True or false? Piaget’s estimation of the timing of achieving object permanence is now thought to be too pessimistic.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Contextualizing the development of object permanence in Piaget's theory, we evaluate each statement carefully.
Option 1: 'True' — this aligns with current research suggesting Piaget underestimated infants' abilities. Modern findings show that infants can demonstrate object permanence earlier than Piaget proposed, indicating his timing was overly conservative or pessimistic about when this understanding emerges. The discrepancy arises from how tasks were designed and what counts as evidence of understanding, with newer methodologies revealing earlier competencies.
Option 2: 'False' — claiming Piaget's estimation is not too pessimistic would imply that his timing was accurate or that infants develop object permanence later than he suggested. However, contemporary evidence challenges that view by providing data that infants can track hidden objects earlier than Piaget indicated, making the statement in option 2 less consistent with the prevailing interpretation.
To further unpack, consider the construct being measured: object permanence reflects the infant's mental representation that an object continues to exist even when out of sight. If experiments reveal looking times or reaching behaviors consistent with this expectation at younger ages than Piaget proposed, that would support the claim that his estimate was too pessimistic. Conversely, if later research showed a longer delay or more gradual acquisition than Piaget posited, option 2 might gain traction. But the consenso in developmental psychology has tended to view Piaget as underestimating early competencies in object permanence, supporting the interpretation in option 1.
In summary, relative to current understanding, the claim that Piaget’s timing was too pessimistic has stronger support, while asserting the opposite would conflict with the body of recent empirical findings on infant cognition.

True or false? Piaget’s estimation of the timing of achieving object permanence is now thought to be too pessimistic.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Christelle is a 6-month-old playing with an interesting toy that flashes lights and makes sounds. When her mother takes the toy and places it under a blanket, Christelle simply looks at her mother and makes no attempt to uncover the toy. How would Piaget explain Christelle's behavior?

Babies looked longer at a video in which a rotating surface seemed to pass through a hidden box than at a video in which the rotating surface seemed to stop against the hidden box. Their surprise at seeing an “impossible event” suggests that even young babies have developed a ___.

Object permanence is demonstrated by an infant who _____.

Baby Hugh enjoys playing with his dad's keys, but when his dad takes them away, Hugh does not search for them. Piaget would say that this is because Hugh does not understand _____.

One benefit for parents of their infant's lack of object permanence is that _____.

The habituation-dishabituation experiment that moved a carrot (short or tall) behind a screen (with or without a cutout) shows that infants as young as 2.5 months have

Isaiah is 8 months old. His sister takes a toy and hides it behind her back. Isaiah does not look for the toy. It is likely that he has not yet acquired:

True or false? Infants are born with the understanding that objects can exist even if they can’t be seen.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler