New findings on object permanence: A developmental difference between two types of occlusion

I chose this journal article due to the fact it dealt with occlusion in more than one way. Piaget based his argument for the development timeline of object permanence based on only one type of occlusion. The experimental process when set up properly by having the needed controls in place, performance variables accounted for, and multiple types of testing is always preferable to an uncontrolled single test on a single subject.

Moore and Meltzoff (University of Washington), in 1999, published their research pertaining to object permanence. In this research they utilized multiple subjects grouped within their respective age groups, and divided by race (although not as diverse as I feel necessary) 69 White, 1 Black, 1 Hispanic, and 1 Asian.

They begin by calling object permanence (called OP for the remainder of this writing) an enigma. They are saying after 40 years of study, OP is still a mystery that has not been resolved. That comes across as humorous because until infants can speak from the moment they pass through the birth canal, we will never be 100% sure of what is going through their minds.

The Piaget experience leaves a few things to be desired. The performance variable that leaves me scratching my head is Piaget's lack of accounting for motor skill development. I find it odd that it is not a bigger issue for him. permanence could have been there all along, but as contended in the article, "it might not be present due to other performance variables" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). The two researchers follow this discussion with recent studies concerning look-time. More recently these studies have that looking may not be a good measure after all. They suggest, "that the incidents of aversion due to permanence violations" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999), we recorded with enough regularity to skew the look-time results. The two then move on to question "search success," and if there is any real correlation between permanence and finding objects by searching for them. The studies they referenced seemed to focus on failures to find objects, and then attribute the failure to developmental changes. Moore and Meltzoff sought to control this area by differentiation based on ages and stages of development. They focused on successful searches where the item was completely uncovered and not just pointed to or remembered through the last point of perceptual change. If the object was not uncovered, permanence was not indicated. It was determined that with these infants OP is, "an attainment that grows from a developmentally prior understanding of object identity" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). Followed by the declaration that, "permanence is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, but a work in progress" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999).

Their experiments were counterbalanced for sex, task order, and side of hiding (unlike Piaget). An interesting finding was recorded having to do with, "a coordination between manual uncovering and visual expectations of re-appearance" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). They also concluded that not all occlusions are treated the same, and that hiding objects behind a screen and then behind a hand produced different results. This finding helps to eliminate things like motor skills and toy preference. They ultimately come to the conclusion that object identity is, "a developmental precursor to object permanence, and underlies the obtained task dissociation. This is a departure from Piaget's idea of innate object permanence.

In summary, object identity is a precursor to OP. What is acquired through experience is structured by the, "identity-preserving transformation themselves" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999). OP development is an ordered series of steps. It is suggested that permanence is, "initially dependent on the nature of occlusion...with development it becomes a property of objects" (Moore & Meltzoff, 1999).

My last word on the whole issue at this moment will be; Infants and adults are not necessarily similar in relation to cognitive abilities, but they both seem to possess a life-long quest to reach an understanding of their world and the objects around them.

Is object permanence a life-long work-in-progress? (think about it)

Works Cited:

Moore, M. K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1999). New findings on object permanence: A developmental difference between two types of occlusion. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 563-584.