DeLoache Grasping the Nature of Pictures 1998

7/30/2019 DeLoache Grasping the Nature of Pictures 1998

1/7

Grasping the Nature of PicturesAuthor(s): Judy S. DeLoache, Sophia L. Pierroutsakos, David H. Uttal, Karl S. Rosengren and

Alma GottliebReviewed work(s):Source: Psychological Science, Vol. 9, No. 3 (May, 1998), pp. 205-210Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Association for Psychological ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40063280 .

Accessed: 21/01/2013 16:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. andAssociation for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Psychological Science.

htt // j t
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=assocpsychscihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40063280?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40063280?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=assocpsychscihttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/7

GRASPING THE NATURE OF PICTURES

PSYCHOLOGICAL CIENCE

Research Report

JudyS. DeLoache,SophiaL. Pierroutsakos,David H. Uttal,KarlS. Rosengren,andAlmaGottliebUniversityof Illinois

Abstract The roleof experience n thedevelopment f pictorialcom-petencehas been the centerof substantialdebate. The our studiespre-sentedherehelpresolve thecontroversy y systematicallydocumentingand examiningmanualexplorationof depictedobjects by infants.Wereport hat 9-month-oldnfantsmanually nvestigatepictures, touchingand eeling depictedobjectsas if theywere realobjectsand eventryingtopickthemup offthepage. The same behaviorwas observed n babiesfrom twoextremelydifferent ocieties (the United States and theIvoryCoast).This investigationof picturesoccurs even thoughinfantscandiscriminatebetween real objects and their depictions. By the timeinfantsare 19 monthsof age, their manualexplorations replacedbypointingat depicted objects.Theseresultsindicate that initial uncer-taintyabout the natureof pictures leads infantsto investigatethem.Through xperience, nfants begin to acquirea concept of "picture?Thisconceptincludes thefact that a picturehas a dual nature(it isbothan objectand a representation f somethingother thanitself),aswell as knowledgeabout theculturallyappropriateuseofpictures.

Mostpeople hinkheyknowwhata pictures, anythingo familiarmustbesimple.Theyarewrong.Gibson, 980,p.xvii)Several theorists (includingBeilin, in press; Ittelson, 1996; and

Sigel, 1978) have emphasized hat substantial omplexityis involvedin perceiving, nterpreting, sing, andproducingpictorialrepresenta-tions. Pictorial competenceencompassesa rangeof skills and knowl-edge, from "thesimplest perceptionof pictured nformation to] themostsophisticatedunderstandingf the conventionsandtechniquesofthepictorialmedia" DeLoache& Burns, 1994,p. 103).Theoriginsof pictorialcompetencehavelong been debated.Sometheorists,mostnotablyJamesGibson andhis colleagues,have focusedon the perceptionof pictures.They have arguedthat learningis notrequiredfor picture perceptionbecause the process of picking upinformations essentiallythe same forpicturesas for theenvironment(Gibson,1971, 1979;Kennedy,1974).Other heoristshaveargued hatthe"languageof pictures"must be learned hroughexperience(Gom-brich, 1969, 1974; Goodman,1976).Severalstudieswith infantssupport he idea thatpictureperceptiondoes not require earning.DirksandGibson(1977) documentedpic-turerecognition n 5-month-old nfantsby showing that babies whohad been habituated o the face of a realpersondishabituated o a pho-tographof a novelface, but not to a photograph f the familiar ace. Inotherwords,the infants dentified he similaritybetween the realper-son and a pictureof that person. DeLoache, Strauss,and Maynard(1979)reportedhe same resultwithobjects:Five-month-oldswho hadbeen familiarizedwith a real doll looked longerat a photographof adifferentdoll thanat aphotograph f the familiardoll.Slater,Rose,andMorison 1984) found thateven newbornscanrecognizea two-dimen-

