PSYA3 Cognitive [in progress]

PSYA3 – Cognition and development:

Cognition and Development SpecDevelopment of thinking

• Theories of development: Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner• Applications of these theories to education

Development of moral understanding

• Theories of moral understanding (Kohlberg) and/or prosocial reasoning (Eisenberg)

Development of social cognition

• Development of child’s sense of self (theory of mind) – Baron-Cohen• Development of children’s understanding of others, including perspective (Selman)• Biological explanations of social cognition, including the role of the mirror neuron system

Definitions:Word Definition

Schema Cluster of related facts based on previous experiences, used to create future expectations/A hypothetical mental construct that contains your knowledge about a specific topic. E.g. gender

Assimilation (links to equilibrium) Process of fitting new experiences into existing schemas without making a change (Piaget)

Accommodation Adjusting/changing a schema to fit new conflicting information (otherwise a disequilibrium is created)

Disequilibrium Confusion between existing schemas and new experiences

Equilibrium A balance between existing schemas and new experiences

Trial and error Trying something multiple times til you get it right

Word Definition

Cognitive development Development of thought processes

Constructivist Knowledge is developed/built up over time

Object permanence Whether something disappears when it is hidden, or not

Conservation Ability to understand concepts like mass, weight, volume, area

Egocentrism Not aware of other people’s perspectives

Laboratory experiment Studies conducted in a lab study with controlled variables

Investigator bias Beliefs of the investigator skews research

Demand characteristics When ppts act differently as they predict what the researcher is looking for

Example:Jack knows that he can put the green

triangle shape into the triangle shape in his wooden shape sorter. When he is given a different coloured triangle shape he can make it fit into the triangle shape. However, when he is given a green square shape, he can’t fit it in the triangle shaped hole. He gets frustrated, but keeps on playing and eventually manages to fit the shape into the square hole.

Schema

AssimilationCausing equilibrium

Disequilibrium

Trial and error

Accommodation

Problems with using children in

research

Children may not fully understand questions (extraneous variables)

Reductionist – Only cognitive?

Ethical issues: Consent – depends on age of

kids

Social desirability bias – act in a certain way to please researcher?

If children don’t understand, reliability and validity is reduced

Ethical issues: Protection from harm – being studied at such a young age could impact future

Interviewer bias e.g. Piaget who studies his

own kids!!

Demand characteristics – less relevant with really

young kids

Piaget:

Theories of development – Piaget:

Jean Piaget (1896-1980):- Biologist (objective methods/tests)- Combines both nature & nurture- He believes you have to have a

developed brain (more holistic)- Constructivist (develop thoughts

through construction of schemas)- Studied kiddies- Differs from Vygotsky as Piaget

believes that DEVELOPMENT proceeds learning, whereas Vygotsky believed the opposite

Piaget’s stages of cognitive development:

Refuting research for Piaget’s stage 1:

Hood and Willats (1986):• Lab study • Testing object permanence in kids• Five-month-old infants shown an

object (either on left or right); their arms were held down, lights were switched off

• Kids were more likely to reach out to the side the object was shown

Evaluation:• Ethical issues:

- informed consent- Protection from harm

Object permanence developed earlier than Piaget suggested

Deterministic – individual differences not considered

Lab study:- Objective, quantitative Lacks eco validity

Research for stage 2 – Piaget & three mountains, Hughes (1975)

Piaget:Used three mountains and a

doll.Researchers asked the child

to say what perspective the doll would have whilst looking at the mountains

The child was only able to give their own perspective

Hughes (1975):Claimed that if the task

was more realisticSuch as a naughty boy doll

hiding from a policeman

The children would be able to give the perspective of the policeman

Research for stage 3 – Piaget:

- Children under 7 were not able to understand that volume didn’t change if the container of liquids changed

- Children above 7 were able to do this

Research for stage 4 – Piaget and Inhelder (1958):

- Used a pendulum problem to test whether children would be able to devise an experiment to test 3 variables of the pendulum

- Their findings supported Piaget’s stage 4

- Dasen (1994): Claims only a third of adults only ever reach this stage, and even then, not during adolescence.

