Early Childhood Development of Object Concept.

University Degree Biological Sciences

Developmental Psychology I

PS1040B

Compulsory Coursework Essay

Year 1 Term 1

Candidate Number: 015820

Word Count: 1,568

Early Childhood Development of Object Concept

Piaget’s theory of sensori-motor development includes the development of object concept and is divided into six sub-stages that start at birth; his description of cognitive development in babies concentrates on physical reality. The first two sub-stages are reflexes and primary circular reactions. Piaget claims that the reflex stage lasts for six weeks and the infant’s connections with the environment are minimal and are only achieved through straightforward reflexes. The second stage, primary circular reactions, takes place between 6 weeks and 3 months. The infant is now able to coordinate a reflex with another action pattern for a particular goal. The baby is occupied with his own self, discovering ears that can hear, eyes that can see and arms that can reach and that these things can be done simultaneously.

Piaget’s theory has been extensively tested and it can be seen in a video recorded observation of a young child named Alex who is the subject of this observation and he is seen in four different segments, ranging from the age of 6 ½ months to 12½ months. Alex is held by his father and they are seated in front of a desk; keys are used as an object of interest for the child. Alex is 6½ months in the first segment and it is obvious that he has moved on from the second sub-stage and he is now aware of objects in his immediate environment. Alex reaches for the keys and touches them first with his fingers and then grasps them in his palm. This action seems to be very imprecise and it is obvious that his sensori-motor functions are, as yet undeveloped. He rattles the keys with obvious interest, seen in the repetition of this action. A cloth is introduced and Alex is only able to retrieve the keys when they are still partially visible under the cloth; he does this by focusing on the cloth, moving it, and then focusing on the keys and picking them up. When the cloth is completely covering the keys Alex is unable to retrieve them. He stares blankly at the cloth, not realising that his inability to see them does not mean they are not there.

Here Alex is clearly in Piaget’s third sub-stage, secondary circular reactions; this is where primary circular reactions become mutually integrated so the baby has concurrent control over different sensori-motor subsystems. There is a hierarchical assimilation of the action patterns developed so far. These reactions are ended once the goal has been reached. The baby makes accidental discoveries and then repeats them, which is shown in Alex’s behaviour with the keys. He picks them up, shakes them, realise they make an interesting sound and continues. This implies recognition through action and may be the beginnings of memory. Piaget claims however, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In the second segment of the video Alex is 7½ months. Alex is now more able to grasp the keys with his hands and his aim for them is more precise; his interest in the keys themselves also appears to be more focused. When the cloth is introduced Alex removes the cloth and retrieves the keys; this is done with more coordination than in the first stage when the keys were partially hidden. However when the keys are placed under a second cloth Alex looks under the original cloth, despite the fact that this action was carried out in front of him.

According to Piaget’s theory Alex should still be in the third sub-stage at 7½ months but he appears to have moved on to the fourth stage, coordinated secondary circular reactions, which should start from 9 months. This stage involves the secondary circular reactions becoming hierarchically incorporated among themselves. The baby can now arrange sequences of actions as a means to an end dealing with the consequences of more than one action at a time. This is seen when Alex reaches to remove the cloth and then subsequently reaches for the keys. The action pattern does not end when the goal has been reached; the baby continues in a goal-directed action pattern. Despite the differences between stages three and four there is still no object permanence and infants make errors while searching. These errors are known as “A and B” errors, “stage IV” errors or “perserverative” errors and they are shown in Alex’s behaviour towards the second cloth. When the keys were placed under a different cloth Alex looked for them under the original one. This error demonstrates that a baby views an object as an extension of action. Piaget claimed that the baby learns a workable procedure for making objects reappear and cannot understand that an object is unique and can only be in one place at a time. The baby thinks that their actions lead directly to the reappearance of the object. Although at only 7½ months Alex is younger than Piaget’s theory suggests a child at stage four should be, there is an obvious distinction between Alex’s actions in segment one and two of the video. The ages suggested by Piaget are only rough guides; there would obviously be some cases where a child would develop sooner or later than the prescribed time.

