Piaget has often been criticized with underestimating the skills of young children

Full Answer Section

    One of the most famous of Baillargeon's studies is the possible/impossible event paradigm. In this paradigm, infants are shown a screen that can be rotated to hide or reveal an object. In the possible event, the screen is rotated to reveal the object that was hidden behind it. In the impossible event, the screen is rotated to reveal a different object, or no object at all. Baillargeon found that infants consistently looked longer at the impossible event than at the possible event. This suggests that the infants were surprised by the impossible event, because it violated their expectation that the object would continue to exist even when it was hidden from view. Another study by Baillargeon, the drawbridge experiment, also provides evidence for object permanence in infants. In this experiment, infants are shown a drawbridge that can be raised or lowered to reveal or hide a box. The infants are first shown that the box exists behind the raised drawbridge. Then, the drawbridge is lowered to reveal the box. Finally, the drawbridge is raised again. Baillargeon found that infants typically looked longer at the side of the drawbridge where the box had been than at the side where the box had not been. This suggests that the infants were surprised when the box was no longer there, even though the drawbridge was raised and they could not see it. Baillargeon's studies have been replicated by many other researchers, and there is now a strong consensus that infants develop object permanence around 3.5 months of age. So, why did Piaget put the development of object permanence at a later date? There are a few possible explanations. First, Piaget's methods were less sensitive than Baillargeon's methods. Piaget's studies often relied on observations of children's spontaneous behaviors, which can be difficult to interpret. Baillargeon's studies, on the other hand, used carefully designed experiments to test infants' understanding of object permanence. Second, Piaget may have been misled by the fact that infants younger than 3.5 months of age often have difficulty reaching for hidden objects. This does not mean that they do not understand object permanence, however. It simply means that they do not yet have the motor skills to act on their understanding. Finally, it is important to note that Piaget's theory of cognitive development was not based solely on his own research. He also drew on the work of other researchers, as well as his own observations of children. It is possible that Piaget was influenced by the fact that other researchers had reported that infants did not develop object permanence until around 6 months of age. Despite his underestimation of the skills of young children, Piaget's work has had a profound influence on our understanding of cognitive development. His theory has been the subject of much research, and it continues to be taught in psychology courses around the world. Conclusion Baillargeon's studies have been praised for demonstrating object permanence in infants at a much younger age than Piaget believed possible. Piaget's underestimation of the skills of young children may have been due to a number of factors, including the less sensitive methods he used and the fact that he may have been influenced by the work of other researchers.  

Sample Answer

    Baillargeon's studies have been praised for demonstrating object permanence in infants at a much younger age than Piaget believed possible. Piaget believed that infants did not develop object permanence until around 6 months of age, but Baillargeon's studies have shown that infants as young as 3.5 months of age understand that objects continue to exist even when they are hidden from view.