sional version of a three-dimensional attern.Further,DeLoache et al.and Slater et al. both showedthatinfants could discriminatebetweenthe two- and three-dimensional timulithey used. This findingestab-lished thatthe resultsof theirstudies weredue to infants'abilityto rec-ognize similarities between an object and its picture, and not justfailure o distinguishbetween them.Alongside this evidence of sophisticated picture perception ininfancy are several anecdotes and informal reportsof young chil-dren confusing pictures and referents (Beilin & Pearlman, 1991;Church, 1961; Werner & Kaplan, 1967). For example, Perner(1991) described his 16-month-old son intently tryingto step into apicture of a shoe. Murphy (1978) noted that 9-month-olds often"hit the pictures in the book and scratched at the pages as if trying

to lift the picturefrom the page" (p. 379). Ninio and Bruner(1978)reportedone child's attemptsto grasp objects pictured in a book.The infants and young children in these observations acted as ifthey thought depicted objects were real objects, despite the pres-ence of many cues, including relative size and flatness, to the con-trary. However, it is not clear how much to make of theseanecdotes. They might representoccasional lapses made by a fewyoung children, or they might reflect a pervasive lack of under-standingof the natureof pictures.It is thereforemportanto know if theseanecdotallyreportedman-ual responsesto picturesare common. If they are, then the currentview of infant pictorial competence would need modification:Theinappropriate ehavior towardpicturesdescribedin these anecdoteswould have to be reconciled with the precociouspicture perceptionabilitiesdocumented oryounginfants.Accordingly, he initialgoal oftheresearch eportedherewas to systematically xamine nfants'man-ual behavior towardpictures. Specifically,we wantedto see to whatextent infants would treat depicted objects as if they were actualobjects. To do so, we presented9-month-old infants with realisticcolorphotographs f single objectsandobservedall manualbehaviorsdirected oward hedepictions.

STUDY 1MethodSubjectsThe participantsn Study 1 were ten 9-month-old children(8.5-9.6 months,M = 9.1), half girls and half boys. Infants of this age

reach for and actively manipulateobjects, andthey have good depthperception(Yonas& Granrud,1985;Yonas & Hartman,1993). As inall the studiesreportedhereexcept Study3, the samplewas predomi-nantlymiddle class and white,1and stimulusorderandgenderwerecounterbalanced.

Addresscorrespondenceo JudyS. DeLoache,Psychology Depart-ment,Universityof Illinois, 603 East Daniel, Champaign, L 61820;e-mail: deloach@s. sych,uiuc.edu.1 Parentswerealways ullyinformed bout hegeneralpurpose f theresearch, s well as the specificprocedureso be followed.Inaddition,parentwasalwayspresenthroughouthe session.

VOL. ,NO.3,MAY1998 Copyright 1998American sychologicalociety 205

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 16:07:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7


Grasping Pictures

MaterialsTwopicturebooks were constructed, ach containingeight highlyrealistic color photographsof individual objects (common plastic

toys). Each book contained he same set of photographsn one of twoorders. The depicted objects measuredapproximately3 cm x 3 cm.The pictures, mounted on cardboardpages (12.7 cm x 17.8 cm)securedby a plasticbinding n thecenter,appeared n therightside ofthebindingpairedwith a blankwhitepage on the left.

ProcedureEach infant sat in a high chair,anda book was placedon the tray

directlyin front of him or her. The infantwas free to exploreanypartof the surfaceof theopen pages, but we preventedotheractivity(suchas turningpagesorpicking upthebook).Eachpictureremainedavail-able forapproximately15 s.CodingVideorecordingsof the sessions were coded for two categoriesofmanual behavior directed toward the pictured objects: One category

was grasping,a changeof handshapeor curlingof the finger(or fin-gers) aftercontactingthe surfaceof the page.This behaviorappearedto the codersto be an attempt o pick up the depictedobject.The sec-ond categoryincluded other deliberate nvestigativebehavior,contactand activeexplorationof the surfaceof the book.Relativelyconservativeodingcriteriawere adopted o differentiatebetweenmanualbehaviors irected oward hepictures nd ndiscriminatehandmovements.A manualbehaviorwas codedonly if (a) the subjectwaslookingat thepicture andhenceat his or herhandon thebook); b)the infant'shand, ingers,or both made contactwith the book'ssurfaceeitherdirectly n thedepiction rwithina 0.5-cm radius roundt;and c)

the behaviorwas at least 1 s in duration.A behaviorwas consideredohaveendedwhen thesubjectookedaway, nitiated differentategory fbehavior,hangedhands,or removedhehand orhands) rom hepicture.Uninterrupted epetitionsof a given behaviorwere counted as oneinstance f thatbehavior.Overall eliabilityorthe two coderswas .90.

