Research on Piagets Developmental Psychology Theory

Research on Piagets Developmental Psychology TheoryThe great contribution of Jean Piaget on learningal psychology is undoubtedly. However, in the late(prenominal) 30 years, there are a number of study criticism his suggestion, which the sister younger than six months do not view as the permanent target area concept. What follows is a discussion of examining when babe would subscribe to determination concept. First, it will explain the proposition of Piaget on this topic. Then, it will examine Bowers study which challenges and questions Piagets claim of the object concept. After that, it will focus on Baillargeons study and assemble out the flaw and weakness of her study by antithetical recent research. Finally, it will draw a conclusion on the topic.In 60s, Jean Piaget suggested the theory of cognitive development. In Piaget (1963), he started to investigate the age when the babes acquire object permanence. He considers object permanence as the most vital accomplishments . This concept makes human can separate different objects and know permanent world of an object (Piaget, 1963). Which mean under the object concept human could understand each object is unitary entities and exist independently of three both(prenominal) party actions (Piaget, 1963). Piaget suggested that infant younger than 8 month still did not acquire the object permanence concept (Piaget, 1963). In these infants mind, an object out of can is out of mind. Piaget thought that 48 months infant start to develop a object concept slowly and gradually on this stage. Also, during this stage they are having a transition from egocentric (just using self-to-object view) to allocentric (could use object-to-object view) (Piaget, 1963). The main changes in this transition is that the infant start to use a viewpoint of a third person or object and seen themselves as an independent object.In Piagets Blanket and Ball Study, he put a toy under a blanket, meanwhile the infant can watch the whole process (Piaget, 1977). Then observe infant searched for the hidden toy or not. This experiment, Piaget define that if the infant succeeds to break out the hidden toy, then it was an evidence of object permanence (Piaget, 1977). Since he assumed that only the infant had a mental representation can search for a hidden toy. In the gist, he found that infant around 8-months-old succeeds to search for the hidden toy (Piaget, 1977). Finally, he concludes that infant around 8 months acquired object permanence, imputable to they can form a mental representation of the object in their brain.Although Piagets research got a high level of reliability (Harris, 1987), there is a lack of explanation for why the rest of infant (before 8 month) fails in the experiment (Mehler Dupoux, 1994). Diamond (1988) found that the prefrontal cortex of human is related to keeping representation in memory and motor response. Base on this finding, Mehler Dupoux (1994) suggested that the infants who fail to search imply rather than the absence of an object concept. They may have an inability to coordinate the movements. Which mean if the research becomes a task that without complex motor demands, it may examine object permanence in the infant who younger than 8 months more accurately. In the study of Bower (1966 1967), he has used a violation of expectation (VOE) paradigm to examine it. Bower gave object occlusion and happen upon casefuls in infant to watch. Some of them were come-at-able (object slowly hidden by another) and some im assertable (object slowly dissolving) (Bower, 1966). Bower through measure the changes in core group rate of infant to indicate the differences of their reaction to two events. Then through the response to infer a degree of object permanence in octad weeks old infant. However, there had a confounding depression of novelty in infant which the researcher was not noticed before the experiment (Bower, 1967). As the effect, infant just interest in the possible event not impossible event. Whereas the confounding factor, it could not draw any interpretation from the data but it construct a VOE experimental framework to the latter study.After that Bower, Broughton and Moore (1971) kept investigating the topic by using steering tasks to 20 week-old infants. They leaded the infant track a moving object and recorded the result as it approached and passed behind a blocker. They found that the gaze of infants were disrupted when after the object pass through the blocker and switch to a different one. It implied that infants have an expectation of the original object would emerge again but disrupts by the experiment. In the other word, a 20 week-old infants may also have ability of object permanence and persistent internal representation. Their finding totally contradicted to Piaget theory.After on, Bower and Wishart (1972) used 20 week-old infants again to take part in the experiment which leaded the infants track the object and it wil l occlude, darkening the room. The result showed the infants continued to track for the object on the trajectory. It supported the result of Bower et al (1971) and continues challenging Piagets belief.In 80s, a researcher Baillargeon done a series of studies and experiment to criticize Piagets theory. Baillargeon, Spelke and Wasserman (1985) utilize VOE within a habituation method to examine infants mental ability. Habituation is assumed to count as the infants start flavor away due to loss of interest. Two equivalent interrogatory events are shown to them based on the first habituation event. One was consistent with object properties (the possible event), and the other one was not (the impossible event) (Baillargeon et al, 1985). It is vital to note that they also assumed different degrees of dishabituation were indicated by the length of looking time between the test events. Then, of degrees of dishabituation to infer about infants object concept.Baillargeon et al (1985) constru cted a drawbridge study to test the 5 months old infants. For the habituation event, the drawbridge rotated through one hundred eighty itself. In the test event, a coloured block was placed behind the drawbridge, then, the drawbridge rotated backward to the block. For the possible event, the drawbridge normally stopped at a place which the block supported it. For the impossible event, the drawbridge continue to rotate and pass through the space that occupied by the block. For these events, the drawbridge at long last rotate reversed to its original position. In their finding, a youngest 14 week infants had a longer looking time at the impossible event (Baillargeon et al, 1985). Furthermore, the result had appeared several times in the latter study and confirmed by using a variety of stimuli (Baillargeon 1986 Baillargeon Graber, 1987 Baillargeon DeVos, 