they looked longer at new example from that category or novel shape from other category... 3-4 mo/olds looked longer at new category (this is conceptual features)... requires linking of shapes in mind ; newborns did not do this

24) What was Woodward's (1998) experiment on infants' understanding of intentional action? What conclusions can you make about infants' understanding of intentionality from these data?

Woodward (1998): - 2 objects on pedestals - 5 mo-olds were habituated to a human hand reaching in for one of the two objects (say a teddy bear) - then the two object locations are switched - one possible event is the New Path event in which hand reaches for same thing but in diff. path (shows intention/goal-directed reaching) - other event is New Object event in which hand reaches for object in same place as other desirable object (spatio-temporal similarity, but not goal-directed understanding) - 5 mo/olds dishabituate to New Object and not New Path --> understand actions as intentional! - not true for a mechanical hand, occupational therapy claw, or gloved hand, or upside down hand --> something special about human hand reaching as we expect it to reach

40) Describe any experiment on infants' (younger than 18 months) developing social cognition that shows a link between the infants' own behavior and their performance on a violation of expectation or other looking-time measure. What do these data mean for a theory of cognitive development?

Woodward 1998- 5 mo old- habituated hand reaching for teddy bear. New path to teddy bear or new goal by reaching for ball. Disshabituated to new goal not new path. Did not work for claw, Michael Jackson glove, or upside down hand. 3 mo olds disshabituated to new path unless they played with sticky mittens first. Infants learn from exposure. Infants learn through experience

39) Define goal-directed action. Describe experiments that suggest infants understand others' goal directed action and evaluate the goodness of others' goal directed action in different ways. Why might there be a lag between one and the other?

Woodward's (1998) 5 mo old- habituated hand reaching for teddy bear. New path to teddy bear or new goal by reaching for ball. Disshabituated to new goal not new path. Did not work for claw, Michael Jackson glove, or upside down hand. - 3 mo olds disshabituated to new path unless they played with sticky mittens first. Infants learn from exposure. - Kuhlmeier et al (2003)- the circle approaches the good triangle or the bad square infants preffer the good triangle at 12 months. Have to assign the the other things emotions as well as metal states- more complicated social cognition ... social requires time to learn (?)

18) Describe Wynn's (1992) experiment on infants' ability to add and subtract.

Wynn (1992): asked question about whether infants can perform very simple addition and subtraction arithmetic such as 1+1 and 2-1? - 5 mo/olds were shown a single object such as a sheep and then a screen was lowered. A second sheep was then added. Test events were screen lifting to show 1 or 2 sheep. 5 mo/olds looked longer at the 1 sheep. - Also showed knowledge of 2-1 - Wynn concludes that infants represent precise quantites w/ arithmetic - however, criticism has been raised that most trials of Wynn's experiment only supported idea that infants may understand adding results in bigger quantity and subtracting results in smaller quantity

19) Describe Wynn's (1990, 1992) Give-N task. What do the results of this study say about children's understanding of number?

Wynn looked at children (2-3 y/o) ability to attach number understandings to quantities of objects, as distinct from ability to count. - Give-N task involves experimenter saying "Give me 1 panda!" "Give me 2 pandas" and seeing how many the child gives - Found that by 2.5 - 3 years, infants could produce 1 object, but usually not larger than 1. - From then on as children get older, there are different stages of "knowers" such as 2 "knowers" who can correctly produce both 1 and 2 objects - This study shows that ability to count (ordered list) is different than a rigorous enough understanding of number quantities needed to produce a specific amount - this develops slowly such that even some 3 year olds, cannot correctly produce 2 objects

10) What does it mean for infants to recognize correlations among features of objects? Describe an experiment suggesting that this ability develops during the first year of life. How does this development relate to infants' categorization abilities - specifically, whether infants' categorization is based on perceptual or conceptual features of objects?

Younger (1992): - Showed 7- and 10- mo/olds pictures of fictional animals - animals made up based on varying 5 attributes - two features are correlated (always together) and the others are random - after a fixed habituation time, children are shown: 1) novel animal that obeys correlation, 2) novel animal that disobeys correlation, and 3) novel animal with totally new features - Younger found that both age groups dishabituated to 3) --> this was the control - 7 mo/olds remained habituated to 1 and 2... did not recognize the correlation - 10 mo/olds dishabituated to 2, but not 1,.... shows ability to recognize correlations - Recognizing correlations means ability to detect patterns in the world around them and form expectations about what is plasubile and implausible based on those patterns - similar to categorization abilities... shows that infants are able not only to distinguish between two perceptually distinct things, but that they hold some type of mental representation about those things... with categorization this is the idea of the category and with Younger it is the concept of the expected correlation