Discuss evidence relating to the nature
Discuss evidence relating to the nature/nurture debate in the development of visual perception. (8+16)
It has long been debated whether visual perception is an innate ability (nature), or if they are developed through experience (nurture). Many neonate studies have supported the argument that perception is an innate process. Gibson and Walk (1960) conducted the ‘visual cliff’ study, in which a glass-topped table was modified using a checkerboard design, so that the depth cues therefore gave the impression of a ‘shallow side’ and a ‘deep drop’. 6-month-old infants were then placed on the shallow side of the table and tempted by their favourite toy or their mother on the deeper side. Most infants could not be tempted to cross to the deep side, which suggests that depth perception may be innate.
However, a criticism of this study is that the infants were already 6-months-old, which meant they could have gained enough sensory experience to learn to perceive depth. Therefore further studies were done on day-old animals that are mobile from birth, and found that they also avoided and showed signs of distress nearer the deep side, thereby showing an innate ability to perceive depth. Nevertheless, as this study used animals, we may not be able to generalise the findings to humans as we may have different perceptual abilities. Further support for the nature argument comes from Campos et al. (1978) who placed 2-month-old infants on the deep side of the visual cliff and found that their heart rate was slower than when they were on the shallow side, indicating interest and awareness of the depth change. 9-month-old babies showed an increased heart rate, which suggests anxiety. This implies that depth perception is innate because interest was observed in neonates, but avoidance behaviour (recognising danger associated with certain situations) can only be learned through experience, as shown in the 9-month-old infants. However, a significant flaw in this study is that we
It has long been debated whether visual perception is an innate ability (nature), or if they are developed through experience (nurture). Many neonate studies have supported the argument that perception is an innate process. Gibson and Walk (1960) conducted the ‘visual cliff’ study, in which a glass-topped table was modified using a checkerboard design, so that the depth cues therefore gave the impression of a ‘shallow side’ and a ‘deep drop’. 6-month-old infants were then placed on the shallow side of the table and tempted by their favourite toy or their mother on the deeper side. Most infants could not be tempted to cross to the deep side, which suggests that depth perception may be innate.
However, a criticism of this study is that the infants were already 6-months-old, which meant they could have gained enough sensory experience to learn to perceive depth. Therefore further studies were done on day-old animals that are mobile from birth, and found that they also avoided and showed signs of distress nearer the deep side, thereby showing an innate ability to perceive depth. Nevertheless, as this study used animals, we may not be able to generalise the findings to humans as we may have different perceptual abilities. Further support for the nature argument comes from Campos et al. (1978) who placed 2-month-old infants on the deep side of the visual cliff and found that their heart rate was slower than when they were on the shallow side, indicating interest and awareness of the depth change. 9-month-old babies showed an increased heart rate, which suggests anxiety. This implies that depth perception is innate because interest was observed in neonates, but avoidance behaviour (recognising danger associated with certain situations) can only be learned through experience, as shown in the 9-month-old infants. However, a significant flaw in this study is that we