ResultsThe basic result of this studyis capturedn Figure 1 Everyone ofthe 10 infants n the studymanuallyexploredat least one picture; heyfelt, rubbed,patted,andgraspedatthedepictedobjectsas if theywerereal objects.The averagenumberof manual behaviorsperchild was6.9, ranging roma low of 2 to ahighof 23. Therewere no differencesforgenderor order.Eightof the childrenmade at least one attempt o graspa pictured

object, reachingto it and curlingtheir fingersaround he image (asshown in Fig. 1). Some babies were highly persistent,repeatedlyattemptingto pick the depictions up off the page. On average,theinfantsmade3.7 attempts o grasp picturedobjects.However, hisfig-ure is actually quite conservative,because any long bout of uninter-ruptedgraspingmotions was codedas only a singlegraspattempt.

DiscussionThe results of the firststudyestablishthe phenomenonof manual

investigationf picturesby infants.Our ormalobservationsubstantiatetheinformalanecdotesof babiesoccasionallybehaving owardpicturedobjectsas if theywere realobjects.Furthermore,ur data ndicate hatsuch behaviorsareverycommon at leastfor thepopulation f infantswe studiedandwith thehighlyrealisticcolorphotographswe used.

Fig. 1. Manualexplorationof picturedobjectsby 9-month-oldAmerican nfants.Two infantsareshownmakinggraspingmotions toward hedepictions.To anobserver, he infantsappear o be tryingto pick upthedepictedobjects.

206 VOL.9, NO. 3, MAY 1998



4/7


J.S. DeLoache et al.STUDY 2

The resultsof Study1 suggestedthatthe standard iew of pictorialcompetencein infancy might need to be revised. First, however,wethought it important o confirm that 9-month-olds can distinguishbetween the kinds of depictedand realobjectsused in thatstudy.

MethodSubjectsThe participantswere eight 9-month-olds(8.6-9.8 months,M =9.3), 4 males and4 females.MaterialsThestimuli werea set of eightsmalltoys andcolorphotosof those

objects(similar o those usedin Study1).Eachdepictedobjectwas thesamesize as thecorrespondingealobject(ca. 3 cmx 5 cm). Tomakethe procedureas similaras possible to the procedure n Study 1, wepresentedeachpicture-objectpair in a book format.Two books wereconstructednthe same manneras in Study1,exceptthattheleft-rightpositionof theeight picturesvaried,with fourpictureson the left andfour on theright,so that stimulus ype (picturevs. object)andposition(left vs. right)werecounterbalanced.

ProcedureOn each of the eight trials,an objectand its picturewere simulta-

neously presented,with the object affixedin the centerof the blankbook page oppositethe picture.The open book was firstheld in frontof the infant,out of reach,so the infantwould see bothstimuli beforereaching.The experimenterhenplacedthe book on the tray,andtheinfantwas allowed 15 s to exploreeitheror both of the stimuli.

Results and DiscussionThe dependent measure was preferentialreaching. There wasunambiguousevidence of discrimination:86% of the infants' firstreaches were to the objects, a rate significantlygreaterthanchance,two-tailedf(7) = 6.01, p < .05. After firstcontactingthe object, theinfants went on to contactthe picture40% of the time. Overall,theinfantscontacted he objectson 95%of the trials,as opposedto only48% forthepictures.2Therewere no differences or genderor order.This study establishesthat 9-month-oldinfants can differentiatebetweenthe kinds of objects and color photographsused in Study 1and that they preferreal objects over picturesof objects. Thus, themanualexplorationof picturesdocumented n Study 1 was not due toaninability o distinguishbetween wo- andthree-dimensionaltimuli.

