Development of basic intuitions about physical support during early childhood: Evidence from a novel eye-tracking paradigm

Abstract

Using a novel eye-tracking paradigm, we assessed the development of 2- to 6-year-old children's intuitions about the physical support of symmetrical and asymmetrical objects in two experiments (Experiment 1: N = 98; Experiment 2: N = 288). Children were presented with video sequences demonstrating how two identical blocks were lowered onto a platform before being released simultaneously. In the critical test trials, both blocks remained in place although only one of them was sufficiently supported. As expected, children tended to look longer at the block, which should have fallen. Taken together, the results indicate that even 2-year-old children are sensitive to the amount of contact between symmetrical blocks and a supporting platform and even anticipate which block is going to fall. Nonetheless, we found a considerable improvement with age in this respect. Two-year-olds did not consider an object's weight distribution reliably when assessing its stability and even older preschoolers performed much more poorly with asymmetrical than symmetrical blocks. We conclude that intuitions about support are still weak and limited in toddlers and that they improve considerably during early childhood.

The Impact of a Construction Play on 5- to 6-Year-Old Children’s Reasoning About Stability

“…The researchers found that children from 9 years of age started to consider both weight and distance, while younger children tend to view weight and distance separately. Other studies by Krist et al, have shown that between the ages of three to eight, children's abilities of balancing symmetrical and asymmetrical blocks and estimating symmetrical as well as asymmetrical objects' stabilities increase continuously independent of the type of assessment (rating photographs, Krist, 2010; eye tracking, Krist et al, 2018;balancing blocks, Krist et al, 2005). Even though children's estimation of asymmetrical blocks' stabilities increased, all three studies found children's performance on the estimation of symmetrical objects (e.g., cuboids) to be superior to their estimation of asymmetrical objects (e.g., L-shaped objects).…”

Assessing Children in Developmental Research

“…Investigating these paradigms for comparability across age groups, for example with standardized measures that exist for older children and adults, would allow more detailed insights into construct structure and stability. For this, assessment methods for younger children could be adapted to older children, for example by using eye-tracking procedures (Krist et al, 2018), and could be compared to the results obtained in these older children with standardized tests, employing multi-modal testing. This approach could test whether the different procedures measure the same construct.…”

“…Studies found that children struggle with physical reasoning during the preschool years, a task which infants seem to perform better at, which is a rather surprising finding. However, Krist and colleagues (2018) make the case that the methods applied in preschool are much more cognitively challenging than the violation of expectation paradigm and differences between infants and preschoolers might stem from this and not from actual differences in physical reasoning. In their study, Krist and his colleagues applied an eye-tracking paradigm with 2- to 6-year-old children and found that children became increasingly sensitive to physical principles such as the amount of support needed for objects to remain stable on a supporting surface.…”

“…However, Krist and colleagues (2018) make the case that the methods applied in preschool are much more cognitively challenging than the violation of expectation paradigm and differences between infants and preschoolers might stem from this and not from actual differences in physical reasoning. In their study, Krist and his colleagues applied an eye-tracking paradigm with 2- to 6-year-old children and found that children became increasingly sensitive to physical principles such as the amount of support needed for objects to remain stable on a supporting surface. Their findings imply, contrary to the findings mentioned above that might have been confounded by different ways of measuring, development in physical reasoning.…”