jonka Joerg Bauer 14 vuotta sitten
301
Lisää tämän kaltaisia
Suggestive
Likely an inborn abilty to imitat which facilites social interaction
but: low response rates (large variation) making it difficult to see age related changes
good: experimental allows to manipulate conditions
good larger, and many differnt samples
Meltzofff + Moore: developmental progression
- 2-3 m vs. 6 weeks old. - > 18m they understood unsuccessful inteded beh
Meltzoff+Moore: 6w imitation and adaptation/learning even after delay
6 w: after delay of 24h were still abel to imitate tongue protrusion to the side. - Also adaptation shown to make it more similar – even though not see body part
Meltzof + Moore: early Imitation of a) new behaviour in b) blind body parts
6 infants aged 12- 21 days: were shown one of 4 gestures
judges: likelyhood of imitaion
but: small sample
but some error because "not applicable" was not possible
good: longitudinal observation in econatural circumstances. study / within participant study w. fewer variation
but: small sample, no generalization
Supported by Uzgiris and Hunt
> 12 m: imitation of new actions
>9m: imitation with body parts they can see
<6m no imitation of new behavior
Imitation not possible before 12 m: imitation: - needs memory, so only imitation for what is alredy known - only imitation of body parts that can be seen - true imitaion has a time lag (cogntion)
obsevation of own kids: <1 from no imitation to >12 deffered and new imitation
Suggesting that the P method placed to many cognitive demands on the children.
fail even with see though cloth
egocentric and allocentric
if both codes are used both must be updated
older children are better in longer delays
habituation takes over when trace is faded
Memory trace fades when obect is hidden
9m-12m looked under location A even though they saw object position was changed to B
sugg: egocentrism
5m object and Lights out
Good: Controlled for baseline reaching behav
chilren make more movements in the direction of where the object was suggestive that they do not suppose that the object ceases to exist
dev sequence 2,5 / 3,5
Object hidden behind occluder
3,5 integrate the hight and shape
2,5 any object hidden
6-8m Car and blocked road
suggestive of children having a core knowledge
P. task demanded a level of coordination they were not capable of
(a) the block continued to exist, (b) the car continued to exist (c) the car could not roll through the block
3, 5 same reaction
when they controlled for the differnt rotation times there was no difference
If the road is blocked and the car still appears (surprising event) chidren spend more time looking
5m Block and Bridge
Good: controlled for rotation time
b) Look longer at the impossible "going 180" through event vs. rotaion stopped at 120
sugg that they expact the objec to be permanent
a) habituated to 180 rotation
stopping train before
child gaze continues
2m train moving toward screen in was expected to reappear behind a block. But fail to inhibit stop of gaze
Childern in sensimotor lack object perm: 9m: when an object (which they showed interest in before) is hidden under cloth the do not make any attempt to retrieve it
Piaget: The children are egocentric: for them object exist cease to exist when when they do not see them. As if they would bring the object into existance.
Def. the konwledge that objects continue to exist even when they are not seen
foundation for memory and cognitive developement
egocentrism / empiricsm vs. nativist / core knowlege
Methods
any methods that do not require much coordination are good
gaze is good because no coordination required + viewing shows cogntive processes like attention or expectation
habituation
violation of expectation
