From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I'm moving this to the talk page, because it seems like either original research, or something that needs to be cited and attributed (it sounds like perhaps a behaviorist account of the phenomenon?):
- A more parsimonious explanation of the A-not-B error is that reaching towards location A has been consistently reinforced by finding the object hidden under A. Seeing the experimenter place the object under B has not yet been a stimulus condition in the presence of which finding the object under B has occurred. Thus, the child's response of looking under A even when seeing the experimenter place the object under B is not a error, but a predictable response. The reason older children do not make the "error" anymore isn't because of maturation of the brain, but because, like most every other behavior change, they have had different experiences, in this case, in which seeing someone place an object under a cover is a stimulus in the presence of which looking under that cover will produce the object.
- That is why we are all fooled by very good illusionists.
- Such an explanation is parsimonious because it does not require assumptions of unmeasurable cognitive processes.
--Delirium 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. i guess you're applying the A-not-B test to whoever put the paragraph in the article (A)? Will the author notice that the paragraph is now at place B (the talk page)? Will s/he reach for it? i guess we will find out if that author has successfully passed through sub-stage 4 of his/her sensorimotor stage. And i guess we will be able to interpret this either in a behaviorist way or according to a cognitive interpretation. Boud 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)