Mind Philosopher

Sigmund Freud

Originally published in German under the title Die Traumdeutung in November of 1899, initial sales for The Interpretation of Dreams were slow and disappointing.

The book outlines Freud’s belief that dreams are highly symbolic, containing both overt meanings (manifest content) as well as underlying, unconscious thoughts (latent content). Dreams, he suggested, are our unconscious wishes in disguise. Despite Freud’s tendency to over-generalize, his lack of scientific evidence, his overemphasis on sex, and his frequently chauvinistic viewpoints, this seminal work remains important in the history of psychology. The Interpretation of Dreams marked the beginning of psychoanalysis and is a fascinating text revealing Freud’s unique talent as a writer and ambitious theorist.

Albert Bandura Albert Bandura Biography (1925- ) Timeline of Events: Albert Bandura was born December 4, 1925. 1949 – Graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in Psychology. 1952 – Received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Iowa. 1953 – Began teaching at Stanford University. 1974 – Served as President of the APA. 1980 – Received the APA’s Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions. 2004 - Outstanding Lifetime Contribution to Psychology, American Psychological Association. Early Life: Albert Bandura was born in a small Canadian town located approximately 50 miles from Edmonton. The last of six children, Bandura's early education consisted of one small school with only two teachers. According to Bandura, because of this limited access to educational resources, "The students had to take charge of their own education" (Stokes, 1986). He realized that while "the content of most textbooks is perishable...the tools of self-directedness serve one well over time" (Stokes, 1986). These early experiences may have contributed to his later emphasis on the importance of personal agency. Bandura soon became fascinated by psychology after enrolling at the University of British Columbia. He had started out as a biological sciences major, his interest in psychology formed quite by accident. While working nights and commuting to school with a group of students, he found himself arriving at school much earlier than his courses started. To pass the time, he began taking "filler classes" during these early morning hours, which led to him eventually stumbling upon psychology. Bandura explained, "One morning, I was wasting time in the library. Someone had forgotten to return a course catalog and I thumbed through it attempting to find a filler course to occupy the early time slot. I noticed a course in psychology that would serve as excellent filler. It sparked my interest and I found my career." After graduating in just three years, he went on to graduate school at the University of Iowa. The school had been home to Clark Hull and other psychologists including Kenneth Spence and Kurt Lewin. While the program took an interest in social learning theory, Bandura felt that it was too focused on behaviorist explanations. Bandura earned his M.A. degree in 1951 and his Ph.D. in 1952. Career: After earning his Ph.D., he was offered a position at Stanford University. Bandura accepted the offer (even though it meant resigning from another position he had already accepted) and has continued to work at Stanford to this day. It was during his studies on adolescent aggression that Bandura became increasing interested in vicarious learning, modeling and imitation. Theory: Albert Bandura's social learning theory stressed the importance of observational learning, imitation and modeling. "Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do," Bandura explained (Bandura, 1977). His theory integrates a continuous interaction between behaviors, cognitions and the environment. His most famous experiment was the 1961 Bobo doll study. In the experiment, he made a film in which a woman was shown beating up a Bobo doll and shouting aggressive words. The film was then shown to a group of children. Afterwards, the children were allowed to play in a room that held a Bobo doll. The children immediately began to beat the doll, imitating the actions and words of the woman in the film. The study was significant because it departed from behaviorism’s insistence that all behavior is directed by reinforcement or rewards. The children received no encouragement or incentives to beat up the doll; they were simply imitating the behavior they had observed. Bandura termed this phenomena observational learning and characterized the elements of effective observational learning as attention, retention, reciprocation and motivation. Is Albert Bandura a Behaviorist?: While most psychology textbooks place Bandura’s theory with those of the behaviorists, Bandura himself has noted that he "...never really fit the behavioral orthodoxy." Even in his earliest work, Bandura argued that reducing behavior to a stimulus-response cycle was too simplistic. While his work used behavioral terminology such as 'conditioning' and 'reinforcement,' Bandura explained, "...I conceptualized these phenomena as operating through cognitive processes." "Authors of psychological texts continue to mischaracterize my approach as rooted in behaviorism," Bandura has explained, describing his own perspective as 'social cognitivism.' Contributions to Psychology: Bandura’s work is considered part of the cognitive revolution in psychology that began in the late 1960s. His theories have had tremendous impact on personality psychology, cognitive psychology, education and psychotherapy.  "Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action." -Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977 What is Social Learning Theory? The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning. His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors. Basic Social Learning Concepts There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea that people can learn through observation. Next is the idea that internal mental states are an essential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior. Let's explore each of these concepts in greater depth. 