Jan Hoang Xuan A62, May 2010

Based on Nelson Thornes AQA Psychology A, 2009

Chapter 22 – Development of thinking

Theories of cognitive development

Jean Piaget, Swiss.

Stages – loosely linked to age, cannot be skipped, in order.

The building blocks of Piaget’s theory

Schemas – set of ideas about object/ activity; past experience or from wider culture

Young babies, simple schemas – e.g. grasping; combination of schemas – operations; cognitive abilities develop through cognitive processes:

Assimilation – existing schema, new situation;

Accommodation – existing schema won’t work; modify + change to deal;

Development – not a steady process; in leaps + bounds; periods of stability – equilibrium; disequilibrium – modify + change + alter existing schema

Piaget’s stage of cognitive development

1. Sensori-motor | 0-2 years | six sub-stages; automatic reflexes – deliberate actions

Simple reflexes; actions patterns – primary circular reactions; 2 years – internalization of schemes; object permanence – something exists even when it’s out of sight; nine months; toy + cloth; U-9 months: no interest; 9+ months: remove the cloth; search for hidden toy;

(-) Bower (1972): teddy bear; light off; babies still outstretch arms to reach the teddy; Piaget underestimated the age

2. Pre-operational period | 2-7 years |

Use words; communicate + engage in pretend play; animism – idea objects have feelings

Limitation 1: Egocentricity

Not understanding another person’s viewpoint is different to your own

(+) Piaget (1967)

Model of three mountains; cross, snow, house; children 3-8 years old; small doll placed on table; test ability to see from doll’s point of view;

- Three cardboard shapes – what doll can see- Ten pictures – what doll can see- Any picture – where the doll should stand

Children U-7 unable show doll’s viewpoint; instead choose the one that suits theirs;

(-) Donaldson – the task doesn’t make sense to children;

Ethics:

Ethical principles not in place at Piaget’s times, so unlikely that full parental consent from obtained from parents

Limitation 2: Conservation

Quantity remains the same despite the changes in appearance; two equal amounts in beakers of juice; then transform to a large tall glass; two rows of counters; parallel lines; one spread out to became longer; tall beaker ‘more’ juice; spread row longer; ‘are they still the same?’; reversibility; compensation; centre on one aspect, but ignore the other.

Limitation 3: Seriation

Put objects in order; development of mathematical skills; stick A>B>C; what’s the relation of A to C; not put together; unable to infer that A>C

Limitation 4: Class inclusion task

One category existing within another; 5 horses ; 3 pigs; count H, then P, the how many animals; final question – more animals or horses? Children U-6 cannot answer; level of logic not available;

3. Concrete operations | 7-11 years |

Decentre; compensation; conserve volume + substance + weight; class inclusion skills; seriation; mental operations as long as involve real life objects + situations

4. Formal operations | 11+ years |

Deductive reasoning – create hypotheses; logically, not trial and error

Evaluation of Piaget’s theory

Pre-school children able to carry out more complex; BUT thinking ‘embedded’ in everyday situations; unable to work in abstract way.

Egocentricism – good example; understand other person’s viewpoint if presented in an everyday context, e.g. hide and seek;

Hughes (1975)

- Children 3.5-5 years old- Two intersecting walls model 3D- Toy policeman put, where to put doll so policeman cannot ‘see’?- 90% correctly placed

Children can take someone else perspective if they understand the task; even when second policeman introduced, children could complete the task.

Piaget’s tasks lack human sense (tasks where children understand the motives and intentions of characters); conservation – when adult asks the same question twice, fairly reasonable to assume first answer was wrong; Paul Light – pasta shells transferred from beaker to large container – 95% fail; get told that beaker was chipped + sharp, so transfer – 70% passes; importance of context to make sense of situation

Counter-argue: children show some abilities earlier than Piaget suggested, but the tasks do not test the exact same abilities; placing doll to hide from policemen is easier than stating the viewpoint;

Siegler (1995) – quantitative + qualitative

- 5 year old- All failed conservation of row buttons spread to make it longer- Divide into three groups (IVs)

a) Feedback group – right or wrong every time answerb) Explanation group – explain the reasons; then told right or wrongc) Discussion group – told the correct answer and then asked ‘why do you think I know

that?’; focus on thinking of experimenter’s belief

Four training sessions, after four trials – retest on Piaget’s conservation task; biggest improvement – discussion group; understanding gradual; not sudden

Methodological issues

Experimental methods – the control of IV – and qualitative methods – observe and record responses. Rich, detailed data + draw conclusions cause and effect.

