Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Oct;93(3):167-98.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.012.

Young infants' reasoning about hidden objects: evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Young infants' reasoning about hidden objects: evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only

Su-Hua Wang et al. Cognition. 2004 Oct.

Abstract

The present research examined alternative accounts of prior violation-of-expectation (VOE) reports that young infants can represent and reason about hidden objects. According to these accounts, young infants' apparent success in these VOE tasks reflects only novelty and familiarity preferences induced by the habituation or familiarization trials in the tasks. In two experiments, 4-month-old infants were tested in VOE tasks with test trials only. The infants still gave evidence that they could represent and reason about hidden objects: they were surprised, as indicated by greater attention, when a wide object became fully hidden behind a narrow occluder (Experiment 1) or inside a narrow container (Experiment 2). These and control results demonstrate that young infants can succeed at VOE tasks involving hidden objects even when given no habituation or familiarization trials. The present research thus provides additional support for the conclusion that young infants possess expectations about hidden objects. Methodological issues concerning the use of habituation or familiarization trials in VOE tasks are also discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic drawing of the test events shown in the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 1.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean looking times of the infants in the experimental and control conditions of Experiments 1 and 2 at the test events.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Schematic drawing of the test events shown in the experimental and control conditions of Experiment 2.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aguiar A, Baillargeon R. Eight-and-a-half-month-old infants’ reasoning about containment events. Child Development. 1998;69:636–653. - PubMed
    1. Aguiar A, Baillargeon R. 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology. 1999;39:116–157. - PubMed
    1. Aguiar A, Baillargeon R. Developments in young infants’ reasoning about occluded objects. Cognitive Psychology. 2002;45:267–336. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aguiar A, Baillargeon R. Perseverative responding in a violation-of-expectation task in 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition. 2003;88:277–316. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aslin RN. Why take the cog out of infant cognition? Infancy. 2000;1:463–470. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources