Reply to Baillargeon, Aslin and Munakata

Our thematic collection relates to the nature of young infants' representation in specific situations involving occluded objects. Piaget (1954) concluded that the infant has no representations at this age. Most now agree that conclusion was unwarranted, but researchers differ as to what, if any, representations exist of occluded objects (Baillargeon, 1993, 1995; Bogartz, Shinskey & Spencer, 1997; Haith, 1988; Leslie, Xu, Tremoulet, & Scholl, 1998; Meltzoff & Moore, 1998). Obviously, issues concerning the nature of infant representation must be decided experimentally. It is therefore important to know how much confidence can be placed in the existing studies, especially those supporting more extreme positions. This exchange regarding the larger theoretical issues takes place in the context of assessing the nature and importance of evidence from the drawbridge experiments in general and the frequently cited Baillargeon, Spelke, and Wasserman (1985) study in particular. Here, we respond to the remarks made by Baillargeon (this issue), Aslin (this issue, and Munakata (this issue)