Ethics

Parental consent important

Do the stages exist?

Keating – 40-60% college students fail and operational tasks; one-third adults ever reach formal operational; stages not universal.

Progression result of maturation, cannot progress until ready; Siegler pointed out importance in teaching, practice and discussion to speed up. Piaget underestimated importance of social influences + language + context

Goswami argued that Piaget presented precise answers to what and why develops.

Underestimated the age at which children could do things – confuse performance with competence.

Underplayed the role of language + social factors

Piaget and education – discovery learning

Plowden Report (1967) – governmental reform on primary education.

Loosely linked with age (stages) – children learn in different ways; particularly ready certain things at certain times in specific ways – readiness. Influence how subjects are taught and when; concrete materials when introducing. Bryant (1971) - practice can improve performance; restrictions on memory rather than logical thought; no evidence from Danner and Day (1977) – 10/13/17 years old – formal operations practice, only 17 improvement. Discovery learning more than just ability to do something – understand.

Learning active process; children construct knowledge through exploring environment and trying out schemas; classrooms – rich environment + filled with objects to explore; discovery learning.

Learner-centred; not teacher-centred; teachers – facilitators; children individuals – different attention; teacher indentifies the stage + sense whether they are ready to cope with more demanding tasks; provide materials to challenge.

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development

The importance of social interaction, context and culture

Cognitive skills developed as child interact with other people; not only school – family, friends – observe problem solving skills, adopt and internalise; spontaneous.

Context and culture very important, e.g. Nunes (1992) – Brazilian street children – no formal schooling; very well-developed mathematical skills internalised.

The importance of language

Children born with elementary mental functions (memory, attention), develop into higher mental functions (reason, problem solve, calculate); transition possible by language; young often talk to themselves in monologues; comment on actions as they play + carry out difficult tasks; egocentric speech; at 7 years internalised; think and perform complex reasoning tasks; young use monologues as they haven’t developed internalised speech.

Language – two functions – social speech: communicate with others; intellectual speech: think and problem solve + regulate, plan; move from being able to do with help of others to do alone.

1. Pre-intellectual, social speech |0-3 | social function, thought is prelinguistic2. Egocentric | 3-7 | control own behaviour, spoken aloud3. Inner speech | 7+ | self-talk silent | speech for social purposes

Zone of proximal development + scaffolding

ZPD – gap between the tasks a child can do alone and those they can do with help; ability and capability; scaffolding – help or support given to the child.

Evaluation of Vygostky’s theory

Wood (1975)

- Twelve mothers- 4 year old children

- Put together wooden jigsaw- Record + analyse- Support typed and coded- Five types:

a) General suggestionsb) Specific instructionsc) Indicating materialsd) Preparing for assemblye) Physical demonstrations

Best ‘mothers as teachers’ help offered subtly; depended on child’s actions; move ‘up’ a level or move ‘down’;

Methodological issues

(+) observational methods – rich; detailed data(+) record – can re-watch(+/-) sample small, but researchers in this framework not concerned with generalising

(-) qualitative -> code observations (quantitative); subjective and open to interpretation

Ethical issues

With mothers; unlikely to be stressful.