STUDY 3Ina third, ess formalstudy,we askedhowcommon manual nves-

tigationof picturesis, and, in particular,whether it would occur in

infants from a very differentsociety. This is an importantquestion,especially because cross-cultural data have figuredprominentlyindebates about the development of picture perception (see Dere-gowski, 1989).

Accordingly,observationswere made of infants from a society inwhich printedpicturesare uncommon Beng infants from severelyimpoverishedandlargelynonliterate amilies living in a ruralvillagein the West Africannation of Cote d'lvoire (IvoryCoast).3We pre-parednew books in which half of the eight pictureswereones usedinourpreviousstudies,and the other half were of commonobjectsfromtheBeng community.The testing situation was extremelydifferent from the well-con-trolledconditionsin our laboratory.The infants sat outside,either onmats on the groundor on theirmothers' aps; goatsandchickens wan-deredthroughthe scene; attractedby the video camera,many addi-tional adults and childrengatheredaround,talkingand carryingontheirdailyactivities.

Despite the dramaticallydifferent circumstances,the infants'behavior oward he colorphotographswas remarkablyimilar o thatof the Americanchildren.Morespecifically,6 of the 8 Beng infants,who rangedbetween8 and 18 monthsof age, manually nvestigatedthepictures n muchthe sameway as the9-month-oldAmericanchil-dren had done.4Figure2 shows the behaviorof 2 of the Beng babies.Thecultural amiliarityof thedepictedobjectsdidnotappear o affectthe infants'behavior.These observations ndicatethatthe tendency o actively exploreadepictedobject is a very generalone, exhibited both by infants fromthe midwest of the United States and by Beng babies from WestAfrica. The phenomenonfirst documented in Study 1 is thus anextremelyrobustone.

STUDY 4The final study reportedhere examined the developmental ourse

of manualexplorationof pictures.Havingestablishedthat9-month-old infantsactively explore depictedobjects,we askedhow this behav-ior changeswith age. We tested threeage groupsof infantsto see iftheydiffered n thefrequencyof the investigativebehaviors eportednthe previousstudies.We also assessed the occurrenceof a different,culturallyappropriatemanualbehavior pointingat thepictures.

MethodSubjectsThe participantswere 48 children,with 8 girls and 8 boys in eachof three age groups: 9-month-olds (8.6-9.8 months, M = 9.1),15-month-olds(14.3-15.9 months, M = 15.2), and 19-month-olds(18.2-20.0 months,M= 19.3).MaterialsThe books used were similar o thosein Study1exceptthatwe var-ied the size of the pictures 3 cm x 3 cm or 6 cm x 6 cm) and whethertheyappeared n therightorleft (oppositea blankpage).2. We did not code the infants'manualbehavioroward hepicturesnthe detailedwaywe did nStudy1 Onereasonwas thatour ocus nStudy2 was to establish icture-objectiscrimination.naddition,he nfantwastypically till holding heobject n one hand presumablyhepreferredhand whenheorshe thencontacted hepicturewiththe otherhand,andit was unclear owthis factormightaffectmanual xplorationf pictures.

3. FormoreonBengsociety, eeGottlieb1992)andGottlieb ndGra-ham 1993).4. Thevideotapeswere not of sufficient uality or us to do thehighlydetailed oding hatwe did nStudy1

VOL. , NO.3,MAY1998 207



5/7

PSYCHOLOGICALCIENCE

GraspingPictures

Fig. 2. Manualexplorationof picturedobjectsby Beng infantsfrom the Cote d'lvoire (WestAfrica).Despite greatdifferences n the testingsituations,,heBeng infants'responseto thepictureswas verysimilar o that of the American nfants.

Procedureand codingEverythingwasthe same as in Study 1 exceptthat a thirdcategoryof behaviors,pointing,was also coded.Thisbehaviorwas coded whentheinfantextendedan indexfinger oward hepicture.