1. People can learn through observation. Observational Learning In his famous Bobo doll experiment, Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviors they have observed in other people. The children in Bandura’s studies observed an adult acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously observed. Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning: A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior. A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior. A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media. 2. Mental states are important to learning. Intrinsic Reinforcement Bandura noted that external, environmental reinforcement was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. He described intrinsic reinforcement as a form of internal reward, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment. This emphasis on internal thoughts and cognitions helps connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories. While many textbooks place social learning theory with behavioral theories, Bandura himself describes his approach as a 'social cognitive theory.' 3. Learning does not necessarily lead to a change in behavior. While behaviorists believed that learning led to a permanent change in behavior, observational learning demonstrates that people can learn new information without demonstrating new behaviors. The Modeling Process Not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. Factors involving both the model and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements and steps must also be followed. The following steps are involved in the observational learning and modeling process: Attention: In order to learn, you need to be paying attention. Anything that detracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model interesting or there is a novel aspect to the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning. Retention: The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning. Reproduction: Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement. Motivation: Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and punishment play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing other experience some type of reinforcement or punishment. For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day. Final Thoughts In addition to influencing other psychologists, Bandura's social learning theory has had important implication in the field of eduction. Today, both teachers and parents recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building self-efficacy are also rooted in social learning theory. Bobo Doll Experiment Bandura's Famous Experiment on Aggression Does the violence that children observe on television, movies, and video games lead them to behavior aggressively? This is a hot question today, but it was also of great interest 50 years ago when a psychologist led an experiment to determine how kids learn aggression through observation. Aggression lies at the root of many social ills ranging from interpersonal violence to war. It is little wonder then that the subject is one of the most studied topics within psychology. Social psychology is the subfield devoted to the study of human interaction and group behavior, and it is the scientists working in this field who have provided much of the research on human aggression. In a famous and influential experiment known as the Bobo doll experiment, Albert Bandura and his colleagues were able to demonstrate one of the ways in which children learn aggression. Bandura's social learning theory proposes that learning occurs through observation and interaction with other people. Bandura's Predictions The experiment involved exposing children to two different adult models; an aggressive model and a non-aggressive one. After witnessing the adult's behavior, the children would then be placed in a room without the model and were observed to see if they would imitate the behavior they had witnessed earlier. Bandura made several predictions about what would occur: He predicted that children who observed an adult acting aggressively would be likely to act aggressively even when the adult model was not present. The children who observed the non-aggressive adult model would be less aggressive than the children who observed the aggressive model; the non-aggressive exposure group would also be less aggressive than the control group. Children would be more likely to imitate models of the same-sex rather than opposite-sex models. Boys would behave more aggressively than girls. Method The participants for the experiment were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled at the Stanford University Nursery School. The children ranged in age between 3 and almost 6 years, and the average participant age was 4 years 4 months. There were a total of eight experimental groups. Out of these participants, 24 were assigned to a control group that received no treatment. The rest of the children were then divided into two groups of 24 participants each. One of the experimental groups was then exposed to aggressive models, while the other 24 children were exposed to non-aggressive models. Finally, these groups were divided again into groups of boys and girls. Each of these groups was then divided so that half of the participants were exposed to a same-sex adult model and the other half was exposed to an opposite-sex adult model. Before conducting the experiment, Bandura also assessed the children's existing levels of aggression. Groups were then matched equally so that they had an average level of aggression. Procedure Each child was tested individually to ensure that behavior would not be influenced by others children. The child was first brought into a playroom where there were a number of different activities to engage in. The experimenter then invited an adult model into the playroom who was encouraged to sit at a table and join in the activities. Over a ten minute period, the adults then began to play with a set of tinker toys. In the non-aggressive condition, the adult model simply played with the toy and ignored the Bobo doll for the entire period. In the aggressive model condition, however, the adult model would violently attack the Bobo doll. "The model laid the Bobo on its side, sat on it, and punched it repeatedly in the nose. The model then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet, and struck