(+) Pratt (1992) scaffolding not only young children; parents help children with long division; performance related to how good scaffolding was during homework periods

(-) Durkin (1995) – many scaffolding studies used contrived environment; parents know they are being observed

(+) Greenfield (1982) – Mexican girls – learn weaving; watch adults, given simple tasks, guided + supported

Vygotsky vs Piaget

Vygotsky – communist; collective action; importance of interaction; culture + context; cultural differences; processes of the cognitive development

Piaget – individual nature of child in development; children go through the same stages regardless of culture

Vygotsky and education: the importance of teaching

Teacher’s role – work sensitively within ZPD; extend skills; scaffold to achieve tasks that couldn’t be done alone; langue and talk important in classroom;

Informal settings – more knowledgeable other (MKO) – sibling, other child, peer who knows more about given subject; peer tutoring

Collaborative learning – work together in small groups towards common goal; group member’s responsible for their own and other members’ work; exchange of ideas not only increases interest but also promotes critical thinking; bring own perspective + share understanding

Tzuriel (2007)

- 89 Year 1 – tested to ensure unable to carry out seriation- Each Year 1 child paired with Year 3 one- Experimental group: programme how to use mediation teaching style- Control group: social interaction with other pupil

Each pair took part in seriation using computer programme; Year 1 children retested; Year 1 with Year 3 that received peer mediation with young children (PMYC) more improvement; most gains where there was mismatch, i.e. lower and higher cognitive ability.

Methodological issues

(+) both groups received training, control Hawthorn-type effect (attention)

Ethics:

Full parental consent required (young children) Ability to withdraw Sensitive debriefing about children’s abilities and potential required

Evaluation of Vygotsky’s application to education

(+) collaborative learning – better on critical thinking test than those who studied individually; small groups better than large (some members ‘asleep’)

(+) MKO + scaffolding + tutoring – improvement in both tutors and tutees academic and social abilities; most effective for peer tutors (best way to understand something better is to teach it)

(+) Blaye (1991) – group solving, benefits – both parents working together and once separated

(-) Vygotsky – collectivist culture; group work might be effective to a lesser extent, as children are brought up in atmosphere of self-reliance and independence; American and Asian – compare – maths group work – better in latter; less competitive, concerned with status

(-) relies on skills of peer and tutors – work sensitively within ZPD – idealistic/unrealistic expectation

Bruner’s theory of cognitive development

American, information processing approach – human mind like computer; more interested in processes underlying cognitive development rather than the structure

Modes of thinking/representation

Enactive |dominant in early childhood |knowledge represented as actions; focus on doing things, learning achieved through one’s own actions; example of dominance – learn to play musical instrument more quickly than adults

Iconic |middle childhood| pictures + images; visual recognition, compare and contrast, e.g. diagrams; children’s preference to use pictures as representation for feelings and thoughts

Symbolic |adolescence |words; language-based skills; abstract reasoning; language key to knowledge; allows to question knowledge

Mastery of increasingly difficult modes; become automatic; combined in different ways; automatic –attention can be freed to other things; learning not gradual; staircase; environment slows down or speeds up;

Accepted Piaget’s stages, rejected linked to age. All three modes available to older thinkers, though might rely more on one than another.

Organisation of knowledge – categorisation; interpret world in terms of similarities and differences – hierarchy – general ideas at the top; specific bottom;

Paradigmatic – analytic; narrative – intuitive; complement each other, though paradigmatic might block narrative, as we might look for patterns and logic rather than look for creativity

(-) main interest in education not cognitive development; theory – more general approach to learning; concepts such as paradigmatic and narrative thinking are hard to be tested, hence difficult to verify whether they are true or not;

(+) interested in education, so found application in real world

Evidence for Bruner’s theory

Bruner (1965) – demonstrate modes of representation, young children can learn tasks requiring logical and abstract thought

- 8 year old- Wooden blocks, different sizes – squares + rectangles- First stage (enactive): play with blocks, make different sized squares- Second stage (iconic): construct diagrams + pictures- Third stage (symbolic): different shapes name labels (x, y, z). Solve simple equations, e.g. x +

y = z

Children can solve problems and work within symbolic mode; generalise to new situations and experiences; can understand complex, abstract ideas as long as taught properly.