Results and DiscussionFigure3 shows oppositedevelopmental rends for manual nvesti-

gation and pointing.The level of manual investigationof depictedobjects (graspingand other nvestigativebehaviorscombined)differedsubstantiallyas a function of age: Among the 9-month-olds, suchbehaviorswere common(thusreplicating he results of Study I),5butamongthe 19-month-olds,they were very rare. The opposite patternoccurred orpointingto depictedobjects.The older infantsfrequentlypointed o thepictures,oftenlookingat an adultandvocalizingas theydidso, but theyounger nfantsalmost neverpointed.For the numberof manual investigativebehaviors,a significantmain effect was found forage,F(2, 26) = 7.714, p < .01, in a 3 (age)x2 (gender)x 2 (picturesize) x 2 (pictureposition: eft vs. right)mixedanalysis of variancewith picturepositionas the within-subjectsvari-able. The main effect of age was also significant n a similaranalysisof pointing,F(2, 26) = 7.985, p < .01 Post hoc analyses indicated hatthe9-month-oldsnvestigated ignificantlymore than he olderinfants,

whereasthe 19-month-oldspointed significantlymore often than didtheyounger wo groups.We also found main effects for pictureposition(left vs. right)forboth manualinvestigation,F(l, 36) = 8.990, p < .01, and pointing,F(l, 36) = 5.238, p < .05, as well as an interactionbetweenage andpicture position,F(2, 36) = 4.673, p < .05. The 9-month-olds nvesti-gatedthepictureson therightsubstantiallymorethan hoseon theleft,but the other two age groupsshowed no left or rightpreference.Therewere no significanteffects forgenderorpicturesize.Thedivergent rends ormanual nvestigationandpointing ndicatethat the directresponseto pictures hatis so common for theyoungerinfants does not stem from an inabilityto inhibit a manualresponse.Although the overall level of manual behavior directedto depictedobjectsremained onstantacrossage groups, he natureof thatactivitychangeddramatically.These results ndicate hat hetendency o responddirectly o the sur-faceof apictures gradually eplacedby culturallyonventional ehaviorwithpictures.nstead f attemptingopickdepictions ff thepageas theiryounger ounterpartsid,the olderchildren ointedo them.Pointingwasoftenaccompanied y labeling e.g., exclamations uch as "ooh,ben!"or"ahh, eltone"whilepointing o thepictureof the bearor thetelephone).As they pointed, he childrenoften lookedup to a parentor theexperi-menter, pparently ttemptingo initiate n interaction bout hepicture.

GENERAL DISCUSSIONWe have presented systematic evidence of a hitherto undocu-mented phenomenon manual explorationof depicted objects byinfants. Although references to such behavior have occasionally

5. Given the well-knownrightbias in infantattentionandreaching(Kinsbourne& Hiscock,1983),the slightly ower rateof manualbehav-iorsin thisstudycomparedwithStudy1 maywell have been due to thefactthathalf the stimuliwerepresentedn theleft.

208 VOL. , NO.3,MAY1998



6/7


J.S. DeLoache et al.

Fig. 3. Average frequency of manual investigation (investigativebehaviors and grasping combined) and pointing directed toward pic-tured objects as a function of age.

appeared in the psychological literature, picture-directed manual activ-ity has not previously been investigated. Our results are clearly repli-cable, as evidenced by the data reported in Studies 1 and 4.Furthermore, similar results have been found in a series of recent stud-ies (Pierroutsakos, 1994; Pierroutsakos & DeLoache, 1997).The phenomenon is also quite robust. Manual investigation of pic-tures was displayed by almost all the young infants we observed,whether they were from a pictorially rich society or from a culture inwhich pictures are rare.

Why do young infants routinely try to feel, hit, rub, and pick updepicted objects? Two aspects of the infants' behavior in our studieshelp answer this question. First, Study 2 ruled out the possibility thatinfants cannot distinguish depictions from real objects, a finding thatagrees with research showing visual discrimination between two- and

three-dimensional stimuli by younger infants (DeLoache et al., 1979;Slater et al., 1984). Second, our participants never appeared upset oreven particularly surprised at the fruitlessness of their efforts. Even themost persistent infants, who repeatedly tried to grasp picture after pic-ture, were relatively matter-of-fact about their failure.

