Is the idea that an object exists even when it is out of sight?
By Dr. Saul McLeod, published 2018, updated 2021 Show
The main development during the sensorimotor stage is the understanding that objects exist and events occur in the world independently of one's own actions ('the object concept', or 'object permanence').
For example, if you place a toy under a blanket, the child who has achieved object permanence knows it is there and can actively seek it. At the beginning of this stage the child behaves as if the toy had simply disappeared. The attainment of object permanence generally signals the transition from the sensorimotor stage to the preoperational stage of development. Blanket and Ball Study
The A-not-B Error The A-not-B error occurs when infants search for a hidden toy at the incorrect location when presented with two possible locations (Piaget, 1954). The toy is repeatedly hidden at location A. After a short delay, infants are then allowed to reach for and retrieve the toy. After a few trials the toy is then clearly hidden in location B. After a short delay, they are then allowed to reach for the toy. Infants 8 to 10 months of age consistently reach to location A despite clearly seeing the toy hidden at location B. Critical EvaluationThere is evidence that object permanence occurs earlier than Piaget claimed. Bower and Wishart (1972) used a lab experiment to study infants aged between 1 – 4 months old. Instead of using a Piaget’s blanket technique they waited for the infant to reach for an object, and then turned out the lights so that the object was no longer visible. They then filmed the infant using an infrared camera. They found that the infant continued to reach for the object for up to 90 seconds after it became invisible. Again, just like Piaget's study there are also criticisms of Bower's 'reaching in the dark' findings. Each child had up to 3 minutes to complete the task and reach for the object. Within this time period, it is plausible they may have successfully completed the task by accident. For example, randomly reaching out and finding the object or even reaching out due to the distress of the lights going out (rather than reaching out with the intention of searching for an object). Violation of Expectation ResearchA further challenge to Piaget’s claims comes from a series of studies designed by Renee Baillargeon. She used a technique that has come to be known as the violation of expectation (VOE) paradigm. It exploits the fact that infants tend to look for longer at things they have not encountered before. In a VOE experiment, an infant is first introduced to a novel situation. They are repeatedly shown this stimulus until they indicate, by looking away, that it is no longer new to them. In Baillargeon et al’s (1985, 1987) study, the habituation stimulus was a ‘drawbridge’ that moved through 180 degrees.  The infants are then shown two new stimuli, each of which is a variation on the habituation stimulus. In Baillargeon’s experiments, one of these test stimuli is a possible event (i.e. one which could physically happen) and the other is an impossible event (i.e. one that could not physically happen in the way it appears). In the ‘drawbridge’ study, a coloured box was placed in the path of the drawbridge. In the possible event, the drawbridge stopped at the point where its path would be blocked by the box. In the impossible event, the drawbridge appeared to pass through the box and ended up lying flat, the box apparently having disappeared. Baillargeon found that infants spent much longer looking at the impossible event. She concluded that this indicated surprise on the infants’ part and that the infants were surprised because they had expectations about the behavior of physical objects that the impossible event had violated. In other words, the infants knew that the box still existed behind the drawbridge and, furthermore, that they knew that one solid object cannot just pass through another. The infants in this study were five months old, an age at which Piaget would say that such knowledge is quite beyond them. APA Style ReferencesBaillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3½-and 4½-month-old infants. Developmental psychology, 23(5), 655. Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S. & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object Permanence in Five-Month-Old Infants. Cognition, 20, 191-208. Bower, T. G. R., & Wishart, J. G. (1972). The effects of motor skill on object permanence. Cognition, 1, 165–172. Mehler, J., & Dupoux, E. (1994). What Infants Know: The New Cognitive Science of Early Development. Blackwell Publishers. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books. Piaget, J. (1963). The Psychology of Intelligence. Totowa, New Jersey: Littlefield Adams. How to reference this article:How to reference this article:McLeod, S. A. (2018, June 06). Object permanence. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/Object-Permanence.html Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. © Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved Is the concept that something is still there even when it is hidden out of sight and that explains why the game peek a boo is so much fun for babies?“Object permanence is a concept that something that is out of sight (i.e., covered) is still there even though they can't see it. This is why peek-a-boo is fun for them, and helps stimulate their brain. They start learning that even when something disappears, it can still be there, but hidden,” Posner explains.
What is an example of object permanence?Object permanence means knowing that an object still exists, even if it is hidden. It requires the ability to form a mental representation (i.e. a schema) of the object. For example, if you place a toy under a blanket, the child who has achieved object permanence knows it is there and can actively seek it.
How did Piaget test for object permanence?Piaget studied object permanence by observing infants' reactions when a favorite object or toy was presented and then was covered with a blanket or removed from sight. Object permanence is considered to be one of the earliest methods for evaluating working memory.
Is object permanence innate?The essential role of object permanence in human cognition has long led to it being considered innate (Baillargeon, 2008).
|
