Object Permanence in Five-and-a-Half-Month-Old Infants?

Event Set × Event Set designs were used to study the rotating screen paradigm introduced by Baillargeon, Spelke, and Wasserman (1985). In Experiment 1, 36 5 1/2-month-old infants were habituated to a screen rotating 180° with no block, a screen rotating 120° up to a block, or a screen rotating 180° up to and seemingly through a block. All infants were then tested on the same 3 events and also a screen rotating 120° with no block. The results indicate that infants are using novelty and familiarity preference to determine their looking times. To confirm this, in Experiment 2, 52 5 1/2-month-old infants were familiarized on either 3 or 7 trials to a screen rotating 180° with no block or a screen rotating 120° with no block. All infants were then tested on the same test events as in Experiment 1. Infants with fewer familiarization trials were more likely to prefer the familiar rotation event. The results of these 2 experiments indicate that infants did not use the possibility or impossibility of events but instead used familiarity or novelty relations between the habituation events and the test events to determine their looking times, and suggest that the Baillargeon et al. study should not be interpreted as indicating object permanence or solidity knowledge in young infants.

[1]  J. Shinskey,et al.  On perception of a partially occluded object in 6-month-olds , 1998 .

[2]  J. Shinskey,et al.  Interpreting infant looking: the event set x event set design. , 1997, Developmental psychology.

[3]  J. Piaget.  The construction of reality in the child , 1954 .

[4]  E. Spelke,et al.  Object permanence in five-month-old infants , 1985, Cognition.

[5]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992) ☆ , 1995 .

[6]  J Langer,et al.  The drawbridge phenomenon: representational reasoning or perceptual preference? , 1999, Developmental psychology.

[7]  Renée Baillargeon,et al.  Why do young infants fail to search for hidden objects? , 1990, Cognition.

[8]  A. Meltzoff,et al.  OBJECT REPRESENTATION, IDENTITY, AND THE PARADOX OF EARLY PERMANENCE: Steps Toward a New Framework. , 1998, Infant behavior & development.

[9]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Where's the Rabbit? 5.5-Month-Old Infants' Representation of the Height of a Hidden Object , 1987 .

[10]  R. Baillargeon.  Object permanence in 3½- and 4½-month-old infants. , 1987 .

[11]  Cara H. Cashon,et al.  Eight-Month-Old Infants' Perception of Possible and Impossible Events. , 2000, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[12]  R. Bogartz.  THE CRITERION METHOD: SOME ANALYSES AND REMARKS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  M. Haith.  Who put the cog in infant cognition ? Is rich interpretation too costly ? , 1998 .

[14]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Addition and subtraction by human infants , 1992, Nature.

[15]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Rethinking infant knowledge: toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. , 1997, Psychological review.

[16]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Indexing and the object concept: developing `what' and `where' systems , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  E. Spelke,et al.  Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Michael A. Hunter,et al.  Preferences for familiar or novel toys: Effect of familiarization time in 1-year-olds. , 1982 .

[19]  E. W. Ames,et al.  A multifactor model of infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. , 1988 .

[20]  E. Spelke,et al.  Origins of knowledge. , 1992, Psychological review.

[21]  A. Gottfried,et al.  FAMILIARITY AND NOVELTY PREFERENCES IN INFANT RECOGNITION MEMORY: IMPLICATIONS FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING , 1982 .