Research on infant cognition has employed a "violation of expectation" paradigm in which infants are shown two displays — one consistent with normal physical principles, one violating them. Even at six months of age, infants reliably look longer at the impossible display than at the normal one. The same infants cannot yet articulate any expectations about objects, and many of the relevant displays involve outcomes the infants have not directly encountered before.
Which inference is most strongly supported by the passage?
- A
Looking time has no relationship to infant cognition
- B
Six-month-old infants verbally describe the displays they observe
- C
Infants must directly encounter every situation before forming expectations about it
- Dcheck_circle
Infant attention patterns suggest expectations about the physical world that need not depend on prior verbal articulation
Explanation
Differential looking at impossible vs. normal displays, in non-verbal infants who haven't seen the situations, supports A. B, C, D contradict the findings.