In segment three of the video Alex is 8 ½ months and he has better control over his ability to pick up the keys, which he does more quickly and less awkwardly. When the cloth is placed over the keys, instead of removing the cloth and then picking up the keys, Alex seems to be more focused in his goal. He pulls away the cloth, showing it minimal attention, immediately retrieving the keys. As in the second segment of the video, Alex makes a perserverative error when a second cloth is introduced and he is unable to understand that the keys are not under the original cloth. Alex appears to still be in Piaget’s fourth stage at 8½ months.

In segment four of the video Alex is 12½ months and viewing the whole procedure as more of a game. He has better control over reaching and he handles the keys in a more effortless way, playing with them rather than just holding or shaking them. The keys are covered; he uncovers them and then covers them back up again himself. He is fully aware that the keys are under the cloth but he seems more intrigued as to why. He also drops the keys on the floor. When the second cloth is introduced, Alex recognises that the keys are under that one and not the original. He does not directly retrieve the keys however; firstly he lifts up the cloth slightly, sees the keys and puts the cloth back down, he then lifts up the original cloth and observes that they are not under there as well. The next test involved the keys being placed under a cloth with the second cloth next to it. The positions of the cloths were then switched so that the keys are under the same cloth but on the opposite side. Alex was unable to work out that this exchange took place and looked under the cloth on the side where the keys were originally placed.

According to Piaget’s theory Alex was discovering a new means to an end in problem solving and he has therefore reached stage five, Tertiary circular reactions, which starts from 12 months and ends at 18. The baby will try to make an interesting event last longer but they also change certain features of the event so that they can gain a better understanding. This was seen by Alex’s behaviour as he experimented with hiding and uncovering the keys and when he dropped the keys on the floor. The baby actively experiments at this stage and by a process of trial and error has worked out that to find an object they should start from where it was last seen rather than first found. Although Alex mastered this trick he was unable to realise that the object was completely independent of action and he still made a perserverative error when the keys places were exchanged and as he lifted the original cloth to check that there were not two sets of keys. He was unable to see the keys only the cloths; this conforms to Piaget’s predictions as he claims that babies understand object permanence only to the extent where they can keep track of the movements of a visible object.

Piaget’s theory seems to have predicted Alex’s behaviour with great accuracy. However Alex seemed to spontaneously progress to some stages in a short period of time while other stages took longer to reach; Piaget does not explain why this occurs.

For sub-stage six of Piaget’s theory, representation, object permanence is reached and an object retains its identity despite any action the infant may carry out. Piaget’s theory provides a good explanation for the development of object permanence as it spans through the whole of infancy and the actions the infants, like those described here, clearly display the progression towards the final stage.

There are however problems with Piaget’s theory. Bower (1971) found that a 3-month-old baby showed ‘surprise’, as indicated by its heart rate, when a moving object failed to reappear when passed behind a screen. This shows that babies have a concept of objects even when they are out of sight. Bowser’s work, which is based on, the Belgian psychologist Michotte (1881-1965), shows how a baby can see an object as only being temporarily occluded rather than annihilated from existence. This does not support Piaget’s work. Diamond (1988) demonstrated how perservative errors occur more when the time between hiding the object and retrieval is extended. However the older the child the longer this time can be extended without this type of error. It is clear however that there is a tendency to make errors in visible displacement tasks and babies do seem to pass through this stage. Piaget’s theory provides a good heuristic background for the development of object permanence and despite some flaws has been the background to most of our understanding and research behind this concept.

References

Bower, T.G.R. (1971). The object in the world of an infant. Scientific American, 225, 31-38

Buttersworth, G. & Harris, m. (1994). Principles of developmental psychology. Hove: Erlbaum (Chapters 5 & 6).

Diamond, A (1998). Differences between adult and infant cognition: Is the crucial variable presence or absence of language? In L. Weikrantz (Ed.), Thought without language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.