Summary of stages:

Evaluation of Piaget:

Objective :- Based on scientific research which is replicable, and

scientific and stuff- Piaget’s research was conducted on lab studies,

therefore variables are controlled, and more likely to be replicated

- If consistent results are achieved, it could also be deemed reliable

- However, since Hood and Willat refuted Piaget… It’s probably not that reliable.

Evaluation of Piaget:Deterministic :- Idea that behaviour is predetermined- Shown through the stages of behaviour- Refuted by Hood and Willats (1986) as

children had found object permanence by 5 months rather than 0-2 years

- Links to Kohlberg


Ecological validity :- Whether or not the study is applicable outside of

the experiment- Piaget’s studies were conducted in labs, which

may not be applicable to real life- ‘Supporting research’ such as that by Hood and

Willats (1986)- It could also be argued that these lab studies may

have provided uncomfortable places for kids…


Ethical issues :- Such as informed consent/protection from harm- Studies carried out on children who may not have

been able to give informed consent- Further evidence by Hood and Willat (1986) may

also have not considered from protection from harm, as 5-month old infants had their arms pinned down in the dark (scary!)

- However, lab studies are good, because of objectivity…

Vygotsky:

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) – died young:

• Russian psychological• Theorist (never conducted studies)• Social constructivist (learning from

others through society)• Differs from Piaget who says you

learn through own experiences (trial and error)

• Importance of language, culture, and social interaction

Vygotsky’s theory of proximal development:

• Baby starts off being able to do simplistic tasks, such as: babbling, eating with fingers, but they’re dressed by others etc

• Which then become more complex as full potential is reached, where babbling becomes talking, and they begin to be able to use cutlery and stuff.

• Pass from CURRENT ABILITY -> POTENTIAL, by passing through the ‘zone of proximal development’

So, Vygotsky basically said…

• Learning proceeds development• We learn through tasks.• If they’re too easy, we find them boring, but if

they’re too hard, they’re frustrating.• The ZPD shows the tasks that are only JUST out

of our reach, however with encouragement and guidance from someone else we can do it.

• Similar to Piaget, both of them believe children learn through their environment

Nunes (1992):

• Vygotsky said cognitive development was supported by context/culture

• Study involving Brazillian street children (Nunes)

• They had no formal schooling• Learnt numeracy skills which

were ‘internalised’ by working with adults

Nunes (1992) AO2:

Supports Vygotsky because the children were able to learn from only working with adults

Street children, may not be generalisable

Ethnocentric (Brazil)Hard to replicate due to

EVs (lack of control) therefore reduced reliability

ObservationEcological validityNaturalistic

Wood and Middleton (1975):

• 12 mothers, asked to teach 4 year old children how to do a jigsaw

• Teaching session was observed and recorded

• Support by mothers was categorised into 5 groups (from hands-on help, to verbal help)

• Most successful were mothers who adapted their guidance depending on the needs of the child

• i.e. Stepped up when needed help & backed off when they didn’t

Wood and Middleton AO2: Supports Vygotsky in that

the mother is giving enough guidance for the child to move the ‘puzzle-doing ability’ to move through the ZPD, but continues to allow the child to do it at it’s own pace so it doesn’t get bored. But the mother also doesn’t take over completely, because that would frustrate the child.

Conducted in own home (good) but mum’s may get social desirability bias

Small sample size (though the aim wasn’t to be able to generalise)

Observational – detailed data Recorded (can watch back) Qualitative, but categories

make it quantitative No ethical issues (not

stressful) Lab study

Evaluation of Vygotsky:

Subjective:- Vygotsky was a theorist which means that he

didn’t conduct any experiments of his own- However, was because language and thoughts are

difficult to study empirically- Contrasts Piaget that had lots of research- Which means Piaget is more likely to be

quantitative and reliable


Application to real life:- His theories can be used in practical ways like

in education- Could be used in classrooms, where older

students could teach the less-able students - It’s also good because it considers individual

differences to an extent…


Individual differences:- Looks at uniqueness of individuals- Looked at various cultures- Such as Nunes (1992) with his Brazillian street

children who learned numeracy skills- Contrasts standard classroom teaching- But increases the generalisability of

Vygotskian theory


• Supporting research - Wood and Middleton (1975):

• Their study suggests that children do indeed learn through their environment by the help of their mothers

• This supports the idea that learning proceeds development also as children are taught how to do the puzzle by their caregivers so that they can then internalise the behaviour and be able to do it themselves

• PIAGET SAID THAT BEHAVIOUR PROCEEDS LEARNING

• PBL

• VYGOTSKY SAID THAT LEARNING PROCEEDS BEHAVIOUR

• VLB

Application to education:

Piaget theory to education:

Maturation: Child learns through self-exploration and discovery. It’s all about their own rate of exploration.

