However, Wakeley, Rivera, and Langer (2000) disputed Wynn (1992)’s suggestion that concept of number is innate. They based this assumption on previous studies such as Houdé (1997) who offered that children cannot add or subtract until the age of 3. They tried to replicated Wynn’s findings but failed to do so. First two experiments they conducted were the same as these in Wynn’s study. 5 months old infants were introduced to the Mickey Mouse doll and allowed to play with it. This was to let the babies get familiar with the toy. The procedure was the same as Wynn’s but used more computerised apparatuses. There were also two conditions: addition and subtraction. In the addition trial, a doll was placed on the stage and the screen came up. Then …show more content…
They tested 9 months old infants in their study. There were two conditions: addition and subtraction similar to Wynn (1992)’s study. However, this time more objects were used. The procedure was computerised and displayed on the monitor. In both cases, the showed objects were moving around the screen, constantly changing their size to bigger or smaller. In addition task, infants saw five objects falling from the top screen to the bottom. Then, the occluder showed up and covered the five items. 5 more items appeared on the monitor and were also covered by the occluder. At the end, the occluder disappeared and showed the items. There were two outcomes: correct one with 10 items or incorrect one with 5 items. Infants looked longer at unexpected result compared to the expected one. In the subtraction task, ten objects were showed on the monitor. Then, occluder appeared and covered the objects. From ten, five objects moved out from the occluder and disappeared. Again, there were two outcomes: correct event (5 objects) and incorrect event (10 objects). Infants looked longer at the impossible outcome than at the possible outcome. Thus, McCrink and Wynn (2004) concluded that infants have an innate knowledge of numbers. They can manipulate larger amount of numbers than it was believed before (e.g. Feigenson, Carey, & Hauser, 2002). This provides strong support for innateness of number concept. They also, rejected the possibility of familiarisation aspect. The objects showed were changed in their shape and size during the process as to add more variability. Therefore, none of objects should have appeared too familiar for infant and had any impact on findings. Additionally, authors did not find any significant difference in looking time between two outcomes. Therefore, the preference for larger amount of objects were rejected as well. Nevertheless, to be completely sure of