1991). As above explain. Baillargeon using the dishabituation result on the impossible event to interpret infants were surprised b y the event and imply infants have an expectations about the normal rule of objects. Then, Baillargeon drew a conclusion that these inferences be infants have a permanent object concept which substantially earlier than 8 month (Piagets claim).However, there also lots of study found some flaw of Baillargeons study and criticise it. On the research of Bogartz, Shinskey and Speaker (1997), they found a confounding factor on Baillargeon Graber (1987) study, indicated there could have some missed stimulus features on infants gaze when habituating. As the consequence, it would increase the attraction of an impossible event and confound to the experimental result (Bogartz et al, 1997).Other criticisms about Baillargeons study suggest by Rivera, Wakeley and Langer (1999). They discovered that the habituation event and the impossible event of the Baillargeons drawbridge studies, both event were scored longer gazing time. They interpreted that infants just prefer the event which involveed m ore movement and that would gain more attention of infants (remark impossible event has 180 rotation and possible event only has 112) (Rivera et al, 1999).Also, Bogartz et al and Rivera et al both found the incompleteness of some VOE experimental designs which were replicating the VOE findings of (Wang, Baillargeon and Brueckners, 2004) were without habituation trials. They argued that it is important to complete a habituating events before scrutiny event to produce transient preferences.Furthermore, in the recent Baillargeons study, she acknowledged that her interpretation of her own VOE researches were having some flaw and may be plausible.Due to the development of science was progressing quickly, the method of measuring cognitive thinking also progressed which bring a severe challenge to Baillargeons inference. Schner and Thelen (2006) constructed the habituation and VOE task base on a dynamic orbit flummox. By their method, did not need to invoke any kind of symbolic mental r epresentation. They just utilized the dynamic field model on modelling Baillargeons drawbridge studies and VOE tasks and treated it as a series of perceptual events subject to basic habituation dynamics(Schner Thelen, 2006 p.289). They suggested that assumptions of Baillargeons VOE paradigms were misleading and oversimplify the dynamics of habituation in significant which mean there were many interactions of variables were not accounted. Such as they found an order effect on VOE experiment (done by Baillargeon, 1987) when presented the impossible stimulus in order of the second. Therefore it was unable to use Baillargeons study to interpret about infants object concept and acquire it at which stage.Although Schner and Thelens model seemto overturn the result of all pervious VOE studies, some point should be move over attention. First, at the very beginning the dynamic field model is just a mathematical abstraction and it originally was designed for measuring cognitive thinking. Se cond, when Schner and Thelen (2006) model Baillargeons study, they had assumed that the impossible event was more similar to the habituation event. Finally, they did not solve the problem of stimulus equivalence in VOE experiment.In this paper, it has explained how Piaget interprets infant cognitive thinking and how they perceive the world and how they process the visual information. Then, it examined the view of different developmental psychologist research, mainly from Bower and Baillargeon. Finally, through a modern perceptive of Schner Thelen criticise Baillargeons study. However, in the last this paper still cannot draw a conclusion about at what age the infant would acquire object concept. Since scientists still do not have a method that could directly read infants or humans mind. If the researcher continues using some indirect method such as habituation VOE and interpretation of infants object concept. There are usually having some flaw because in the process of interpreting , it may involve certain extend of guessing (e.g in Baillargeons drawbridge studies, she observed dishabituation, then she guessed the infant was surprised, then guessed infant big businessman have object concept.) Therefore, in this paper cannot find an exact answer to the topic question.ReferencesBaillargeon, R, Graber, M. (1987). Wheres the Rabbit? 5.5-Month-Old sisters Representations of the Height of a Hidden objective. Cognitive Development, 2, 375-392.Baillargeon, R. DeVos, J. (1991). Object Permanence in Young Infants Further Evidence. ChildDevelopment, 62, 1227-1246.Baillargeon, R. (1986). Representing the Existence and the Location of Hidden Objects Object Permanence in 6- and 8-Month-Old Infants. Cognition, 23, 21-41.Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E.S. Wasserman, S. (1985). Object Permanence in Five-Month-Old Infants. Cognition, 20, 191-208.Bogartz, R.S., Shinskey, J.L. Speaker, C.J. (1997). Interpreting Infant Looking The Event Set x Event Set Design. Developmental Psych ology, 33, 408-422.Bower, T.G.R. Wishart, J.G. (1972). The Effects of Motor Skill on Object Permanence. Cognition, 1, 165-172.Bower, T.G.R. (1966). The Visual World of Infants. scientific American, 215, 80-92.Bower, T.G.R. (1967). The Development of Object Permanence Some Studies of Existence Constancy. Perception Psychophysics, 2, 411-418.Bower, T.G.R., Broughton, J.M. Moore, M.K. (1971). Development of the Object Concept as Manifested in the Tracking Behaviour of Infants Between 7 and 20 Weeks of Age. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 182-193.Developmental Science, 12, 670-679.Diamond, A. (1988). Abilities and neural mechanisms underlying AB performance. Child Development, 523-527.Evidence from Violation of Expectation Tasks with Test Trials Only. Cognition, 23, 167-198.Harris, P.L. (1987). The Development of Search. In P.Salapatek L.B.Cohen (Eds.) Handbook ofInfant Perception. Vol. 2. modernistic York NY, Academic Press.Jackson, I. Sirois, S. (2009). Infant Cognition Going Full Factorial with Pupil Dilation.Mehler, J. Dupoux, E. (1994). What Infants Know The New Cognitive Science of Early Development. Oxford, Blackwell.Piaget, J. (1963). The Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, New tee shirt Littlefield Adams.Piaget, J. (1977). The role of action in the development of thinking (pp. 17-42). Springer US.Rivera, S.M., Wakeley, A. Langer, J. (1999). The Drawbridge Phenomenon Representational Reasoning or Perceptual Preference? Developmental Psychology, 35, 427-435.Schner, G. Thelen, E. (2006). Using dynamic Field Theory to Rethink Infant Habituation. Psychological Review, 113, 273-299.Wang, S-h., Baillargeon, R. Brueckner, L. (2004). Young Infants Reasoning About Hidden Objects