Question 1:  

Using examples, describe the difference between assimilation and

Both processes that infants use to help access and update their schemes

Assimilation occurs when children use their existing schemes to deal with new information or
experiences. Therefore, encounter something that already fits within a pre-existing scheme, they
assimilate it and update that scheme.

Accommodation occurs when children adjust their schemes to take new information and
experiences into account. Therefore, encounter something new doesn’t fit into scheme – adjust
scheme to deal with new info.

Example 1:

A child saw a zebra for the first time and called it a horse. The child assimilated this information
into her schema for a horse. When the child accommodated information, she took into consideration
the different properties of a zebra compared to a horse, perhaps calling a zebra a horse with stripes.
When she eventually learns the name of zebra, she has accommodated this information.

Example 2:

Think of a toddler who has learned the word car to identity the family’s car. The toddler may call all
moving vehicles on roads “cars”, including motorcycles and trucks. The child has assimilated these
objects to his or her existing scheme. But the child soon learns that motorcycles and trucks are not
cars and fine-tunes the category to exclude motorcycles and trucks, accommodating the scheme.

1
Question 2:  What was the study by Baillargeon and DeVos (1991) designed to assess, how did
they do it, and what did they find?

Study by Baillargeon and DeVos (1991) designed to assess object permanence. Looking time
measured on unexpected and expected outcomes. They created a test where infants see little and big
giraffe pass behind two large grey columns. Small grey column were put between two large grey
columns.

In a “possible/expected” condition, big giraffe could be seen passing behind all grey columns
whereas small giraffe could not be seen until they emerged at the edge of the column. In an
“impossible/unexpected” condition, little and big giraffes were passed behind the grey columns, but
neither were visible, although they emerged as expected at the edge of the columns.

Findings show that infants looked significantly longer at unexpected event. This suggests that they
recognized that there was something unusual about this condition and hence that they had some
understanding of object permanence. They realize that even though an object is hidden from sight it
doesn't mean that that object has ceased to exist. Baillargeon and DeVos found evidence that
suggested infants as young as 3.5 months start to realise when giraffe is missing/hidden and able to
represent and reason about hidden objects. They also have an understanding of objects in motion.

The development of object permanence usually emerges between 8-12 months according to Piaget.

2
Question 3:  Describe the study by Xu & Garcia (2008). What did they do, what did they find,
and what can be concluded from their experiment?

In the experiment, infant observed the experimenter take the ping pong ball out of a box - takes out
4 red and one white each time. The box is opened to reveal either a box with mainly red and a few
white marbles or mainly white and a few red.

The infants were split into 2 groups in the experiment: one group saw box open filled with mainly
red balls (expected) while the other group saw box open with mainly white balls (unexpected).

Finding revealed that 8 months infants were more likely to look at box with white balls than the red
balls. They look longer at the scene in the unexpected condition as compared to the expected -
suggest they recognise that this is unexpected and improbable. However, the effect disappears if the
experimenter appears to be looking into the box while picking. Babies show an understanding of the
physical world. It suggested that our inductive reasoning abilities exist from a very young age and
are independent of formal teaching.

In conclusion, formal operations may emerge under the age of 2 years as infants were confused
about the unexpected event. Using deductive reasoning as they were starting to have some sense of
"if x is true, y must be true"

3
Question 4:  Describe fluid and crystallised intelligence and give examples of how each can be
tested.

The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: General intelligence is actually a
collection of perhaps 100 abilities working together to bring out different intelligences. It varies
across people. Gf-Gc theory separates these abilities broadly into two different sets of abilities that
have different trajectories over the course of development from childhood through adulthood.

Fluid abilities drive the individual’s ability to think and act quickly, solve novel problems and
encode short term memories. They have been described as the source of intelligence that an
individual uses when he or she doesn't already know what to do. Often what we think of when
describing intelligence. Fluid intelligence (Nature intelligence) is grounded in physiological
efficiency, and is thus relatively independent of education and acculturation (Horn, 1967) (e.g.
inductive reasoning, abstract thinking, problem solving about novel concepts and relationships). To
test it, present them with letter, number or word series test (inductive reasoning). For example,
inductive reasoning à specific to general
letter series test: a..c..e..g..i.. ?

