Methods
Sameer, an 18 month old male infant, was the key participant in the experiment. I performed the experiment around 5 PM, after Sameer had eaten and taken a nap, allowing him to be energetic and joyful throughout the experimental period. Conducted in a familiar environment, I hoped to achieve optimal results, for the child wouldn’t feel uncomfortable. Sameer’s room seemed to be the perfect place for that, even though it was filled with stimulating toys he could play with. To solve this problem, I brought in an unfamiliar red toy car, about six inches long, and tried the experiment again with an average size stuffed tiger. Performing the average “A not B” procedure, I specifically tested for invisible displacement errors. In the first step, I just tested to check if Sameer could simply retrieve the object in the “A” position, and tried it three times. In the next step, I switched the object into the “B” position with Sameer’s knowledge, and in the last step I switched the position of the object without Sameers knowledge, attempting each step three times. I hid the object being tested underneath two pieces of felt, in addition to throwing them under the bed in his room, and even the blanket.
Results
While conducting the experiment, I noticed that Sameer found the object I hid every time. I waited about five minutes in between each trial, and let Sameer play with object in his room other than those that I had added. The infant surpassed in each trial; even when I threw the toy off the bed, he attempted to find it. Throughout the majority of the experiment, Sameer was interested, but it became clear that he was getting bored around the third trial. At that time, he even kept the toy car from me, because he knew I would take it away and hide it again. At that time, I switched the object and began to use a tiger, which he referred to as “doggie.” At the end of the three trials, I was about to leave the room, and Sameer dragged me back in his room. I thought he wanted the toys back, but in actuality, he began testing me, getting frustrated every time I refused to find the object. I finally understood what he was doing, and allowed him to test me. He followed my step exactly in order, acting similar, and curious as though he was a “curious scientist.”
Discussion
According to the results acquired in the above experiment, the research illustrates that Sameer falls between the last substage of the sensorimotor period, where the child uses mental combination, and the beginnings of the preoperational stage. I trust that Sameer is ahead of others in his age group, for he conquered the invisible displacement error tests, tested to see if he could retrieve an object if he didn’t see where it was placed. Along with this, Sameer was able to apply my experiment to his own understanding when he tested me near the end of the trials. Since Sameer was able to fully master object permanence, I believe he didn’t not fit the theoretical perspective of Piaget, and behaved at a level that was far more advanced than Piaget theorized. This could be a result of his stimulating environment, along with his access to children above his age to play with, like cousins who live across the street. With peers to play with, Sameer has been able to develop his mental skills at a fascinating rate, far ahead of what Piaget suspected. Other factors that could have accounted to the differences between the results of this study and that of Piaget’s discoveries include experimenter errors and the child’s enthusiasm to play with new toys.
Supplemental Introduction
Supplemental Methods Section
Tested in A, checked to see if he could retrieve
Tested in A, then switched to B, checked to see if he could retrieve
Tested in A, then switched to B without child’s knowledge, checked again
Repeated with different toy, did three trials total
Supplemental Results Section