Methodological issues:

(+) different techniques to observe and analysis of talk to assess child’s growing understanding; provide insight into cognitive growth same way as Siegler

Ethics:

Ensure young children not overwhelmed with cognitive tasks Integration into classroom environment ensures it’s familiar and no stress

Bruner between Vygotsky and Piaget; strong emphasis on social experience and culture – basis for development; importance of language – ‘most important cultural tool’; language and cognition so closely linked – two sides of the same coin

Bruner and education: spiral curriculum

Agree with Piaget that children learn through enquiry and investigation. Reject readiness, any subject ay age as long as taught appropriately. Introduce the subject – emphasis the basics, make sure those are understood; return to basics each time at higher level; build skills on more complex material; spiral curriculum – the same area revisited in different ways as child’s thinking becomes more complex.

Teacher – guidance + accelerate learning; contingency – effective instructions are dependent on child’s preceding behaviour; importance of scaffolding + supporting.

Process of education, Bruner’s ideas:

Importance of structure in learning and teaching: ideas related to each other; children learn unconsciously, same was as language, should be taught fundamental principles to be able to structure their knowledge.

Importance of intuitive thinking: grasp problem/concept with no logical thought; encourage intuitive thinking, guess before looking at the plausibility of the guesses, thought shower, brainstorm.

Importance of motivation: learning – voyage of discovery and enquiry; encourage to engage with subject materials

Cognitive acceleration – speeding up cognition by teaching thinking skills

CASE (Cognitive Acceleration through Science Education)- pupils Year 7 and 8 – scaffolding and encourage to work together to solve problems; did better against a control group who had normal science lessons, GCSE Science, Maths and English better by one grade.

Built on:

Piaget – develop formal operations; problems that create cognitive conflict (disequilibrium)

Vygotsky – work together to create solutions; ZPD

Feuerstein – intelligence not fixed, plastic and can be developed; needs Mediator that will guide and asks questions; ‘guided-self discovery’; sometimes better help from peers than parents, encourages pupils solving problems together

Chapter 23 – Development of moral understanding

Moral understanding: distinguishing right and wrong

Moral understanding – process by which people tell the difference between right and wrong

Investigating moral understanding: Piaget

Development in stages loosely linked to age; children construct understanding of the world through exploration; child’s thinking qualitatively different at each stage

Game of marbles – what are the rules, created by God, then unbreakable and fixed, at 10 can be manipulated and changed as long as all players agree.

Stages of development:

Amoral stage|U-5 | unaware of right or wrong; behaviour regulated by outside influences;

Heteronomous stage|5-10| aware that moral rules exist; imposed externally by adults; rigid and unbreakable; interprets from their own egocentric point of view

Autonomous stage | 10+|rules exist for convenience; challenge rules that are unfairly applied, e.g. adults tell them what not to do whilst they are doing them; growing influence of peers in pre-adolescence period; shift in social relationships from ‘adult-commanded to peer-negotiated’

Evaluation on Piaget’s contribution

(-)Game of marbles, not a realistic representation of moral understanding(-) many games follow social conventions rather than moral rules(-) vignettes rather complicated for young children(-) lack of human sense, intentions not clear; presented in video format, 6 year olds provided more in depth assessment

(+) general agreement that moral understanding develops in stages

Kohlberg’s theory of moral understanding

Moral dilemmas – hypothetical situations which presents the individual with a series of choices

Child asked to make decision, qualitative data read carefully and coded to classify types of response children made.

Kohlberg (1963)

- American boys- 7/10/13/16 year old- Moral judgement interview (MJI) – 2 hours- 10 moral dilemmas

Comment on the actions; explain and justify answers; Kohlberg re-read responses and classified them; young children Level 1; older Level 2; few got Level 3;

Support for his theory; children demonstrated progression as theory predicted

Methodological issues

(-) Verbal responses – coded and classified = subjective and open to interpretation

(-) investigator bias, inter-rater reliability would be needed

(+) Kohlberg’s MJI is example of production test, response scored. Other – ‘recognition test’, choose pre-recorded answers. BUT losing rich and detailed answers and reflect expectations of the researchers who devised the statements.

Ethical issues

Parental consent important; free to withdraw children at any point.

Kohlberg’s levels of moral development

Level 1: Pre-conventional – moral rules imposed by adults

1. Punishment and obedience orientation – behaviour based on authority; punished – behaviour wrong

2. Individualism – do things that are rewarded, avoid those that are punished

Level 2: Conventional – moral rules of social groups are internalised. Not questioned.

