You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines the work of Renée Baillargeon, whose research using the violation of expectation (VoE) paradigm has fundamentally challenged Piaget's account of infant cognition. We also explore broader debates in cognitive development — nature vs. nurture, the role of innate knowledge, and educational applications of developmental theories.
Key Definition: The Violation of Expectation (VoE) paradigm is an experimental method used with infants. It presents events that are either consistent (possible) or inconsistent (impossible) with physical laws. If an infant looks longer at the impossible event, this is taken as evidence that they expected a different outcome — and therefore possess some understanding of the physical principle involved.
This lesson addresses the following points from the AQA A-Level Psychology (7182) specification, Paper 3, Section B: Cognition and Development:
| Specification point | Coverage in this lesson |
|---|---|
| Baillargeon's explanation of early infant abilities, including knowledge of the physical world; violation of expectation research | The drawbridge study (1985); the carrot study (1991); support, containment, occlusion, solidity; innate physical reasoning |
| The development of social cognition: Selman's levels of perspective-taking | Five levels from egocentric (~3–6) to societal (~12+) |
| Theory of mind, including the Sally–Anne study and false-belief tasks; autism | Wimmer & Perner (1983); Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith (1985) Sally–Anne; ToM deficits in autism |
| The role of the mirror neuron system in social cognition | Rizzolatti et al.; mirror neurons in understanding intention and empathy; the "broken mirror" hypothesis |
These points are assessed through short-answer AO1 questions (describe a VoE study; outline Selman's levels; describe a false-belief task), AO2 application where a scenario is supplied, and 16-mark essays — frequently on Baillargeon as a challenge to Piaget, on theory of mind, or on the mirror neuron system.
This landmark study challenged Piaget's claim that infants under 8 months lack object permanence.
Method:
Results:
Conclusion:
Method:
Results:
Conclusion:
Baillargeon's subsequent work demonstrated that infants possess early understanding of several physical principles:
| Physical Principle | Age at Which Demonstrated | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Support | ~3 months | Infants expect objects to fall if unsupported |
| Containment | ~3.5 months | Infants understand objects cannot pass through other objects |
| Occlusion | ~3.5 months | Infants expect hidden objects to continue to exist |
| Solidity | ~3.5 months | Infants understand that solid objects cannot pass through each other |
Baillargeon argued that these findings suggest infants possess innate physical reasoning — a set of core principles about how objects behave that are present from birth or very early infancy.
Key Definition: Innate physical reasoning (or core knowledge) is the idea that infants are born with basic expectations about how the physical world works — such as solidity, support, and object permanence — rather than having to learn these through experience (as Piaget claimed).
Elizabeth Spelke extended Baillargeon's work by proposing that infants are born with core knowledge systems — innate cognitive modules that provide basic understanding of:
| Core Knowledge Domain | Description |
|---|---|
| Object representation | Objects are cohesive, bounded, persist over time and space |
| Number | Infants can distinguish small quantities (Wynn, 1992) |
| Space/geometry | Basic understanding of spatial relationships |
| Agents | Understanding that agents (people) have goals and intentions |
Spelke (1992) argued that these core systems are universal (found in all cultures), innate (present from birth), and provide the foundation on which later, more complex cognitive abilities are built.
Strengths:
Limitations:
The collective weight of evidence from Baillargeon, Spelke, and others poses a serious challenge to Piaget's account of the sensorimotor stage:
| Piaget's Claim | Challenge |
|---|---|
| Object permanence develops ~8 months | Baillargeon: evidence at 3.5–5 months |
| Infants construct knowledge through motor actions | VoE research: infants show knowledge before they can act on objects |
| Schemas are built from experience | Core knowledge research: some knowledge appears to be innate |
| Development is driven by individual exploration | Both social (Vygotsky) and innate (Spelke) factors are important |
Exam Tip: When evaluating Piaget using Baillargeon's research, be precise about which claim is challenged. The VoE studies specifically challenge the age at which object permanence develops and the mechanism (experience-based construction vs. innate knowledge). They do not necessarily disprove the entire stage theory.
Whereas Baillargeon and Spelke study the infant's understanding of the physical world, the second strand of this topic concerns social cognition — how children come to understand the mental world of themselves and others (intentions, beliefs, emotions, viewpoints). Three accounts are central: Selman's levels of perspective-taking, theory of mind, and the mirror neuron system.
Key Definition: Social cognition is the set of mental processes involved in perceiving, interpreting, and responding to the social world — in particular, understanding that other people have minds with thoughts, feelings, and perspectives that may differ from one's own.