‘Child as a scientist’

Piaget – application to education:

Readiness:• Influenced how children

were taught• ‘Concrete’ thinking subjects

from 7-11, best suited for project-work

• ‘Abstract’ thinking subjects (chemistry/physics) introduced later

Discovery learning:• Children being able to

explore themselves and manipulate materials, such as sand and water

• (like when you’re a bubba and you build sandcastles and stuff)

Supporting and refuting Piaget…

Plowden Report (HMSO 1967):• Seeing children as

individuals requiring different attention

• Teacher helps them based on their own ability

Piaget’s theories are also applicable to erryday life

Sylva (1987):

• Argued that discovery learning is not always the best way

Vygotsky’s theory to education:

Zone of Proximal Development: The things that we cannot achieve on our own and we need guidance to learn it. If we have help, then we can move things out of our ZPD as we learn them.

‘Child as an apprentice’

Vygotsky – Application to education:

Scaffolding:• Language is well important• At first you imitate adults, without

understanding• Then there’s self guidance where

the child begins to understand and then…

• Internalisation occurs, where the child understand

• Teacher provides the scaffolding for learning, which can then be ‘removed’ when the child has learned and passed through the ZPD

Peer mentoring:• Older child works with a

younger child to assist learning

Supporting Vygotsky – Tzuriel and Shamir (2007):

• In Israel, year 1 kids paired with year 3 kids• 89 in each year• Year 3 taught year 1 to use a multimedia

computer programme• It was found to benefit both children• Most beneficial when there was a mismatch

between cognitive development

Vygotsky doesn’t consider all societies – Stigler and Perry (1990):

• Looking at relevance of Vygotsky’s work to both constructivist and individualist societies

• Believed that his theory is more suited to constructivist cultures

• Stigler and Perry compared American and Asian schools

• They found that Asian schools were taught maths more effectively using group work, than individualist American classes

Development of moral understanding:

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development:

Participants were presented a series of moral dilemmas such as the Heinz scenario. From this, Kohlberg developed his theory of morality.

Kohlberg - (1963, 1978):

The Heinz Dilemma:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a rare kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?" (Kohlberg, 1963).

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development stages:

Supporting – Kohlberg (1968):

A – Investigate how morality is developedP – 75 boys (5-17), longitudinal, USA (Also,

Taiwan, Mexico and other cultures… Making it cross-sectional), used the Heinz dilemma along with others

F – Developed the 6 stages of moral development (pre-, conventional, post-)

C – There are sequential stages of the development of morality

Evaluating Kohlberg (1968):

• Cross-sectional (different people from different cultures being compared)

• Longitudinal (lots of research)

• Used his own research to produce the theory

• Deterministic• Androcentric• Hypothetical moral

dilemmas may not have mundane realism

A02 Androcentrism - Gilligan (1994):

• Claimed it may not be generalisable to females• She used quasi-research (natural) on women &

their views on abortion • 29 women (aged 15-33)• Gilligan believed… Girls = more caring, • Boys = believe more in justice (Link to ES theory

by Baron-Cohen, 2002)• Kohlberg failed to distinguish between genders,

therefore validity and reliability is questionable.

AO2 Ecological validity – Moral thinking vs. Behaviour:

• Kohlberg may not have ecological validity because he uses hypothetical moral dilemmas where people may think they will act different to how they actually might.

• Also, it could be affected by social desirability bias.