Fluid intelligence decrease in age

Crystallized Intelligence is stems from learning and acculturation, is reflected in: tests of knowledge
and general information, use of language (vocabulary) and a wide variety of acquired skills.
Personality factors, motivation, educational and cultural opportunity are central to its development
(only indirectly dependent on the physiological influence that mainly affects fluid abilities). It can
be test by reading comprehension and vocabulary tests/assessed by verbal meaning (Verbal
comprehension) and problem solving inventories. Crystallized Intelligence steadily increases with
age.

Broadly, fluid intelligence is what we are born with and crystallized intelligence is what we earn.

4
Question 5: Describe evidence showing that both nature and nurture contribute to language
development.  Provide specific, research-based evidence for each side of the debate.   

There are two main theories on how language is acquired. The first one is the learning accounts
theory (nurture). It says that language is primarily learnt by reinforcement, that is, a child will say
something and their parents will reinforce them and imitation such as modelling, observation and
copying adult speech model. However this view of how language is acquired is not sufficient
enough to explain the complexity or rapidity of language acquisition (Much of what children say is
spontaneous).

Language acquisition must occur within a critical/sensitive period or it will be at best disordered. If
that period passes without any human examples as a reinforcement (nurture), the period passes and
may never be regained. Evidence for a sensitive period is consistent with a view of the human
capacity for language acquisition as innate, but other accounts are also possible.

Nativist account of language acquisition (nature) says that language is a special kind of learning.
Humans are especially adapted for language acquisition (We are born to do so). A study by Eimas
et al (1971) found that infants are born with the ability to discriminate sound contrasts, is true even
for sounds they are not exposed to. Chompsky's 'language acquisition device' that children recreate
grammar by abstracting grammatical rules (even from degraded input)

5
Question 6: With reference to mirror self-recognition, explain how our understanding of the
development of self-awareness might be different if testing had only been collected from
Cameroonian Nso children.

Keller et al. (2005) investigated various cultures effects on mirror self-recognition.Keller et al.
(2005) compared pass rates of children in Germany and children in a rural community in Cameroon
(20 to 24 months).

Result showed that 73% of German infants passed a mirror self-recognition test(consistent with
literature), whilst only 15% of Cameroon Infants passed (showed less experimenting behaviour and
spent more time looking at mirror). However, this may not be evidence of a lack of self-awareness
in Cameroon Children.

If testing had only been done on Nso children, there is very different understanding of the
development of self-awareness. For example, if we knew that chimps passed but humans didn't, we
wouldn't attribute the difference to self-awareness, but children from industrialised countries were
used so another way at looking at the task created.

This is nonsense if you take the test to indicate self-awareness then you concluded that western
infants are more self-aware.It could be explained by cultural differences. Interpreting difference
between German and Nso infants could be the culture difference as they grow up with mirrors
differently. Industrialized countries spend time in front of mirror with infant. Nso children have
reflective surfaces but cracked, used for decoration. Therefore, the difference in results due to
culture.

6
 Question 7: Briefly outline the study by Rakoczy et al. (2005) on young children’s
development of pretend play. Comment on what they did, what they found and what
they concluded.

The study by Rakoczy et al. (2005) tested 18-24 month old infantby showing them a range of novel
objects. They didn't come to the experiment with any predisposed knowledge of uses. They
demonstrated pretend and instrumental actions on a range of objects, and with each object they had
what they termed a substrate, which was there to help define what the object could be or was being
used for. For example there was an object: little paint roller. In the functional position it was
represented with some playdough, and the act was to roll the playdough out. For the pretend action
with the paint roller, the substrate was a tube of toothpaste. The experimenter pretended to put the
toothpaste on the roller and brush her teeth. The same object used in two different ways: functional
act andpretend based act.