the doll in the head. Following the mallet aggression, the model tossed the doll up in the air aggressively, and kicked it about the room. This sequence of physically aggressive acts was repeated three times, interspersed with verbally aggressive responses." In addition to the physical aggression, the adult model also used verbally aggressive phrases such as "Kick him" and "Pow." The model also added two non-aggressive phrases: "He sure is a tough fella" and "He keeps coming back for more." After the ten-minute exposure to the adult model, the child was then taken to another room that contained a number of appealing toys including a doll set, fire engine, and toy airplane. However, children were told that they were not allowed to play with any of these tempting toys. The purpose of this was to build up frustration levels among the children. Finally, each child was taken to the last experimental room. This room contained a number of "aggressive" toys including a mallet, a tether ball with a face painted on it, dart guns, and, of course, a Bobo doll. The room also included several "non-aggressive" toys including crayons, paper, dolls, plastic animals, and trucks. The children were then allowed to play in this room for a period of 20 minutes while raters observed each child's behavior from behind a one-way mirror and judged each child levels of aggression. Results The results of the experiment supported three of the four original predictions. Children exposed to the violet model tended to imitate the exact behavior they had observed when the adult was no longer present. Bandura and his colleagues had also predicted that children in the non-aggressive group would behave less aggressively than those in the control group. The results indicated that while children of both genders in the non-aggressive group did exhibit less aggression than the control group, boys who had observed an opposite-sex model behavior non-aggressively were more likely than those in the control group to engage in violence. There were important gender differences when it came to whether a same-sex or opposite-sex model was observed. Boy who observed an adult male behaving violently were more influenced than those who had observed a female model behavior aggressively. Interestingly, the experimenters found in the same-sex aggressive groups, boys were more likely to imitate physical acts of violence while girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression. The researchers were also correct in their prediction that boys would behave more aggressively than girls. Boys engaged in more than twice as many acts of aggression than the girls. Discussion The results of the Bobo doll experiment supported Bandura's social learning theory. Bandura and his colleagues believed that the experiment demonstrates how specific behaviors can be learned through observation and imitation. The authors also suggested that "social imitation may hasten or short-cut the acquisition of new behaviors without the necessity of reinforcing successive approximations as suggested by Skinner." According to Bandura, the adult's violent behavior toward the doll led children to believe that such actions were acceptable. He also suggested that as a result, children may be more inclined to respond to frustration with aggression in the future. In a follow-up study conducted in 1965, Bandura found that while children were more likely to imitate aggressive behavior if the adult model was rewarded for his or her actions, they were far less likely to imitate if they saw the adult model being punished or reprimanded for their hostile behavior. Criticisms As with any experiment, the Bobo doll study is not without criticisms. Because the experiment took place in a lab setting, some critics suggest that results observed in this type of location may not be indicative of what takes place in the real world. The study might suffer from selection bias. All participants were drawn from a narrow pool of students who share the same racial and socioeconomic background. This makes it difficult to generalize the results to a larger, more diverse population. Since data was collected immediately, it is also difficult to know what the long-term impact might have been. Acting violently toward a doll is a lot different that displaying aggression or violence against another human being in a real world setting. It has also been suggested that children were not actually motivated to display aggression when they hit the Bobo doll; instead, they may have simply been trying to please the adults. Some critics argue that the study itself is unethical. By manipulating the children into behaving aggressively, they argue, the experimenters were essentially teaching the children to be aggressive. Final Thoughts Bandura's experiment remains one of the most well-known studies in psychology. Today, social psychologists continue to study the impact of observed violence on children's behavior. In the half-century since the Bobo doll experiment, there have been hundreds of studies on how observing violence impacts children's behavior. Today, researchers continue to ponder the question of whether the violence children witness on television in the movies translates to aggressive or violent behavior in the real-world. Bobo Doll Experiment  Source : http://psychology.about.com/od/profilesofmajorthinkers/p/bio_bandura.htm