AO2 Cultural relativism – Snarey (1985):

• Meta-analysis of 45 cross-cultural studies (may not have internal validity as methods used may be different)

• 27 different countries• Used MJI (measurement of morality)• Found trend to SUPPORT KOHLBERG• Highest level of post-conventional were in industrialised

societies Supported by Colby et al (1983) Supported by Gibbs et al (2007) using 75 cross-cultural

studies in 23 countries

AO2 Determinism – Dunn and Brown (1994):

• Deterministic sequential stages were refuted by Dunn and Brown who found that…

• Children began to develop morality at 2• Using naturalistic observations Research is observational, may be more

ecologically valid than Kohlberg’s hypothetical moral dilemmas

Development of social cognition:

SENSE OF SELF

Key terms for social cognition:

• Social cognition – How people process social information, especially its encoding, storage, retrieval, and application to social situations

• Biological psychology – Psychology based on brain damage, genetics, biochemistry. It uses lab studies and objective methods to conduct empirical experiments to obtain results

Focussing on 3 areas:

1. Self awareness - Knowing that you are separate from other people, and have your own identity (Tested by Lewis and Brook-Gunn)

2. Theory of Mind – Understanding that other people have different thoughts and feelings to your own. No longer egocentric. Develops at 4 years. Tested by false belief tasks. (Tested by Wimmer and Perner)

3. Theory of Mind (autism) – Also says that ToM develops around the age of 4 (Tested by Baron-Cohen)

Self awareness (sense of self): Lewis and Brooks-Gunn ‘Rouge Test’ (1979):

• Dot placed on child’s head• Younger children do not make the connection between their reflection

and themselves• After around 18 months, the child has the ability to recognise

themselves• IV = age DV = Recognition USA Lab study Overt obs.

Lewis and Brook-Gunn’s - AO2

Lab study

Children less likely to be affected by demand characteristics

Ecological validity may be lacking as it was a conducted in a laboratory study (their own home, yet it would be different when being observed etc)

Cultural relativism – some cultures may be less likely to look in mirrors than others

Theory of Mind:

• Theory of mind (ToM) – First thought to begin around the age of 3 or 4. Children can use words like ‘think’ or ‘know’ when describing someone else, as it is the understanding that other people think differently to you.

• AKA… Ability to intuitively comprehend that other people have mental states (beliefs/desires/knowledge etc)

Theory of Mind - Wimmer and Perner ‘False belief task’ (1983):

• Used ‘maxi-doll’ and mother doll• Given a scenario to 4-5 year olds• Maxi had chocolate and put it in a

blue cupboard• Mother moved it to a green

cupboard when maxi leaves the room• Maxi returns, where will he look for

the choc?• Kids below 4 would say ‘look in the

green cupboard’• Kids above 4 would say ‘look in blue

cupboard’ • Lab study, observation

Wimmer and Perner (1983) - AO2:

Lab study

Children less likely to have demand characteristics

Higher ecological validity because dolls are being used, which are like imagination games than children play

Children may not fully understand the question being asked

Theory of Mind (autism) – Baron-Cohen et al (1985):

• Used typically and atypically developing children

• 61 children used (varied ages, but matched on mental capabilities)

• Given story of ‘Sally and Anne’ & asked 3 questions to test their belief, reality, and memory

• All answered reality and memory questions correctly, but the belief Q (which tested ToM) was not:

86% of Down’s Syndrome children were correct

85% of ‘normally’ developing children were correct

20% of autistic children were correct• Suggests people with autism may lack ToM

Baron-Cohen et al (1985) - AO2:

Baron-Cohen matched children on their mental capabilities ensuring that results weren’t down to difference in intelligence

Parental consent was gathered and would have been important for atypically developing children especially

May not have understood how the question was worded

Individual differences as 20% of autistic children passed, but 80% of children did not

Overall AO2 for Sense of self:

Lab studies used - Like in Lewis and Brook-Gunn’s research, which means high levels of control etc…

Nature vs Nurture - Looking at nurture, and how a child develops through experience, like in Lewis and Brook-Gunn’s how the child has to learn about their sense of self etc

Ethical issues - Such as protection from harm, consent & anonymity like Baron-Cohen et al. By using autistic children in an unfamiliar environment, it could be distressing for them

Deterministic - Research suggests children develop at the same pace

Selman – Intro:

Taking other people’s perspectives is well

important because…

Helps you to empathise Allows you to integrate with other’s more successfully

Learn different skills

Selman’s theory of perspective taking – (1980):

• Like Kohlberg, Selman used a hypothetical dilemma to help to understand perspective.