3. Mutual interpersonal expectations – internalisation of ideas right or wrong from the social group. Good behaviour is what pleases other.

4. Law and order orientation – emphasis on doing one’s duty. Follow rules and laws.

Level 3: Post-conventional – make own moral judgement and choices according to moral values

5. Social contract orientation – laws and rules are important, but sometimes need to be changed when they do not apply.

6. Universal ethical principles – follow self-chosen ethical principles. When own views conflict with majority’s, still follow their own.

Support for Kohlberg’s theory

Ann Colby (1983)– follow up sample of Kohlberg’s sample; longitudinal study; re-interview every 3 years for period of over 20 years; most reached stage 2 by the end of 10 years; By 22, most reached stage 3 or 4; when study concluded most remained at 4, few progressed to 5.

Kohlberg (1969)- cross-cultural study, Yucatan, Mexico, UK, the US. Similar findings.

Snarey (1985) – meta-analysis of 45 cross-cultural studies using 47 countries. Identified basic stages, but as Colby, found few reaching stage 5 or over. This was mainly in industrialised societies.

Kohlberg – gender bias?

Kohlberg (1963) – American boys, later tested with girls and women, most of them remained at stage 3 rather than 4. This led to him thinking that women are less morally developed.

Carol Gilligan (1982) – women reason differently, different moral voices, respond to ethic of care rather than justice, but not less morally developed. Tool used to measure moral development is biased towards males – fails to measure women thinking.

Gilligan (1994) – interview 29 American women, aged 15-33; carry on pregnancy or abortion?; indentified three levels: level 1 – self-interest; level2 – self-sacrifice; level; 3 – care as universal obligation.

Gilligan – two kinds of moral orientations:

Justice – doing what’s fair.Caring – looking after someone in need.

Socialisation emphasises different qualities for boys and girls; boys – independence + responsibility, hence stage 4 – fairness; girls – stage 3 – sensitive to expectations, feeling and needs of those around;

Walker (1984) – critical review 41 studies looked into gender differences, 85% no difference, 15% - very little

Snarey (1993) – differences in emotional and physical maturation, boys and girls, girls two years ahead. Study with 11.5-14 from range of ethnic backgrounds; most stage 2 or 3; but girls scored higher.

Evaluation – cognitive developmental theories of moral understanding.

Overlaps with Piaget’s, though goes further through adolescence and adulthood. Piaget – social relations – shift; Kohlberg – resolve cognitive conflicts.

Piaget + Kohlberg – young children are ‘amoral’ + little sense of right or wrong.

(-) Constanza (1973) – underestimate young children - redesign Piaget’s vignettes – four conditions: intentions (good/bad) + outcome (positive, negative); children considered intentions, especially when the outcome was positive; not as ‘amoral’ as Piaget and Kohlberg thought.

(-) Turiel (1983) – critique of stages; children do no shot general moral rules, i.e. all problems same rules. Instead: two domains – areas of moral reasoning; moral domain – individual rights, how people should be treated; social conventional domain – rules related to living within social community; able to see moral transgression as wrong, whilst others are formal social rules. Challenge claim that moral thinking occurs in the same way across all moral problems.

(-) Kohlberg (1963) – males only, andocentric; applies both to males and females no differences; beta bias – generalised findings and results. Gilligan – men and women different moral voices, morality of women different but not inferior.

Theories of pro social reasoning

Eisenberg’s theory of pro-social reasoning

What children thinks about right and good things and why it may decide to carry them out?

Dilemmas with choice – help someone at need (at personal cost) or pursue self-interest. Opportunity cost, e.g. help bullied children, giving up football to help disabled.

Eisenberg’s stages of pro-social reasoning

Stage 1 | Hedonistic reasoning | concerned with potential gain

Stage 2 | Needs orientation | think of needs of others and help them

Stage 3 | Approval, interpersonal and stereotyped orientation | gain approval of others and in response to stereotypes of nice boy/girl

Stage 4a | Self-reflective| empathise with other’s feelings

Stage 4b | Transitional stage | moving from stage 4 to stage 5.