Robert Selman studied the development of role-taking (or perspective-taking) — the ability to appreciate a situation from another person's point of view. He presented children with interpersonal dilemmas (the best known concerns "Holly", a girl who has promised her father not to climb trees but then encounters a friend whose kitten is stuck up a tree) and asked them to reason about what the characters thought and felt. From their answers, Selman identified a developmental progression of five levels:
graph TD
A["Level 0: Egocentric<br/>~3–6 yrs<br/>Cannot distinguish own view from others'"] --> B["Level 1: Social-informational<br/>~6–8 yrs<br/>Others may differ, but only due to different information"]
B --> C["Level 2: Self-reflective<br/>~8–10 yrs<br/>Can step into another's shoes; knows others can do the same"]
C --> D["Level 3: Mutual<br/>~10–12 yrs<br/>Can take a third-person perspective on a two-person interaction"]
D --> E["Level 4: Societal<br/>~12+ yrs<br/>Perspectives are influenced by broader social/cultural systems"]
| Level | Approx. age | Understanding |
|---|---|---|
| 0 — Egocentric | 3–6 | Child cannot reliably separate their own perspective from another's; assumes others feel as they do |
| 1 — Social-informational | 6–8 | Realises others may hold a different view, but attributes this only to their having different information |
| 2 — Self-reflective | 8–10 | Can genuinely take another's perspective and recognises the other can take theirs; appreciates reciprocity |
| 3 — Mutual | 10–12 | Can adopt a third-party perspective, viewing an interaction "from the outside" |
| 4 — Societal | 12+ | Understands that perspectives are shaped by wider social, moral, and cultural systems |
Selman's account complements the cognitive-developmental tradition: perspective-taking matures gradually, and its early limitations echo (but extend beyond) Piaget's egocentrism, treating the understanding of minds — not just visual viewpoints — as the developmental achievement.
Key Definition: Theory of mind (ToM) is the ability to attribute mental states — beliefs, desires, intentions, knowledge — to oneself and to others, and to understand that others' mental states may differ from one's own and from reality. It is what allows us to predict and explain behaviour in terms of what people think and want.
The classic test of ToM is the false-belief task, which assesses whether a child understands that someone can hold a belief that is false (i.e. does not match reality), and will act on that false belief.
Wimmer and Perner (1983) — the "Maxi" task. Children heard a story in which Maxi put chocolate in a blue cupboard and went out to play; while he was away, his mother moved the chocolate to a green cupboard. Children were asked where Maxi would look for the chocolate on his return. Understanding ToM requires answering "the blue cupboard" — the location matching Maxi's false belief — rather than the green cupboard where the chocolate actually is. Most children under about 4 answered "green", failing to separate Maxi's belief from reality; most children of 4–5 answered correctly, indicating an emerging theory of mind.
Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith (1985) — the Sally–Anne study. This influential study used a false-belief task to investigate ToM in autism.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Procedure | Children watched a scenario with two dolls: Sally places a marble in her basket and leaves; Anne moves the marble to her own box; Sally returns. The child is asked the belief question: "Where will Sally look for her marble?" |
| Correct answer | "In her basket" — where Sally falsely believes it to be |
| Participants | Children with autism, children with Down's syndrome, and typically developing children |
| Findings | Around 80% of the typically developing and Down's-syndrome children answered correctly; the majority of the children with autism answered "in the box" (the marble's actual location), failing the false-belief task |
Conclusion: Because the children with autism failed despite the Down's-syndrome group (with comparable or lower general cognitive ability) passing, Baron-Cohen and colleagues argued that autism involves a specific deficit in theory of mind — sometimes described as "mind-blindness" — rather than a general intellectual impairment. This was a landmark in understanding the social-communication difficulties associated with autism. (Note: this is presented respectfully as a cognitive account; autism is a spectrum and ToM performance varies.)
Key Definition: Mirror neurons are brain cells that fire both when an individual performs an action and when they observe the same action performed by another. They are thought to provide a neural basis for understanding others' actions, intentions, and emotions.
Mirror neurons were discovered by Rizzolatti and colleagues in the 1990s, initially in the premotor cortex of macaque monkeys: the same neuron fired when a monkey grasped a peanut and when it watched a researcher grasp a peanut. In humans, a mirror neuron system has been proposed to underpin several aspects of social cognition:
Exam Tip: Treat mirror neurons carefully in evaluation. The findings are genuine, but the strong claims (that mirror neurons fully explain empathy, ToM, or autism) are contested — much human evidence is correlational (brain imaging) rather than single-cell, and reviewers urge caution. A balanced answer notes both the promise and the over-extension.
Cognitive development is a central arena for the nature-nurture debate:
Most modern developmental psychologists adopt an interactionist view:
Key Definition: An interactionist approach to cognitive development proposes that both innate biological factors (nature) and environmental/social influences (nurture) interact to shape cognitive development. This is the dominant position in modern developmental psychology.
graph TB
subgraph Piaget
A[Individual exploration] --> B[Schema construction]
B --> C[Equilibration drives development]
C --> D[Universal stages]
end
subgraph Vygotsky
E[Social interaction] --> F[ZPD and scaffolding]
F --> G[Language drives development]
G --> H[Culturally variable]
end
subgraph Integration
I[Both contribute to understanding]
D --> I
H --> I
I --> J["Modern interactionist view:<br/>Biology + Experience + Social interaction"]
end
(The full Piaget–Vygotsky comparison table appears in the Vygotsky lesson; the key axes are mechanism — equilibration vs social mediation — stages vs continuity, language as reflecting vs driving cognition, and readiness vs teaching within the ZPD.)
Despite their differences, Piaget and Vygotsky agreed on several important points:
The three traditions imply contrasting classroom practices (developed more fully in the Piaget and Vygotsky lessons):
| Theory | Key educational implications |
|---|---|
| Piaget | Discovery learning, stage-appropriate readiness, concrete materials, and deliberately creating disequilibrium to motivate accommodation |
| Vygotsky | Scaffolding within the ZPD, collaborative/peer learning, expert guidance from MKOs, and "talk for learning" (language as the primary tool) |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.