Also, in the original study there was an experimental and control
condition, with rotating screens with and without the wooden blocks.
Children in both conditions habituated to a moving screen rotating
180 degrees. Infants in the control condition saw the same sequence of
screen movements but were never shown the wooden block that children
in the experimental condition observed. The infants in the experimental
condition looked significantly longer at the "impossible event" than at
the "possible event." For these infants, there was apparently nothing
surpising about the "possible event," but they knew that something was
amiss when the screen failed to stop. No differences in looking time were
found for the infants in the control condition who also saw the
dishabituating events, but which did not violate expectations.
The most straightforward explanation of these results is that the infants
believed that the block continued to exist even though it was out of
their sight, and they were surprised when the screen failed to stop.
Their performance in the "impossible event" condition reflects not only a
knowledge of the permanence of objects, but also a knowledge that one
solid object cannot pass through another.
So, it's not just habituation/dishabituation but also
violation-of-expectation, since infants in the control condition showed
equal looking times in the test (dishabituation) events, the 180 degree
and the 112 degree event.
You might want to read Spelke (1991) who wrote from a neo-nativisit
perspective about young infants' knowledge of continuity and solidity.
-Mike Lee, MA
Dept. of Psychology
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Wallace Dixon wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> No, because when you dishabituate to something, it means you notice a
> difference between the way a thing is and the way it was or should be.
> Babies dishabituate, in Baillargeon's interpretation, precisely because they
> notice a violation of the law of object permanence. In your terms, they are
> unable to get over the violation of the law, and so look longer at the
> violation of the law.
>
> wedj
>
>
> On 1/21/03 3:17 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Wallace Dixon wrote:
> >
> > "Baillargeon finds that babies dishabituate or ³recover² when shown the
> > ³impossible² event, but they donıt dishabituate to the possible event..."
> >
> > Wouldn't this suggest the opposite...if they understood gravity or the nature
> > of matter, wouldn't they be unable to "get over" the violation of the law...?
> >
> > Nancy Melucci
> > Long Beach City College
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
,o888b,`?88888 Michael D. Lee 88888P',d888o,
,8888 888 ?888 aka Mikel 888P 888 8888,
8888888P' 888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 888 `?8888888
888P' 888 //home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~mdlee 888 `?888
`88 O d888 --*--*-- 888b O 88'
`?._ _.o88888 "Keep the balance" 88888o._ _.?'
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
