|Slater I 87
Object permanence/Experiment/HaithVsBaillargeon/Haith: (Haith 1998)(1) the conclusion of the drawbridge study are a product of „rich interpretation“ (Haith 1998) on the part of the researchers, rather than rich conceptual abilities on the part of young infants.
Slater I 88
Haith: There was always a more parsimonious perceptual explanation for the infants’ responses. In explaining the Drawbridge findings, Haith suggested that infants continue to see the box even once it is visually occluded due to a kind of lingering visual memory trace; and consequently infants look longer at the “impossible” event not because it is impossible but because of the novelty of seeing one physical object pass through another physical object. The infants’ response to novelty, it is argued, need not depend on any physical knowledge at all, but merely on the fact that in the real world objects generally do not appear to pass through other objects unimpeded. >Object permanence/Baillargeon, >Object permanence/developmental psychology, >Object permanence/Connectionism.
1. Haith, M. M. (1998). Who put the cog in infant cognition? Is rich interpretation too costly? Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 167–179.
Denis Mareschal and Jordy Kaufman, „Object permanence in Infancy. Revisiting Baillargeon’s Drawbridge Experiment“ in: Alan M. Slater & Paul C. Quinn (eds.) 2012. Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Sage Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
|Haith, Marshall M.
Alan M. Slater
Paul C. Quinn
Developmental Psychology. Revisiting the Classic Studies London 2012