Image spéculaire et genèse de la reconnaissance de soi ; une analyse hiérarchique

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the search for a cognitive-developmental sequence of self-recognition behaviors in infancy. In order to shed some light on the conflicting results reported in the literature, the authors try to evaluate the role of the structuration of the spatial field in the order of acquisition of two specific behaviors, namely, self-recognition and the reactions to the mirror image of an object. Fifty infants, between the ages of 6 and 30 months and divided into five equal age groups, were administrated five self-recognition tasks. The results indicate that the predicted sequence formed an almost perfect scale and that the divergent findings which have been reported cannot be attributed to a spatial factor.

Do Infants Use Their Own Images to Locate Objects Reflected in a Mirror?

“…The absence of turning to look behind when the toy was presented and visible in the mirror contrasts with the flndings for older infants in Experiment 1 and suggests that an understanding of mirror reflection begins to emerge late in the second year. The flndings of this experiment differ markedly from those of several earlier reports that show that most infants of these ages use mirror images to locate objects (Bertenthal & Fischer, 1978;Dixon, 1957;Gouin-Decarie et al, 1983;jfohnson, 1983). The final experiment was designed to explore one factor that could account for this difference.…”

“…Our results support earlier reports of inconsistent performance across mirror tasks (Chapman, 1987;Gouin-Decarie et al, 1983). Mirror behavior on supplementary tasks showed no consistent pattem and was unrelated to that on object-localization trials.…”

“…To explore this possibility, a second experiment involving 14-and 18month-old infants was conducted. Although the evidence is far from consistent, there are reports that infants in this age range can succeed on spatial referencing tasks (Bertenthal & Fischer, 1978;Dixon, 1957;Gouin-Decarie et al, 1983;Johnson, 1983).…”

“…Like the 22-month-old infants who made head turns in Experiment 1, she turned whether or not she had access to her self image. this duration (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979) or less (Gouin-Decarie et al, 1983;Johnson, 1983). However, longer trials have been used more frequently.…”

“…It is unlikely that these operations could always be perfbrmed noiselessly, but in only one study were auditory cues controlled (Lewis & Brooks-Cunn, 1979). Although Johnson (1983) acknowledged the possibility that infants may have been able to See the target toy (or the agent of its movement) in peripheral vision, in most studies it is not clear that this possibility was eliminated (e.g., Couin- Decarie et al, 1983). The rate of turning when the object is absent has not been examined (e.g., Bertenthal & Fischer, 1978;Chapman, 1987;Loveland, 1987b;Priel & de Schonen, 1986), and localization of the toy by means of social referencing has not been explicitiy precluded (e.g.. Chapman, 1987;Couin-Decarie et al, 1983).…”