They found that children imitated both kinds of actions in similar ways. Theyexhibited few creative
pretend acts but many instrumental acts. Children displayed more and stronger social behaviour
when pretending and showed in their behaviour that they saw something different between the
functional and pretend act. This study supported the Vygotsky’sCLT and concluded that children
learn and acquire the ideas for pretendingby copying and interacting with others.

7
 Question 8:What is the most accurate way to describe how children with autism engage
in pretend play? Refer to the research of Libby et al (1998) and Charman and Baron-
Cohen (1997) in writing your answer.

Study by Libby et al. (1998) found that children with autism,down syndrome, and typically
developing children engaged in functional play about the same level. However, children with autism
tend to display low rates of pretend play than children with downsyndrome and the typically
developing children.

However,Charmen and Baron-Cohen argued that children with autism are capable of pretending but
they just aren't interested in it due to disinterest in engaging socially with others.This make sense
according to Vygotsky: pretence developed through social interactions. As autistic children not
interested in social interaction, they are not interested in pretend play.

In the study they set up a scenario: they worked through a series of prompts such as "can you give
dolly a drink of juice", and they examined whether they would pretend to give dolly an empty cup
for a drink of juice and then go as far as saying "let’s pretend this brick is adrink of juice.

Most typically developing children have no problem with object substitution.Also, it was found that
when children with autism were given this pretend and directed task, they were able to perform at
levels similar to typically developing children.They are able to engage in pretence when prompted
to.

Baron Cohen

Persons with Autism show significantly lower passing rates of false belief tests than normal, or
persons with Down Syndrome.

False belief task result for people with Autism (baron-cohen et al.) found what in comparison
to Down's syndrome and typical 4-year-olds?

-Poor correct judgments compared to both of these groups

8
 Question 9: What are product-based programs and how might they affect children’s
development?

Product-based program (product length commercial): Previously programs motivated the

Piaget's view on product-based TV

With deferred imitation, children can mentally recrate an action from a previous period, product-
based TV could stimulate imitative and context-dependent forms of imagination

Vygotsky's view on product-based TV

Cultural tools stimulate cognitive developments, thematically related toys may function as cultural
tools that help the child to develop imaginative skills

Both of these theories are positive in how product based TV affects children's development.
However further research has been undertaken in order to see how product based programs affect
children's development. It was found that the effect of product-based TV on children's pretend play
depends on the program's genre. Non-specific product-based programs such as Smurfs have little
impact on novel pretend play and are equivalent to watching non-product based programs. Neutral
(no associated products - Blinkey Bill) and Non-Specific results were relatively similar. However,
specific product based programs (violence, no subplot, etc) such as Bratz or Ben10 encourage less
novel pretend play and more imitative pretend play.

9
 Question 10:How might ‘wishful identification’ influence aggressive responses to
violent video games? Briefly describe a study to support your answer.

Wishful identification is where the observer desires to emulate the character, either in general terms
(as a role model for future action or identity development) or in specific terms (extending responses
beyond the viewing situation or imitating a particular behaviour). A study by Konijn et al. (2007)
test 112 boys (mean age 14 year old) randomly assigned to one of 4 conditions, and there were a
range of different games assignment to each condition, which where non-violent fantasy (e.g.
mario), non-violent realistic (e.g. Fifa world cup), violent fantasy and violent realistic. They played
the game for 20 mins then compete in reaction-time task, they were told that if they won, they were
allowed to "BLAST" the opponent with a certain level of noise ranging from 60Db (level 1) to
105db (level 10~smoke alarm). They were also told that sound level 8, 9, 10 could cause permanent
hearing damage.

The results showed that the most aggressive participants played a violent video game and wished to
be like the violent character in that game - especially when the game was realistic. In a violent video
game, the more the participant identified with the character (wishful identification), the level of
aggression increased. However, wishful identification with non-violent game related to less
aggression

10