Stage 5 | Strongly internalised orientation| refers to internal moral principles

Eisenberg (1987 and 1991)

- Longitudinal study- Respond to pro-social dilemmas over 11 years- Sample of girls and boys age initially studied at age 4, then 5-6, 7-8 and 9-10- Follow-up study re-interviewed when aged 13-14, 15-16- Dilemmas altered to engage teenagers, e.g. b-day party is now party- Interested in gender differences Hedonistic reasoning (self-interest) common in very young children Needs orientated peaked at 7-8 Stage didn’t appear before 9-10, declined in adolescence

Consistent with Kohlberg and Gilligan, gender differences emerge in adolescence, girls couple of years ahead, boys caught up in mid-adolescence.

Methodological issues

(+)longitudinal studies allow to observe development of moral reasoning within a group of young people across time(+) in contrast to cross-sectional study, response can be compared with previous data, eliminate individual differences

(-) coding of qualitative data is subjective and open to interpretation, requires rigorous training and inter-rater reliability

Ethical issues

Interview at homes or university with mothers, older at school Limit possibility of stress (protection of participant) Older children paid in line with other adults

Evaluation of Eisenberg’s theory

Similar to Kohlberg, start from very self-centred to seeking social approval before developing their own views and principles

(+) cross-cultural study found support; BUT (-) in kibbutz, Israel, little needs orientation; suggests that upbringing important in development of moral understanding

Chapter 24 – Development of social cognition

Development of child’s sense of self and theory of mind (ToM)

Self-recognition

Early signs at birth: turns head more in response to other people touching their cheek than when using own hand; 3 months – prefer watching videos of themselves from another perspective than their own; at 4 months prefer to look at videos of other’s than their own;

Lewis (1979) – ask mom’s to put red paint on nose when pretending to clean nose; 9 months - in front of mirror, play and touch with it; no awareness it was them. 15 months – try to rub paint off. Realisation reflection was them, sense of self-awareness; 2 year old – point picture of them, and name ‘me’ to describe it.

Engage with social world, sticking tongue out, show innate ability to imitate, gaze longer at faces gazing at them than those gazing away; sensitive to voice and facial expressions.

6-10 weeks: distressed at a still face, emotionless

3 months – regular eye to eye contact emerges

4-9 months – eye gaze cueing and joint attention develops; used by parents’ to point at another toy

10-15 months – protoimperative (‘Iwant’) and protodeclarative (‘there is something interesting over there’) pointing develops

18 months: pretend play; baby can decentre; people have different beliefs and opinions about the world;

2 years: developed sense of self; they are their own person and can influence others’

Theory of Mind (ToM)

ToM – understanding that someone else has a separate mind and does not see or experience the world as you do; ability to understand or read the mind of others; put themselves into other peoples’ shoes and ‘take their perspective’

Allows to understand links between beliefs and behaviour, even if some beliefs are false some might still act on them. False belief tasks – tasks allow to analyse cognitive processing by seeing whether they can recognise that others can have beliefs about the world that are wrong.

False belief tasks:

Unexpected transfer task – one object is unexpectedly swapped without a person being aware of it.

Wimmer (1983) – children aged 4-5l two dolls – Maxi and mom; Maxi – chocolate – blue cupboard; go out; mom – put in green cupboard; where will Maxi look for chocolate?

Correct answer – put in Maxi’s position, Maxi look at the blue (wrong) cupboard; demonstrated ToM as child understands that Maxi holds a false belief which is different to their own knowledge.

U-4 would say Maxi look in the green; children 4+ in blue, where it was last seen;

‘Appearance reality’ – Perner (1987) – Smarties tube – what’s inside? – Smarties, no, pencils – yes. Each child asked - what would children outside think the tube contains? ToM – Smarties, no ToM – pencils.

