Evidence Between Infants and Toddlers:

¶ … Evidence Between Infants and Toddlers:

Review of Research and Proposal for Research

Research involving very young children and their knowledge of visual events that are physically impossible vs. possible has been thus far contradictory. While a series of tests involving searching for a hidden object have revealed that infants can determine which events are physically impossible and which are not, and have a knowledge of the properties of physical objects including solidity and continuity, a series of similar tests with toddlers ages 2-3 suggested a lack of knowledge concerning these properties. The apparent contradiction of these tests have significant implications for child psychology and development if, indeed, legitimate. A review of the studies concerning the topic and research proposal will allow further studies to be conducted into the matter.

In Renee Baillargeon and Julie DeVos' 1991 study, the researchers found that four and a half and three and a half-month-old babies recognized that "objects continued to exist when hidden" (1227). Studies were conducted using a carrot sliding along a track, and infant's reaction to the carrot's disappearing behind a screen were gauged. The young infants recognized that a tall carrot should have appeared in the screen while sliding along a track, using their facial expressions and the length of time stared at the screen to suggest their surprise, and therefore, their understanding of the carrot's height and the fact that it still existed, even when it could not be seen (1991, 1227). This experiment, and others involving toys and screens suggest that the young infants concluded that objects existed even when not visible. The test, which had produced similar results in infants of older ages, suggested that even the youngest infants had knowledge of this event.

In a similar study conducted by Baillargeon and Adrea Aguiar, eight and a half month old infants successfully demonstrated their understanding width. In a test similar to the continuality and permanence test, infants in a control group were shown two containers and a small ball attached to a stick. The containers were then placed behind a screen, and then revealed with the ball's stick protruding from them. Infants in this control group looked at the containers for equal amounts of time, while infants in another group, to whom the same scenario was introduced with the exception that one of the containers was too small to hold the ball, looked at the improbably situation longer, suggesting they understood its meaning (1998, 636).

Most significantly and strangely, however, two-year-old toddlers seemed to loose these skills. In fact, a 2000 study of the phenomenon revealed that toddlers consistently failed experiments that were modified from the infant "looking-time" experiments detailed in the previous two articles. In these experiments, toddlers failed to look in the correct location for a ball that was dropped behind a screen after a shelf was inserted. Toddlers also consistently failed to recognize the importance of the shelf being inserted into the screen when searching for the ball. When asked to find the ball, however, they consistently searched in the location where they initially saw the object (Hood, et al. 2000, 1540).

These startling finds suggest the need for further research and study into this topic. Initially, research must determine whether or not these results are mistakes. While the experiment given to the toddlers was supposedly an expanded version of the infant "looking-time" experiments, perhaps the two types of experiments cannot be compared, which would lead to a false comparison of the two. Additionally, infants and toddlers' cognitive skills are significantly different. While the first experiments needed no explanation, toddlers would have to receive an explanation or instructions before they could complete the experiment. Perhaps the error was in the explanation of the experiment.

Once the researchers determine whether or not an error was made in comparing the two experiments, researchers can go on to determine the cause of the apparent lack of cognition. This could be done through an intense study of a control group of infants and toddlers along significant milestones. For example, an infant may be tested from the age of three months to four years each month to determine when the loss of object permanence knowledge occurred. These infants turned toddlers can be tested against other infants and toddlers of other age groups and demographic groups in order to obtain an appropriate sampling and study the consistency of results.