The research composed of three experiments, each having similarity in terms of apparatus and methods used. The first experiment composed of 24 full-time infants ranging between 2 days, four months and two days to 5 months. Half of the infants were under experimental condition while the others were under control condition. Five infants did not meet the requirements; three had fussiness conditions, one was drowsy and the other one because of equipment failure. The researcher obtained the infants from birth announcements in a newspaper and contacted their parents through calls and letters. The researcher catered for their travel expenses but did not compensate them for their participation.
The apparatus used included a large wooden box, 120 cm high, 74 cm deep and 95cm wide. The interior was black and decorated with narrow green and pink stripes. The apparatus’ inside had a silver cardboard screen. The last apparatus was a thick metal rod connected to a right-angled gear box. Another box with a hidden door had its back wall painted yellow and decorated with a two-dimensional clown face. The experiment was undertaken in a lit room with four clip-on lights. The main objective was to see whether the infant will notice the clown face and turn depending on the current position.
The second experiment composed of forty full-time infants between the age of 3 days, 15 days to 4 months and three months. The apparatus and methods were similar to the first experiment. The third experiment composed of 24 full term infants ranging from 3 months, 25 days, six days to 3 months. The apparatus and methods were similar to previous experiments. The three experiments had different results, but all were positive. The 4 and a half infants in Experiment 1and the 3 and a half infants in Experiment 2 and 3 were fast habituates, paying keen attention at impossibilities than possible events.
The experiments undertaken do not exhibit any unethical practices. The researcher was mainly trying to find out the responsive age of infants. The infants used in the experiment were under clear authorization from their parents or guardians. The apparatus used did not cause any harm to the children. The time used for each experiment was sufficient for both recording and protection against too much exposure to harmful materials. The researcher had considerable skills in handling the experiment like declining some infants who did not meet the requirements set. She also took out failed apparatus during the research. Hence, it is conclusive to state that the experiment had in place all measures to ensure safety for the infants.
The methods used are quite good in establishing the problem statement. However, all the experiments are under controlled environments hence they cannot relate well to outside conditions (Charles par 8). Experiments done in controlled environments do not give good results as they shield the subjects from naturally occurring situations. The researcher ought to conduct one of the experiments in real life situations to establish whether the infants can observe changes happening to them. The method would seal the results and bring about different perspectives of the experiment.
The change would cause a few ethical issues such as too much exposure to the environment. The environment composes of harmful gasses and objects that may interfere with an infant’s grow in regards to their respiratory system. Direct sunlight might bring about skin burns to the infants during the experiment. However, the experiment shows good results regardless of the fact that it lacks a real life situation method.
Baillargeon, R. "Object Permanence in 31/2 and 41/2 Month old Infants." Developmental Psychology Vol 23(5) (1987): 655-664. Print.
Charles, Eric. What is wrong with Infant Looking Research. 3 May 2012. Web. 27 July 2015. < http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-is-wrong-with-infant-looking.html>
Fournier, Gillian. Object Permanence. 2010. Web. 17 July 2015. < http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2009/object-permanence/>