The Stage IV Error in Piaget's Theory of Object Concept Development: A Reconsideration of the Spatial Localization Hypothesis

Schuberth, Richard E.; Werner, John S.; Lipsitt, Lewis P.

doi:10.2307/1128243

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, altering the distinctiveness of the locations (Butterworth, Jarrett, & Hicks, 1982;Diedrich, Highlands, Spahr, Thelen, & Smith, 2001), adding (Munakata. 1997) or changing the salience of (Schuberth, Werner, & Lipsitt, 1978) a hidden object, or explicitly drawing attention to one location (Smith et al, 1999) all influence the likelihood of perseveration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies coding the amount of time looking at each location (e.g., Bai & Bertenthal, 1992;Horobin & Acredolo, 1986;Landers, 1971) have found that increased attention to the A location is highly related to where infants reach. Similarly, altering the distinctiveness of the locations (Butterworth, Jarrett, & Hicks, 1982;Diedrich, Highlands, Spahr, Thelen, & Smith, 2001), adding (Munakata, 1997) or changing the salience of (Schuberth, Werner, & Lipsitt, 1978) a hidden object, or explicitly drawing attention to one location (Smith et al, 1999) all influence the likelihood of perseveration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Longo¹,

Bertenthal²

2006

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do 9-month-old infants motorically simulate actions they perceive others perform? Two experiments tested whether action observation, like overt reaching, is sufficient to elicit the Piagetian A-not-B error. Infants recovered a toy hidden at location A or observed an experimenter recover the toy. After the toy was hidden at location B, infants in both conditions perseverated in reaching to A, demonstrating that active search by the infant is not necessary for the A-not-B error. Consistent with prior research, infants displayed an ipsilateral bias when reaching, the so-called mysterious midline barrier. A similar ipsilateral bias was also observed depending on the manner in which the experimenter reached; infants perseverated following observation of ipsi-but not contralateral reaches by the experimenter. Thus, infants perseverated only following observation of actions they themselves were able to perform, suggesting that they coded others' actions in terms of motor simulation.The ability to represent and understand the behaviors of others is crucial for interacting effectively in our social world. Much of this understanding takes place with little awareness of the perceived actions or responses that are involved. When observing the behaviors of another, we tend to implicitly know their wants, desires, and intentions (Blakemore & Decety, 2001). Moreover, our responses are automatically shaped by these behaviors (Blakemore & Frith, 2005). Dating back at least to Darwin's (1872Darwin's ( /1965 observations of spectators at sporting events, researchers have commonly noted that people will automatically imitate actions they observe others perform. For example, we direct our gaze in the same direction we see another individual look (Driver et al., 1999), and we mimic the facial Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew R. Longo,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Longo¹,

Bertenthal²

2006

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Landers (1971) a Passive experience 41. Schuberth, Werner, & Lipsitt (1978) Same toy 42. Sophian (1985) 2 locations, traditional 43.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The A‐Not‐B Error: Results from a Logistic Meta‐Analysis

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta-analysis of the A-not-B error was conducted using logistic regression on studies conducted before September 1997 (107 data points). An earlier meta-analysis by Wellman, Cross, and Bartsch revealed that age, delay between hiding and retrieval, and number of hiding locations were significant predictors of both the proportion of infants who searched correctly on B trials and the proportion of infants who searched perseveratively. The current analysis replicated these findings with two exceptions: (1) The number of trials at the A location was a significant predictor, and (2) the number of locations was a significant predictor of the proportion of infants who searched perseveratively, but not the proportion of infants who searched correctly. Implications of these findings are discussed and a quantitative version of a hierarchical competing-systems model of infant search is proposed.

show abstract

“…First, many studies used in the meta-analysis included response criteria that required participants to make a specified number of correct reaches in a row to location A prior to the shift to B (e.g. Landers, 1971;Evans & Gratch, 1972;Harris, 1973;Gratch, Appel, Evans, Lecompte & Wright, 1974;Butterworth, 1977;Schuberth, Werner & Lipsitt, 1978;Frye, 1980;Sophian, 1985;Horobin & Acredolo, 1986). Given such criteria, infants could have made any number of reaches to A before they got, for example, two or three in a row correct.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, many of the investigations included in the metaanalysis of number of A trials employed similar training trials to the A side (Landers, 1971;Harris, 1973;Butterworth, 1975Butterworth, , 1976Butterworth, , 1977Bremner & Bryant, 1977;Bremner, 1978b;Frye, 1980;Butterworth, Jarrett & Hicks, 1982;Appel & Gratch, 1984;Bjork & Cummings, 1984). Furthermore, other studies in the meta-analysis employed training trials either to a center location (Gratch et al, 1974;Schuberth et al, 1978;Horobin & Acredolo, 1986) or to an unspecified location (Evans & Gratch, 1972;Cummings & Bjork, 1983;Sophian & Wellman, 1983;Sophian, 1985;Sophian & Sage, 1985;Sophian & Yengo, 1985). All of this suggests that Wellman et al's previous conclusion regarding the lack of influence of the number of A trials may be incorrect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor memory is a factor in infant perseverative errors

Diedrich

Thelen

Smith

et al. 2000

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do infants make perseverative errors when reaching for two identical targets? From a dynamic systems perspective, perseverative errors emerge from repetitive perceptual ±motor activity in novel andaor difficult contexts. To evaluate this account, we studied 9-month-old infants performing two tasks in which they repetitively reached toward either a single target or two identical targets. Results showed that, in the context of the two identical targets, perseverative responses were preceded by the creation of strong memories of previous reach directions and trajectories. In contrast, we found little evidence for convergence on habitual reach trajectories when the infants performed the less taxing singletarget task, suggesting that the demands of reaching for two identical targets strongly constrained the reaching behavior. In total, results indicated that memories of prior movements make a critical contribution to performance in the A-not-B task and its variants.

show abstract

The Stage IV Error in Piaget's Theory of Object Concept Development: A Reconsideration of the Spatial Localization Hypothesis

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

The A‐Not‐B Error: Results from a Logistic Meta‐Analysis

Motor memory is a factor in infant perseverative errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About