Strengths and Limitations of VoE Paradigm PDF

**Strengths and Limitations of the Violation of Expectation (VoE) Paradigm: A Refined Overview** **STRENGTHS OF VoE STUDIES** **Baillargeon, 1985 -- The Drawbridge Study** - **Objective**: Investigate object permanence in 5-month-old infants, challenging Piaget's view that \"out of sight is...

**Strengths and Limitations of the Violation of Expectation (VoE) Paradigm: A Refined Overview** **STRENGTHS OF VoE STUDIES** **Baillargeon, 1985 -- The Drawbridge Study** - **Objective**: Investigate object permanence in 5-month-old infants, challenging Piaget's view that \"out of sight is out of mind.\" - **Method**: Infants were habituated to a 180-degree rotating screen. Test events: - **Possible Event**: Screen rotated until it contacted a hidden block, then reversed. - **Impossible Event**: Screen rotated a full 180 degrees, seemingly passing through the block. - **Findings**: Infants looked longer at the impossible event, indicating they detected a violation of the principle that two solid objects cannot occupy the same space. - **Strengths**: - Suggests infants form mental representations of hidden objects, including their position, height, and solidity. - Shows infants reason about unseen objects\' physical properties. - **Criticism**: - Overreliance on looking times, which may reflect perceptual differences rather than genuine reasoning. - First VoE study, and the methodology has since improved significantly. **Baillargeon, 1987 -- Soft/Hard Objects** - **Objective**: Examine infants\' understanding of physical properties (rigidity vs. flexibility). - **Method**: - **Possible Event**: Screen rotated, compressing a soft object. - **Impossible Event**: Screen rotated through a hard object without stopping. - **Findings**: Infants looked longer at the impossible event, suggesting recognition of physical differences between objects. - **Strengths**: - Controlled for perceptual differences by ensuring both events had identical movements. - Demonstrates infants' early physical reasoning about object properties. - **Criticism**: - Possible novelty preference for the hard object could explain longer looking. - Familiarity effects from habituation may influence results. **Luo, 2003 -- Reasoning About Hidden Objects** - **Objective**: Improve VoE methodology by addressing earlier critiques. - **Method**: - Infants were familiarized with thin or thick boxes hidden behind a screen. - Test event: A cylinder moved behind the screen. - **Possible**: Cylinder passed behind a thin box. - **Impossible**: Cylinder passed behind a thick box. - **Findings**: Infants looked longer at the impossible event, even with a 4-minute delay between familiarization and testing. - **Strengths**: - Demonstrates infants can maintain representations of hidden objects. - Reduced potential for novelty effects due to controlled conditions. - **Interpretation**: Infants were surprised by the violation of spatial constraints, reflecting an understanding of object solidity and space. **LIMITATIONS OF VoE** **Schilling, 2000 -- Familiarity Preference** - **Objective**: Investigate how habituation influences test-trial preferences in VoE studies. - **Method**: Four groups of 4- or 6-month-olds tested under varying habituation conditions. - **Condition A**: 7 habituation trials with 180-degree rotation (replication of Baillargeon's method). - **Condition B**: 12 habituation trials (more extensive familiarization). - **Condition C**: 7 trials with a 112-degree screen rotation (less dramatic). - **Condition D**: Older (6-month-old) infants. - **Findings**: - Group A replicated Baillargeon's results but likely reflected familiarity preference. - Group B showed novelty preference, looking longer at the possible event. - Group D showed no preference, suggesting complete learning by older infants. - **Interpretation**: Initial habituation influences test-trial outcomes more than physical principle violations. - **Criticism**: Results highlight that familiarity and novelty preferences complicate interpretation of VoE studies. **Haith, 1998 -- Rich Interpretation and Perceptual Bias** - **Critique**: - VoE studies answer only yes/no questions about recognition or discrimination but fail to reveal the cognitive processes underlying these abilities. - Long looking times might reflect perceptual salience or complexity, not sophisticated reasoning. - **Example**: Infants may detect a difference in an event but lack deeper conceptual understanding. - **Conclusion**: VoE methods oversimplify complex cognitive phenomena. **Paulus, 2022 -- Beyond VoE** - **Critique**: - **Ambiguity**: Longer looking times may reflect perceptual or attentional biases, not cognitive understanding. - **Assumptions**: VoE often assumes cognitive capacities without ruling out low-level explanations. - **Construct Validity**: Urges adoption of multimodal methods to assess infant cognition more comprehensively. - **Conclusion**: Encourages moving beyond VoE to integrate physiological and behavioral measures. **Dunn & Bremner, 2017 -- Social Looking** - **Objective**: Examine social cues in response to violations of expectations. - **Findings**: - Infants engaged in social looking (e.g., turning to parents) during VoE trials but not in novel trials. - Suggests social behavior, not looking time, might reflect understanding of violations. - **Criticism**: Challenges the validity of looking-time as the sole measure of surprise or recognition. **Kaiser, 1985 -- Curved Tube Problem** - **Findings**: Adults struggled to predict motion outcomes in no-motion conditions but detected violations in motion trials. - **Relevance**: Demonstrates looking data reveal recognition of violations but not predictive understanding. **Willatts, 1997 -- Action-Based Tasks** - **Critique**: VoE tasks might detect novelty, not expectation violations. - **Recommendation**: Use action-based tasks to assess infants' ability to predict outcomes, requiring active engagement rather than passive observation.