We surmise that the manual response to pictures that we have docu-mented is the investigation of novel and somewhat puzzling stimuli. Inmany ways, a picture looks like an object; in many ways, it does not.Because young infants do not know what a picture is, that is, becausethey do not understand the two-dimensional nature of pictures and allthat implies, they investigate. They treat a depiction as though it werean object, not because they firmly believe it is, but because they areunsure that it is not.

Further support for this line of argument comes from recent studiesshowing that 9-month-olds do not manually investigate nonpictorialelements of two-dimensional displays and that less realistic pictures(black-and-white photographs, line drawings) elicit substantially lessmanual response (Pierroutsakos & DeLoache, 1997). We would expecteven less manual interaction with nonrepresentational "markings"(Ittelson, 1996) such as abstract designs or writing.We propose that through experience, infants learn a great dealabout pictures, including that pictures are not real objects- that theyare not manipulable, smellable, eatable, and so forth. Infants also pre-sumably learn something about how pictures are used, including thefact that parents talk and ask questions about them. Children learn topoint to depicted objects both in response to parental directives andqueries and as a means of initiating or directing an interaction. Thus,children learn to behave cognitively and emotionally to depictedobjects as if they were real, while inhibiting physical responses tothem. To paraphrase Werner and Kaplan (1967), children learn to treatpictures as objects of contemplation and communication, not action.This interpretation of the results reported here is consistent with theview of theorists who have emphasized the dual nature of pictures.Gregory (1970) noted that "pictures are unique" in that "they are seenboth as themselves and as some other thing" (p. 32). Gibson (1979)pointed out that "a picture is both a surface in its own right and a dis-play of information about something else" (p. 282). Because of thisdual nature, picture perception "always requires two kinds of appre-hension that go on at the same time" (p. 283). To interpret a picture,the viewer must both see the picture- an object composed of markingson a flat surface- and "see through" the picture to its referent (Ittel-son, 1996). Both are necessary; neither is sufficient.

Young infants with no pictorial experience can be said to seethrough pictures; their ability to recognize pictures of familiar objectsindicates that a picture activates their mental representation of theobject itself. As infants begin to comprehend words, adult labelingdirects their attention to pictures just as it directs their attention to realobjects. Young infants can also be said to see the surface of pictures inthat they can discriminate between pictures and objects. Nevertheless,they do not fully understand how pictures and objects differ; they donot understand the nature of pictures as objects. Several monthslater by 19 months in our sample- infants typically respond appro-priately to the dual nature of pictures; as per Gibson's (1979) dictum,they exhibit "two kinds of apprehension" at the same time.This achievement, we believe, involves the development of a con-cept of "picture" (DeLoache & Burns, 1994; DeLoache, Pierroutsakos,& Troseth, 1997). This concept includes features such as two-dimen-sional, nontangible, and nonreal, as well as some representation of thecontexts in which pictures typically occur and the uses to which they

VOL.9, NO. 3, MAY 1998 209



7/7


Grasping Pictures

are put. A two-part, or dual, mental representation then occurs when apicture is encountered: A picture of entity X is represented as "pictureof and "X." Some or all of the viewer's existing representation of X isactivated, just as it would be by seeing the real entity X. The "pictureof tag specifies that this X is not a real X, but rather a picture of X. Itsignifies that some of the attributes in the child's mental representationof X- specifically, those having to do with its three-dimensionality -do not apply. The "picture of tag inhibits direct physical actiontoward the depicted X. This two-part representation thus, to use Ittel-son's (1996) term, "decouples" the informational content of the picturefrom its source- the surface of the picture.