• The dilemma goes as follows:

‘Holly is an 8 year old who likes to climb trees. She is the best tree climber in the neighbourhood. One day whilst climbing a tree she falls off the bottom branch but does not hurt herself. Her father sees her fall and he is upset. He makes her promise not to climb any trees again.

Later that day, Holly and her friends meet Sean. His kitten is caught up a tree and cannot get down. Something has to be done right away or the cat will fall. Holly is the only one who can climb trees well enough to reach the kitten, but she remembers her promise to her father’

Selman’s theory of perspective taking (1980):

• Split into 5 stages• The ages overlap as Selman believes that

children could be at different stages of development in the different domains of social experience

• Development could depend on: friendships, peer relationships, and relationships with parents

Selman et al (1983):

• Got girls to work in small groups and make puppets to then put on a puppet show

• Those who scored more highly on perspective taking were observed to communicate better as part of a group

Selman’s theory of perspective taking AO2:

Deterministic:The stages are in a set order (LIKE KOHLBERGS

STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT) however, due to the age range of the stages overlapping, Selman has a moral flexible model than Kohlberg or any other fixed-stage model

Therefore considering individual differences more…


Individual differences/Subjective:Stages depend on the individual going through

them, some people develop differently. The means of testing them are highly subjective

also because it’s all based on opinion


Ethnocentric:Different cultures have different cultural norms.

So, in some places, the idea of saving a cat (in regard to Holly’s dilemma) may not be the preferred, or perhaps parents are more strict.

People from collectivist cultures (larger families) may think about this from an earlier age than people from individualistic cultures.


Historical validity:Contemporary society, such as ours which has

mobile phones, and the ability to contact pretty much anyone instantaneously could mean that Holly’s dilemma is less appropriate these days as arguably, she could just call her dad rather than panic and tiiiing.

Biological explanations of social cognition:

Mirror neurones:

• Discovered in the 1990’s• These neurones are nerve cells that react

when a person performs an action, but also when they observe or even hear someone performing an action

Mirror neurons – Rizzolatti et al (1996):

A – to test whether the mirror neurons fire when observing another organism carrying out a movement

P – Tested monkeys, EEG used, lab studyF – Neurons in the MOTOR CORTEX fire both when the

monkey carries out an action on an object, but also when the SEE, or even HEAR the action

C - Can be both auditory or visual stimuli, only works if the action has an intention/carried out on an object

Rizzolatti et al (1996) – evaluation:

• Supported by Di Pellegrino et al (1992)

• Biological/objective/replicable/reliable

• Based on neuropsychology

• Comparative/ethical issues/may not be generalisable

Mirror neurons – Lacoboni et al (2005):

A – To see if mirror neurons encode for both WHAT the intention is, but also WHY

P – 23 ppts shown 3 different types of movie of a tea party in a lab study, fMRI (functional MRI) recorded neurone activity. The clips showed:1. CONTEXT – before/after tea2. ACTION – Hand grasps cup/clears cups away3. INTENTION – Combined context/action

F – Highest level of MN activity from intention clip, shown in INFERIOR FRONTAL CORTEX

C – Inferior frontal cortex is concerned with understanding WHY a person behaves in a certain way

Lacoboni et al (2005) – evaluation:

• Biological/neuropsych/replicable/reliable

• Deterministic• Lab study

• Small sample size• Low ecological validity

(who watches videos of a tea party…?)

Main 4 points for AO2 evaluation:

1. Biological – objective/lab studies/EEGS (Rizzolatti et al 1996)/fMRI (Lacoboni et al 2005)

2. Deterministic – Genetics/Removes blame from parents , though they could also think it’s their fault for passing on genes… Doesn’t account for inidivudal differences

1. Reductionist – Reduces social cognition to simplest form/should inc. psychological factors

2. Comparative – May not generalisable to humans/Unethical/EEG’s can be invasive/animals have different anatomy

PSYA3 Cognitive [in progress]

Technology

Transcript of PSYA3 Cognitive [in progress]