Why Take the Cog Out of Infant Cognition?

Abstract

Smith, 1999) criticized several reports by investigators (e.g., Baillargeon, 1999; Spelke, 1998; Wynn, 1998) who offered a so-called “rich interpretation ” of findings gathered from young infants. The fundamental danger associated with such rich interpretations is that some simpler lower level mechanism may be discovered that can account for these same findings. This commentary is directed to three articles that appear in this issue of Infancy (Bogartz, Shinskey, & Schilling; Cashon & Cohen; Schilling). All three articles present empirical evidence from 4-, 5-, and 8-month-old infants that the authors contend is more consistent with a perceptually based interpretation than with the rich interpretation offered by two classic studies of object permanence in young infants (Baillargeon, 1987a; Baillargeon, Spelke, & Wasserman, 1985). I argue that the alternative explanation offered by these three sets of authors is inconsistent with both the original studies and with their own data. THE ORIGINAL “DRAWBRIDGE ” STUDIES In Baillargeon et al. (1985), 5-month-old infants were habituated to a screen that rotated 180 ° (fore and aft), much like a drawbridge. No object (other than the screen) was present during habituation, and the now-standard infant-control habituation procedure was used. Both types of test trials involved the placement of an Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard N. Aslin, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences,

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.