Acquisition of the picture concept is necessary for developing pic-torial competence, but it is far from the whole story. For example, ittakes several years for children to sort out the full nature of picture-referent relations. Preschool children sometimes confuse the proper-ties of objects and pictures, indicating, for example, that a photographof an ice cream cone could be cold to touch and even occasionallylapsing into manual behavior toward pictures (Beilin & Pearlman,1991). Children of this age often think, on the one hand, that an actioncarried out on a picture will affect its referent (Flavell, Flavell, Green,& Korfmacher, 1990) and, on the other hand, that an action on a realobject will transform a picture of the object (Robinson, Nye, & Tho-mas, 1994; Zaitchik, 1990). Further, children only gradually acquirevarious representational conventions, such as the use of lines to repre-sent speed (e.g., Friedman & Stevenson, 1975; Gross et al., 1991).In conclusion, we have presented evidence of a very early step inachieving pictorial competence. The results reported here help us toresolve the long-standing controversy alluded to in the beginning ofthis article. Gibson and his colleagues were clearly right that learningis not necessary for the perception of simple pictures: Infants automat-ically perceive pictures, seeing through them to the objects depicted.However, Goodman and his supporters were also right that infantsmust learn about pictures; although they can see a picture's surface (itstwo-dimensionality), they have to learn what that surface signifies.Physically grasping at pictures helps infants begin to mentally graspthe true nature of pictures.

Acknowledgments The researchreportedhere was supported n partbyHD-25271from theNationalInstituteof ChildHealthandHumanDevelop-ment to the firstauthor.Thismanuscriptwaspreparedwhile the first authorwas a fellow at the Center or AdvancedStudyin the BehavioralScienceswith financialsupport romthe John D. and CatherineT. MacArthur oun-dation,GrantNo. 95-32005-0.Data collection forStudy3 waspartially up-portedby awardsto the fifth author rom the NationalEndowment or theHumanities nd theWenner-Gren oundation orAnthropologicalResearchforfieldresearchon infancy amongtheBeng in Coted'lvoire.

REFERENCESBeilin,H. (in press).Understandinghe photographic mage. In I.E. Sigel (Ed.),Theoreti-cal perspectives in the development of representational hought. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Beilin, H., & Pearlman,E.G. (1991). Children's conic realism:Objectversus propertyrealism. InH.W. Reese (Ed.),Advances n childdevelopment nd behavior: Vol.23(pp.73-1 11). NewYork:Academic Press.

Church, . (1961). Languageandthediscoveryof reality.New York:RandomHouse.DeLoache, J.S., & Burns,N.M. (1994). Earlyunderstanding f the representationalunc-tionof pictures.Cognition,52, 83-1 10.DeLoache,J.S., Pierroutsakos, .L., &Troseth,G.L.(1997). ThethreeRs of pictorial om-petence.In R. Vasta Ed.),Annalof childdevelopment Vol. 12, pp. 1-48). London:JessicaKingsley.DeLoache, J.S., Strauss,M.S., & Maynard, . (1979). Pictureperceptionn infancy. nfantBehaviorandDevelopment,2, 77-89.Deregowski, J. (1989). Real space and representedspace: Cross-culturalperspectives.Behavioraland BrainSciences,12, 51-1 19.Dirks,J.R.,& Gibson,E. (1977). Infants'perceptionof similaritybetween ive peopleandtheirphotographs.ChildDevelopment, 8, 124-130.Flavell, J.H., Flavell, E.R., Green, F.L., & Korfmacher, .E. (1990). Do young childrenthink of television images as picturesor real objects?Journal of Broadcasting&ElectronicMedia, 34, 399-419.Friedman,S.L., & Stevenson,M.B. (1975). Developmental hanges in the understandingof impliedmotion n two-dimensionalpictures.ChildDevelopment, 6, 773-778.Gibson,J.J.(1971). The information vailable n pictures.Leonardo,4, zv-35.Gibson,J.J.(1979). Theecological approach o visualperception.Boston:HoughtonMif-flin.