Baron-Cohen (1985)

- 20 autistic children – avg. 11 years- 14 children with Down’s syndrome, avg. 10 years- 27 normally developing, avg. 4 years- Sally, Ann; Sally place marble in the basket; Ann transfer to box; Sally returns and:- 1. Where will Sally look for marble? (belief Q)- 2. Where is the marble? (reality Q)- 3. Where was the marble at the beginning? (memory Q) If has ToM, then say that Sally look for in the basket All participants answered correctly reality and memory Qs; ‘belief’ – 86% with Down’s

syndrome, 85% normally developing, 20% with autism Autistic children find it difficult to put themselves in other peoples’ shoes and fail at

perspective taking

Methodological issues:

(+) carefully controlled, children matched at mental ages; deficit not related to lack of intelligence, but to lack of social understanding

(+/-) language: slight changes can affect response; 20% passed; where’s the difference coming from?; performance at false belief tasks linked to linguistic development; relationship not fully explored

(+) Baron-Cohen findings laid foundation to Autism Research Centre; generated many applications, e.g. teaching programmes, teachers made aware of the problems that autistic children can have

Ethics:

Parental consent important aspect when young children involved; extreme sensitivity when dealing with atypically developing children

Balance the needs of the research and needs of parents and children

Evaluation of research into ToM

Wimmer – U-4 has some conceptual deficit -> not able to understand false belief tasks

(-) Siegal, poor methodology, standard test questions too complex for young children, e.g. ‘Where will Maxi look for chocolate?’ = ‘Where should he look?’ or Where will he look and find?’. Role of language and linguistic development not clearly understood.

(-) Robinson (1995) - appearance reality tasks – 3 year old – performance improved when watched the content of Smarties being exchanged for new, e.g. pencils; most 3 YO could answer correctly; visual and verbal representation influences the child’s understanding

(+) cognitive predictors correlated with ToM, e.g. 20 months – eye gaze cueing; 44 months – protodeclarative pointing.

(+) proposed that pretend play is important in development of social cognition

Autism

Leo Kanner, Hans Asperger – key symptoms:

Social withdrawal, problems with social communication Obsession with consistency; problems in dealing with change Good at rote learning Minimal language Skills with objects

Wing’s Triad:

Social: bizarre, minimal, severely delayed social development Language and communication: impaired communication, both verbal and non-verbal Thought and behaviour: rigid and inflexible, little or no pretend play

Symptoms can vary. One end - serious + disabling development, low IQ scores. Another end – normal live not prevented, language and intellectual development normal; autistic symptoms are more like eccentricities = Asperger’s syndrome.

Rare extraordinary talent, mathematical, drawing, painting. Autistic savants.

Causes of autism? ToM fails to develop (based on Baron-Cohen research); normally developing – understand own feelings and thoughts and others’; this ‘mind read’ allows us to communicate effectively; observe and interpret actions using ToM; allows us to interact; no ToM – implications?

Minimal social interaction; other people are not seen as independent agents with own feelings

Lack of imaginative play Delayed language development – use language to help understand intentions and beliefs of

others; ToM provides context for that; in turn, language development is crucial for ToM

Stages of development in perspective taking (PT)

Robert Selman; young children don’t understand the feeling and thoughts of others until they experience them on themselves. Basic element of ToM – develop understanding of world from others’ perspective.

Stage 1 | 3-6 YO| Undifferentiated perspective taking (PT)| recognise self and others are different and can have different thoughts and feelings | common to confuse two

Stage 2| 5-9 YO | Social-informational PT | begins to understand different people different perspective because access to different information

Stage 3 | 7-12 YO | Self-reflective | develops ability to see another viewpoint; seeing own thoughts, feelings and behaviour from another perspective

Stage 4 |10-15| Third-party PT | able to step outside two-person situation; imagine how they and others are viewed

Stage 5 | 14+ |Societal PT | broader perspective that third party view can be influenced by various factors, e.g. cultural norms/values, religion.

Evaluation of Selman’s stages

(+) Phelps (1984) provides clear support for Selman’s stages, emphasises increasing complexity of perspective taking abilities

(+) Application: crucial component is teacher responsiveness to child, i.e. is influenced by the PT stage child is in

(-) culture bias: white, middle class, Western; ignore developmental PT of minority ethnic communities and cross-culturally

(-) longitudinal research: more than simple stages, more complex

(-) digital world – methods of communication not as personal, stages outdated; dynamics of communication changed, so maybe development of PT changed as well?