Lawrence Kohlberg Lawrence Kohlberg was a 20th century psychologist known primarily for his research into moral psychology and development. Professional Life Lawrence Kohlberg was born in Bronxville, New York on October 25, 1927. Kohlberg enrolled in the University of Chicago, and with high examination scores, he was excused from many required courses and received his bachelor’s degree in just one year. He received his PhD in psychology from the University of Chicago in 1958. His dissertation was based on his research into the moral choices of adolescent boys and led to a life devoted to the exploration of moral and ethical development in young people. In 1959, Kohlberg joined the staff of Yale University as an assistant professor of psychology. In 1962, he returned to the University of Chicago as an assistant professor. Over several years, he worked as an associate professor and director of Child Psychology Training Program at the university. The remainder of his career was spent as a professor of education and social psychology at Harvard University between 1968 and 1987. Kohlberg married Lucy Stigberg in 1955, and the couple had two sons. Kohlberg died of an apparent suicide in 1987, after a long battle with depression coupled with painful symptoms from a tropical parasite he had contracted in Belize in 1971. He parked his car, leaving identifying documents behind, then walked into the frigidly cold Boston Harbor. Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development Stages of Moral Development Moral development is a major topic of interest in both psychology and education. One of the best known theories was developed by psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg who modified and expanded upon Jean Piaget's work to form a theory that explained the development of moral reasoning. Piaget described a two-stage process of moral development, while Kohlberg's theory of moral development outlined six stages within three different levels. Kohlberg extended Piaget's theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan. "The Heinz Dilemma" Kohlberg based his theory upon research and interviews with groups of young children. A series of moral dilemmas were presented to these participants and they were also interviewed to determine the reasoning behind their judgments of each scenario. The following is one example of the dilemmas Kohlberg presented" Heinz Steals the Drug "In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that?" (Kohlberg, 1963). Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to the question of whether Heinz was wrong or right, but in the reasoning for each participant's decision. The responses were then classified into various stages of reasoning in his theory of moral development. Level 1. Preconventional Morality Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment The earliest stage of moral development is especially common in young children, but adults are also capable of expressing this type of reasoning. At this stage, children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment. Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange At this stage of moral development, children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. In the Heinz dilemma, children argued that the best course of action was the choice that best-served Heinz’s needs. Reciprocity is possible at this point in moral development, but only if it serves one's own interests. Level 2. Conventional Morality Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships Often referred to as the "good boy-good girl" orientation, this stage of moral development is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being "nice," and consideration of how choices influence relationships. Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order At this stage of moral development, people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty and respecting authority. Level 3. Postconventional Morality Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights At this stage, people begin to account for the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards. Stage 6 - Universal Principles Kolhberg’s final level of moral reasoning is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules. Criticisms of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development: Does moral reasoning necessarily lead to moral behavior? Kohlberg's theory is concerned with moral thinking, but there is a big difference between knowing what we ought to do versus our actual actions. Is justice the only aspect of moral reasoning we should consider? Critics have pointed out that Kohlberg's theory of moral development overemphasizes the concept as justice when making moral choices. Factors such as compassion, caring and other interpersonal feelings may play an important part in moral reasoning. Does Kohlberg's theory overemphasize Western philosophy? Individualistic cultures emphasize personal rights while collectivist cultures stress the importance of society and community. Eastern cultures may have different moral outlooks that Kohlberg's theory does not account for. Stages of Moral Development Source : http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm

Jean Piaget Birth and Death: Born August 9, 1896 Died September 16, 1980 Jean Piaget's Early Life: Jean Piaget was born in Switzerland in 1896 and began showing an interest in the natural sciences at a very early age. By age 11, he had already started his career as a researcher by writing a short paper on an albino sparrow. He continued to study the natural sciences and received his Ph.D. in Zoology from University of Neuchâtel in 1918. Theory: Piaget identified himself as a genetic epistemologist. "What the genetic epistemology proposes is discovering the roots of the different varieties of knowledge, since its elementary forms, following to the next levels, including also the scientific knowledge," he explained in his book Genetic Epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the origin, nature, extent, and limits of human knowledge. He was interested not only in the nature of thought, but in how it develops and understanding how genetics impact this process. His early work with Binet's intelligence tests had led him to conclude that children think differently than adults. It was this observation that inspired his interest in understand how knowledge grows throughout childhood. He suggested that children sort the knowledge they acquire through their experiences and interactions into groupings known as schemas. When new information is acquired, it can either be assimilated into existing schemas or accomodated through revising and existing schema or creating an entirely new category of information. Today, he is best known for his research on children's cognitive development. Piaget studied the intellectual development of his own three children and created a theory that described the stages that children pass through in the development of intelligence and formal thought processes. The theory identifies four stages; (1) the sensorimotor stage, (2) the preoperational stage, (3) the concrete operational stage, and (4) the formal operation stage. Contributions