Gibson,J.J. (1980). Foreword:A prefatory ssay on the perceptionof surfacesversustheperceptionof markingson a surface. In M.A. Hagen (Ed.), Theperceptionof pic-tures:Vol.1 (pp.xi-xvii). New York:AcademicPress.Gombrich,E.H.(1969). Art andillusion:A study n thepsychologyof pictorial representa-tion.Princeton,NJ: Bollineen Series/PrincetonUniversityPress.Gombrich,E.H. (1974). The visual image. In D.R. Olson (Ed.),Mediaand symbols:Theforms of expression,communication, nd education(pp. 241-270). Chicago:Uni-

versityof ChicagoPress.Goodman,N. (1976). Languages of art: An approachto a theory of symbols(2nd ed.).Indianapolis, N:HackettPublishing.Gottlieb,A. (1992). Underthekapok ree:Identityanddifference n Beng society.Bloom-ington:IndianaUniversityPress.Gottlieb,A., & Graham,R (1993). Parallelwords:Ananthropologist nd a writerencoun-terAfrica.NewYork:Crown/RandomHouse.Gregory,R.L. (1970). The ntelligenteye.New York:McGraw-Hill.Gross, D., Solken, N., Rosengren,K.S., Pick,A.D., Pillow, B.H., & Melendez,P. (1991).Children'sunderstandingf action ines andtherepresentationf locomotion.ChildDevelopment,62, 1124-1 141.Ittelson,W.H.(1996). Visualperceptionof markings.PsychonomicBulletin & Review,3,171-187.Kennedy,J.M.(1974). Apsychology of pictureperception.SanFrancisco: ossey-Bass.Kinsbourne,M., & Hiscock,M. (1983). Thenormalanddeviantdevelopment f functionallateralization f the brain. n RH. Mussen(SeriesEd.)& M.M.Haith& J.J.Campos(Vol. Eds.),Handbookof childpsychology:Vol.2. Infancyand developmental sy-chobiology pp. 157-280). New York:Wiley.Murphy,CM. (1978). Pointing n the context of sharedactivity.ChildDevelopment,49,371-389.Ninio, A., & Bruner,J. (1978). The achievementand antecedentsof labeling.JournalofChildLanguage,5, 1-15.Perner, . (1991). Understandingherepresentationalmind.London:MIT Press.Pierroutsakos, .L. (1994). Do infantsgrasp the natureof pictures? Unpublishedmastersthesis,Universityof Illinois,Champaign.Pierroutsakos, .L., & DeLoache,J.S. (1997, April).Infants'manual nvestigationof pic-turesas afunction of picturetypeand referent.Paperpresentedatthe biennialmeet-ing of the Society for Research n ChildDevelopment,Washington,DC.Robinson, E.J., Nye, R., & Thomas,G.V. (1994). Children conceptionsof the relation-shipbetweenpicturesand theirreferents.CognitiveDevelopment, , 165-191.Sigel, I.E. (1978). The development of pictorial comprehension.In S. Bikkar,B.S.Randhawa,& W.E.Coffman(Eds.), Visual earning,thinkingand communication

(pp.93-1 11). NewYork:AcademicPress.Slater,A., Rose, D., & Monson, V. (1984). New-born ntants perceptionor similaritiesand differences between two- and three-dimensional timuli. British Journal ofDevelopmentalPsychology,2, 287-294.Werner,H., & Kaplan,H. (1967). Symbolormation.NewYork:Wiley.Yonas, A., & Granrud,C.E. (1985). Developmentof visual space perception n younginfants. In J. Mehler & R. Fox (Eds.), Neonate cognition: Beyondthe blooming,buzzingconfusion pp.45-67). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Yonas,A., & Hartman,B. (1993). Perceivingthe affordanceof contact in four-and five-month-old nfants.ChildDevelopment,64, 298-308.Zaitchik,D. (1990). Whenrepresentationsonflictwithreality:Thepreschooler'sproblemwith false beliefs and"false"photographs.Cognition,35, 41-68.

(Received 6/25/97;Accepted 11/25/97)

210 VOL.9, NO. 3, MAY 1998


Documents

DeLoache Grasping the Nature of Pictures 1998