Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The level of object-permanence was assessed for 16 infants (age, 7 months) when three types of stimuli were used. A familiar object (a toy brought from home), novel objects, and a significant object (baby's bottle) were used to examine how each object type would affect the infants' levels of search. Results indicated that when presented with a novel object, 7-month-old infants, as a group, would exhibit significantly higher levels of search behavior than they would for either the significant or the familiar stimuli. The babies' bottle elicited significantly higher levels of search from all infants than did a familiar object. In three cases it was observed that the significant object elicited a higher level of search than did novel objects. Definitions of novelty and significance are examined. Implications of the findings in terms of assessment are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ault, R. L. (1977). Children's cognitive development. Piaget's theory and the process approach. New York: Oxford University.

Bell, S. M. (1970). The development of the concept of object as related to infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 41, 291-311.

Bradley-Johnson, S. , Friedrich, D. , & Wyrembelski, A. (1981). Exploratory behavior in Down's syndrome and normal infants. Applied Research in A Mental Retardation, 2, 213-228.

Bradley-Johnson, S. , & Tardona, D. (1984). Exploratory behaviors in six and twelve-month-old infants. Manuscript in review.

Dunst, C. (1980). A clinical and educational manual for use with Uzgiris and Hunt Scales of Infant Psychological Development. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Dunst, C. (1981). Infant learning. A cognitive-linguistic intervention strategy Higham, Mass.: Teaching Resources.

Gottfried, A. W. , & Rose, S. A. (1980). Tactile recognition memory in infants. Child Development. 51, 69 74.

Jackson, E. , Campos, J. J.. & Fisher, K. W. (1978). The question of decalage between object permanence and person permanence. Developmental Psychology, 14, 1-10.

Kish, G. B. (1966). Studies of sensory reinforcement. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. Newx York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp 109-159.

10.

Kish, G. B. , & Baron, A. (1962). Satiation of sensory reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 55, 1007-1010.

11.

Lamb, M. E. (1973). The effects of' maternal deprivation on the development of the concepts of object and person.,Journal of Behavioral Science, 1, 355-364.

12.

Lingle, K. M. , & Lingle, J. H. (1981). Effects of selected object characteristics on object-permanence test performance. Child Development, 52, 367-369.

13.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: International Universities Press.

14.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child (M. Cook, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1937).

15.

Rubenstein, J. (1974). A concordance of visual and manipulative responsiveness to novel and familiar stimuli in six-month-old infants. Child Development, 45, 194-195.

16.

Rubenstein, J. (1975). Maternal attentiveness and subsequent exploratory behavior in the infant. Child Development, 38, 1089-1100.

17.

Schaffer, H. R. (1975). Concordance of visual and manipulative responses to novel and familiar stimuli: A reply to Rubenstein (1974). Child Development, 46, 290-291.

18.

Uzgiris, I. C. , & Hunt, J. McV. (1975). Assessment in infancy. Ordinal scales of psychological development. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.

19.

Wilson, M. (1971). Novelty as reinforcement for children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 601.

20.

Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Novelty,Familiarity,and Significance of Object in the Assessment of Object Permanence

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References