Biological explanations for social congitions

Evidence from studies with ‘neurotypicals’

Brain scanning techniques allowed brain mechanisms of social cognition to be studied on normal human participants:

Amygdala: recognise and interpret facial expressions. Organise emotional response. Parietal cortex: distinguish ourselves from others; self-other distinction Frontal cortex: bring together information from other parts; build integrated picture of the

environment; involved in social decision making, planning and reasoning. Motor-related areas: control of movement

(-) reductionism – social cognition involves complicated social and emotional interactions between people and if only rely on biological approach, we would miss the bigger picture, never develop full understanding

Evidence from people with autism

ToM does not develop; many areas of ToM overlap with social cognition, e.g. self-other distinction, interpret social situations.

Autism usually low IQ, delayed intellectual development, high frequency for other disorders, e.g. epilepsy. Areas often to be found in autism include:

Amygdale (facial expressions)

Frontal cortex (overall picture, reasons, plan) Junction between parietal and temporal lobes

Strong evidence – social cognition problems results from abnormal development of structures that are the part of the brain controlling social cognition.

Genetic factor – MZ: 36-90% concordance rate; far higher than DZ; infants can imitate parents by sticking tongue out; this factor is missing in infants with autism; innate ability to map mother’s facial expressions;

Nature-nurture: children with autism inherit brain dysfunction that prevents from development of normal social cognition (nature); opponents – environmental stimulation can reduce autistic symptoms (nurture)

Evidence from psychopathy

Psychopath – manipulates and uses for own needs. Lack empathy; not only recognise emotions but also experience them; empathy leads us to help others; prevent doing things that might hurt others;

People with high levels of psychopathy shows:

reduction in reaction to facial expressions of fear and distress when given moral dilemmas choose practical solutions rather than morally correct scores lower on empathy tests

Don’t lack ToM; they are skilled at manipulating others, can be superficially charming friends; lack linking between metalizing and empathising; can identify feeling but this doesn’t lead to empathy;

Amygdale dysfunctional + one part of frontal cortex (orbitofrontal area)

Evidence from mirror neurons

Neurons – cells that make brains; 100bn; transmit electrical activity, connected by synapses;

Electroencephalograph (EEG) – recording of the electrical activity of the brain

EEG helps to unravel function of neurons in different parts of the brain.

Systematic single-cell recording can only be done in non-human animals; involves implanting thin electrodes into the brain

1990s – monkey brain; area that controlled motor behaviour (movement); when reaching for peanut – neurons fired; neurons also fired when monkey observed another money the same movement, whilst they did nothing; follow up:

neurons in motor cortex fire when monkey makes simple goal-directed movement, but also when observes;

mirror neurons also fire when see human doing the same activity only fire when there is interaction. There has to be meaning. If random, then no fire. Observer monkey does not have to see the movement. Mirror neurons also fire when hear

peanut shell being cracked. Mirror neurons reflect knowledge and understanding.

(-) studies on non-human animals – even though rigorous, raises issues of generalising problems to humans + ethics working with animals;

MNS overlaps with social cognition network; mirror neurons fire to facial expressions.

Foundation for empathy. Scanning brain – when observing someone in pain, the same neurons when you feel pain are activated.

MNS less activated in people who score less on empathy + participants with autism. Defective MNS a basis for autism (maybe?).

Evaluation biological explanations

(-) social cognition broad area, concepts poorly defined; involves perception of social signs, socialisation, ToM; mentalising, emotion; difficult to find precise brain mechanism

(-) reductionist approach; focus on the brains should not divert from social cognition at behavioural, family and social levels, e.g. family size – the bigger the more developed, as more cognitive conflicts take place.

(-) MNS can only be recorded in monkeys. Single-cell activity can only be recorded in monkeys. No direct evidence for MNS in humans. Human studies only indirect methods.

(-) MNS alone not enough for complex social cognition; monkeys have MNS, but limited in areas of e.g. deception. Human brains mechanism evolved well beyond system identified in monkeys.