to Psychology: Piaget provided support for the idea that children think differently than adults and his research identified several important milestones in the mental development of children. His work also generated interest in cognitive and developmental psychology. Piaget's theories are widely studied today by students of both psychology and education. Piaget held many chair positions throughout his career and conducted research in psychology and genetics. He created the International Center for Genetic Epistemology in 1955 and served as director until his death. Influence on Psychology: Piaget's theories continue to be studied in the areas of psychology, sociology, education, and genetics. His work contributed to our understanding of the cognitive development of children. While earlier researchers had often viewed children simply as smaller version of adults, Piaget helped demonstrate that childhood is a unique and important period of human development. His work also influenced other notable psychologists including Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg. Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development Background and Key Concepts of Piaget's Theory According to psychologist Jean Piaget, children progress through a series of four key stages of cognitive development marked by shifts in how they understand the world. Piaget believed that children are like "little scientists" and that they actively try to explore and make sense of the world around them. Through his observations of his own children, Piaget developed a stage theory of intellectual development that included four distinct stages: the sensorimotor stage, from birth to age 2; the preoperational stage, from age 2 to about age 7; the concrete operational stage, from age 7 to 11; and the formal operational stage, which begins in adolescence and spans into adulthood. Jean Piaget's Background Jean Piaget was born in Switzerland in 1896. After receiving his doctoral degree at age 22, Piaget formally began a career that would have a profound impact on both psychology and education. After working with Alfred Binet, Piaget developed an interest in the intellectual development of children. Based upon his observations, he concluded that children were not less intelligent than adults, they simply think differently. Albert Einstein called Piaget's discovery "so simple only a genius could have thought of it." Piaget's stage theory describes the cognitive development of children. Cognitive development involves changes in cognitive process and abilities. In Piaget's view, early cognitive development involves processes based upon actions and later progresses into changes in mental operations. A Quick Summary of Cognitive Development The Sensorimotor Stage: During this stage, infants and toddlers acquire knowledge through sensory experiences and manipulating objects. The Preoperational Stage: At this stage, kids learn through pretend play but still struggle with logic and taking the point of view of other people. The Concrete Operational Stage: Kids at this point of development begin to think more logically, but their thinking can also be very rigid. They tend to struggle with abstract and hypothetical concepts. The Formal Operational Stage: The final stage of Piaget's theory involves an increase in logic, the ability to use deductive reasoning, and an understanding of abstract ideas. It is important to note that Piaget did not view children's intellectual development at a quantitative process; that is, kids do not just add more information and knowledge to their existing knowledge as they get older. Instead, Piaget suggested that there is a qualitative change in how children think as they gradually process through these four stages. A child at age 7 doesn't just have more information about the world than he did at age 2; there is a fundamental change in how he thinks about the world. In order to better understand some of the things that happen during cognitive development, it is important to first examine a few of the important ideas and concepts introduced by Piaget. The following are some of the factors that influence how children learn and grow: Key Concepts Schemas - A schema describes both the mental and physical actions involved in understanding and knowing. Schemas are categories of knowledge that help us to interpret and understand the world. In Piaget's view, a schema includes both a category of knowledge and the process of obtaining that knowledge. As experiences happen, this new information is used to modify, add to, or change previously existing schemas. For example, a child may have a schema about a type of animal, such as a dog. If the child's sole experience has been with small dogs, a child might believe that all dogs are small, furry, and have four legs. Suppose then that the child encounters a very large dog. The child will take in this new information, modifying the previously existing schema to include this new information. Assimilation - The process of taking in new information into our previously existing schemas is known as assimilation. The process is somewhat subjective, because we tend to modify experience or information somewhat to fit in with our preexisting beliefs. In the example above, seeing a dog and labeling it "dog" is an example of assimilating the animal into the child's dog schema. Accommodation - Another part of adaptation involves changing or altering our existing schemas in light of new information, a process known as accommodation. Accommodation involves altering existing schemas, or ideas, as a result of new information or new experiences. New schemas may also be developed during this process. Equilibration - Piaget believed that all children try to strike a balance between assimilation and accommodation, which is achieved through a mechanism Piaget called equilibration. As children progress through the stages of cognitive development, it is important to maintain a balance between applying previous knowledge (assimilation) and changing behavior to account for new knowledge (accommodation). Equilibration helps explain how children are able to move from one stage of thought into the next. Piaget Key Idea Development Table Source : http://psychology.about.com/od/profilesofmajorthinkers/p/piaget.htm