Critically evaluate Piaget's theory of cognitive development.

INTRODUCTION :
Piaget's cognitive development theory hypothesizes children actively build their
understanding of the world through series of developmental stages.
There are four main stages. First is sensorimotor stage. This is lasting for birth to 2yrs.
Infants' survey of the world through senses and motor activities. Children in this stage lack
object permanence

Second is the preoperational stage,continues from 2 to 7 years. Children in this stage

manipulate symbols, language and represent things. However, they lack logical reasoning,
and ego-centrism is dominant. They display animistic thinking, assigning human qualities to
inanimate objects.

Third stage is concrete operational which is 7 to 11 years. Escalates logical thinking and
operational abilities. Children can comprehend conservation principles,execute concrete
problem solving and understand reversibility. In contrast abstract reasoning continues to pose
a challenge.

The last stage is formal operational continues from 11 years and beyond. They can think
abstractly and reason hypothetically as well as systematic problem-solving. They can ponder
about potential outcomes and understand complex concepts, demonstrating a higher level of
cognitive flexibility and intellectual maturity.

CONTENT : Comparison of theories

Piaget's cognitive theory and Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory, they vary in their focus,
fundamental speculation, and the aspects of development they emphasize. Piaget's
emphasizes how individuals actively construct knowledge and understanding of the world
through interactions with their environment, in contrast Freud highlights the role of
unconscious processes and the influence of early childhood experiences on personality
development.

Piaget identified four stages of cognitive development based on the accretion of cognitive
abilities. In opposition, Freud proposed psychosexual stages that focus on the intention of
conflicts related to different erogenous zones during particular periods of childhood. Piaget
emphasizes on qualitative changes in cognitive development persons progress through stages
and spotlight the active role of the individual in constructing the knowledge. In comparison
Freud underline the role of unconscious procedures, highlighting the influence of early
experiences, conflicts, and the resolution of psychosexual stages on personality development.

Piaget focuses on conscious cognitive processes, with an importance on how individuals

actively participate in with their environment and construct mental representations. On the
contrary, Freud emphasizes the role of unconscious mind, recommending that many
psychological processes influencing behavior are not reachable to conscious awareness.
Piaget concedes the role of social interaction, specifically in later stages, but places more
emphasis on individual exploration and adaptation. In spite Freud emphasizes the impact of
early social relationships, especially within the family, on personality development, but his
theory is frequently criticized for being too individual-focuses.
Piaget basically focused on educational inferences, emphasizing the importance of
developmentally appropriate learning experiences. On the other hand Freud developed
psychoanalysis as a therapeutic approach, directing to bring unconscious awareness for
resolution. Piaget's cognitive theory based on cognitive processes and active engagement
with the environment, while Freud's psychoanalytic theory centers on unconscious processes,
early experiences and psychosexual development.

Piaget's cognitive theory and Erik Erikson's psychosocial stages are influential developmental
theories, but they focus on various aspects of human development. Piaget mainly focuses on
cognitive development, emphasizing how individuals form knowledge and understanding of
the world. Meanwhile, Erikson focuses on psychosocial development, which amalgamate
psychological and social factors, emphasizing the importance of social relationships and
cultural circumstances.

Piaget stages characterized by distinct cognitive abilities, where Erikson's each stage is
associated with specific conflict or challenge which individual must navigate to achieve a
healthy development. Piaget signify qualitative changes in cognitive structure and abilities as
persons progress through stages. However Erikson focuses on the aim of psychosocial
conflicts as individuals move through stages, in personality and social interactions.

Piaget admits the role of social interchange in cognitive development, especially in the later
stages, but places more emphasis on individual inspection and adaptation. Nevertheless,
Erikson places notable importance on the social environment and relationships, viewing them
as critical influences on psychological development. Piaget fundamentally focuses on
childhood and adolescence at the same time Erikson conveys a lifespan perspective, directing
development from infancy through old age, with particular psychosocial tasks associated with
each stage.

Even though, Piaget highlights how children actively construct knowledge through
interaction with their physical surrounding, Vygotsky stresses social and cultural factors in
cognitive development, proposing that learning is a collaborative process occurs within a
sociocultural context. Piaget acknowledges, social factors affect on individuals cognitive
development where as Vygotsky emphasis cognitive development evolve through social
interactions throughout the lifespan.

CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, Jean Piaget's cognitive development theory has been highly significant in the
field of psychology, providing a extensive framework for understanding how individuals
actively construct knowledge and comprehend throughout different stages of development.
Piaget stresses the essentialness of the child's active engagement with the environment,
suggesting various stages each denoted by qualitative changes in cognitive abilities. While his
theory has contributed notably to our understanding of cognitive development, contemporary
research has also noted limitations and variations in individual development that go beyond
Piaget's original framework. Nevertheless, Piaget's work remains foundational in forming our
perspectives on how cognition evolves from infancy through adolescence.
Choose one of the below studies and critically evaluate the study's methods and
findings.

Zimbardo Prison Experiment

INTRODUCTION;

Zimbardo Prison Experiment was held to examine the psychological effects of

supremacy and powerlessness in a prison surrounding. Zimbardo focused to look over
the impact of situational factors. Zimbardo investigated how individuals' behaviors
would be impacted by allocated rules, especially how individuals' would follow the
roles of prisoners and guards in a pretended prison environment. Within a very short
time of period both the guards and prisoners were fixing into their new roles.

To study people's roles in a prison condition, Zimbardo transform the basement of the
psychology department building in Stanford University into an artificial prison. This
setting was outlined to mimic the characteristics of a real person. He was asking for
volunteers to take part in a psychology study of prison life. 75 applicants were
interviewed and has done a personality test to expel candidates, who are having
psychological problem, history of crime, medical disabilities and drug abuse.

CONTENT;

Members were commanded to fully engage themselves in their assigned roles.

Prisoners were given numbered smocks, while guards were given uniforms,
sunglasses, and batons. Zimbardo and his team observed the participants thoroughly,
reporting their behaviors through video recordings and field notes. Participants were
deeply examined at the end of the study to inform them about the true nature of the
experiment.

The experiment has been criticized for its ethical implications, specially considering
the well-being of the participants. The intensity of the environment led to extreme
distress and, psychological harm. This experiment was originally planned to last week,
but it was terminated after only six days due to the severe psychological effects.

The participants who took place in the experiment, were young college students,
around 18 to 24 years old. This was done by focusing male participants. Those
students were reflecting a relatively homogeneous educational background, they had
different academic disciplines. Their socioeconomic backgrounds diverse, including
middle-class and working-class backgrounds. This particular socioeconomic status
focused to capture a range of perspectives. Participants were concealed for
psychological solidity to ensure that they did not have as in previous mental health
conditions that could be aggravated by the experiment.

The guards engaged in dehumanizing behaviors towards the prisoners. They used
derogatory language, imposing punishments, and ill treating the prisoners as if they
were less than human. Guards, began to abuse their power. This apparented in various
forms, including psychological and emotional abuse, physical intimidation and
humiliation. Both guards and prisoners experienced the same extreme stress and
emotional distress. Prisoners were helpless, while guards showed signs of aggression
and, in some cases, sadistic behavior.

In spite of knowing it was an experiment, participants became deeply preoccupied in

their roles, and the mock prison environment had a extreme impact on their behavior.
The study revealed the powerful influence of situational factors on human actions.
Individual differences played a role, while there were string situational influences.
Some guards resisted appealing in abusive behavior, and some prisoners resisted
submission, indicating the difficulty in human behavior and the interplay between
personal dispositions and situational factors.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was criticized for lacking ecological validity, the
student “guards” lacked professional training. However, there is a substantial evidence
that the participants reacted to the situation as it was real.

CONCLUSION;

One of the main conclusions is the powerful influence of situational factors. The quick
and greatest transformation of participants demonstrated the significant impact the
environment and assigned roles can have on individuals. This underscored the
possibility for dehumanization and the abuse power in situations. The Stanford Prison
Experiment raised ethical concern regarding the well-being of the participants. This
also acknowledged the influence of individual differences. The study has faced
criticisms related to its methodology, ethics, and generalizability. Researchers
continue to take knowledge from both strengths and limitations of the study to
improve the design, conduct, and ethical oversight of psychological experiments.