Development of imitation/Prosocial Behavior

Question 1

biological motion

Answer 1

preference towrds movent of living things then non-living things

ex:they prefer animal movment, then movment of helicopters

btw they also prefer looking at human faces - this dont apply to this word is just good to know

Question 2

How do infants know who to interact with?

Answer 2

• their bias to look at people rather then things help
• faces are cues if an object can have goals or interests
• self-propelled motion- beinga able to move independently - they also have goals
• they also belive they are goal oriented: that their action have a goal,is not just random

Question 3

Hand reaching for bear

Answer 3

• Habituation: human hand reach for the ball in the padestal on the left, in the other there was a bear on the right
• they swich the ball to the right and the bear to the left
• event 1: the hand would now reach for the bear (that was once the location of the ball) - same location
• event 2: the hand reaches dor the ball (that was once the location of the bear) - same object
• result: the dishabituation/they look longer when they would reach for the same location but different objects
• because their goals want clear : they paid more attetion to the goal - grab the ball then the location - where the ball actually was

a study did the same thing with a robotic hand they didnt disahibituate when it reached for the same location but different objects- because they dont expect objects to be goal oriented

Question 4

Social Learning theory

Bandura

Answer 4

infants learn by observing behaviour of a model and reacreating the action later

thats how infants learn from social interaction

mimicry: imitating something right in front of u (but not for the same goals per say)

the actual imitations with the same goal appears around 2years old

Question 5

what do infants immitate

Answer 5

when they are 2 years old they are actually able to imitate goals as well as actions:

Dumbell Experiment -

• a dumbell that could be pulled apart
• condition 1half of the infants observed the experimenter pulle the dumbell apart (the intended goal)
• condition 2 the other helf watched the experiment try and fail to do the intended action(pull the barbell apart)
• then the children had the oportunity to try for themselves
• result in both conditions the infants recreated the inteded action

they recognized the goal of the experimenter and were avle to recreate

Question 6

who do infants immitate

Answer 6

• they imitate beings that human like

a similar experiment with the dumbell but instead of a human it was a rob tested this and found that children were less likely to imitate

probably because they dont see non-humans as having goals which is what the original study was hypothazing

• they are more like to imitate live actor then a television one
  -not universal
• more likely to imitate people that seems like the people in their lives

infants recreated inteded goal/action more from an experimenter that spoke their languague then the one who didnt

but if a child was famalirized with the other languague thay would respond to both

Question 7

is development of imitation Universal?

Answer 7

yes overall they do happen around the same time

but their is some variety on what cues to imitate (ex: blind child will imitate more with sounds)

and what they imitate depend on their experince

Question 8

Prosocial Behavior

Answer 8

• Any behavior that an individual
  engages in to benefit another
• Requires the ability to evaluate the needs of another(theory of mind)
• Nonetheless, are different kinds of prosocial behavior
• Some of the earliest are helping, sharing, and comforting

Question 9

Types of Prosocial Behaviors

Answer 9

• Instrumental: Helping emerges by 14 months
  – Foundations are in place very early
  – Evidence that young infants understand:
• goal directed behavior
• Distinguish intentional from accidental outcomes
• Are more likely to imitate unusual action if seen as intentional rather than accidental

– Hence may be able to understand helping

– But understanding of sharing and comforting develop more gradually

Answer 10

• Sharing is relational: It requires
  recognizing that you have more than another, and being able to over come the desire to keep it
  all for yourself
• Comforting is even more complex: It requires not just empathy, but being able to
  interpret the other’s emotional needs, know what to do to address them, and have the self confidence to do so

Question 11

what do children prefer pro-social or anti-social behaviour?

Answer 11

10 month old infants

in a study where there is an object trying to go up a hill

condition 1 : a second object helps the first one clinb it

condition 2: a second object push te other down the hill

later the first object would choose who to interact with helper or hinderer

results:

• children were more likely to look longet when object would choose to interact with hindered because it violeted their expectations that an object would choose someone who acted anti-socially

after the infants were offered the hinderer or helper they chose to inetract with helper first

so they show prefer for pro social behaviour but acting pro-socially comes later on

Question 12

Prosocial Behavior

Answer 12

• Dunfield, Kuhlmeier, O’Connell, and Kelley,
  Infancy, 2011
• tested these 3 types of prosocial behavior at
  14& 18 months (n= 24 per age)

– Instrumental – helping an individual attain a goa
l
– Emotional – comforting an individual in distress

– Material – sharing something another wants

Question 13

instrumental (helping)

Answer 13

• Experimenter picks up a small plastic toy and ‘walks’ it across the table where it :
• Experimental: falls off and Experimenter says “oops”
• Control: Experimenter puts the toy down and says “there”

Question 14

Comforting

Answer 14

Experimenter hits her knee on the edge of the table with a loud bang

• Experimental: “Oh, I banged my knee”, looks distressed and looks back and forth between her knee and the infant
• Control: no vocalizing or rubbing her knee, simply sat and looked at infant w/neutral expression

Question 15

Sharing

Answer 15

• Infant told it was snack time. A RA brings a snack in, and gives the Experimenter hers first, holding container so infant could see and experimenter says, “look what I have”
• Experimental trial: Empty cup, sad face, and placed her hand out palm empty, alternating gaze bet hand and infant
• Control trial: Used her hand only to eat her treats

Question 16

results

Answer 16

14 months:helping and sharing(way more) but no conforting

18 months: helping and sharing incresed still no conforting (still more sharing)

Question 17

Interim Summary: Prosocial Behavior

Answer 17

• Instrumental (helping) and
  Sharing in this study at 18
  months
• Comforting requires more
  development to be
  consistently shown

Question 18

Interpersonal Synchrony:
Does it promote prosocial behavior?

Question 19

Social Cohesion Model of
Rhythmical Interaction

Answer 19

Moving together creates community
– The wave at a sporting event
– Singing and dancing at religious events
– National Anthems
– Children’s camps

• Our brains oscillate in synchrony
  (entrainment)
• Increases feelings of group cohesion
• Does it make us more likely to help and
  support each other?

Question 20

Moving in synchrony supports
prosocial behavior

Answer 20

Moving in synchrony, helped later the one that move along with them

Question 21

Inferring Social Partners (paper)

Answer 21

How do infants infer potential social
partners?

• Ho: Combine information about their own relationships (i.e. with Mom) and the social connections of those key people, to infer who will be a potential social partner with them

– Requires that they know something about their own relationships
– Can track how others interact with and support one another
– Can draw inferences, and make predictions from that, for their own potential social relationships

Question 22

Basic Design: Infants

Answer 22

• Studies 1-4: Measured the affiliative behavior of 12-month old infants after they had first seen either
  – Their own parent interacting with (imitating) an unfamiliar puppet
  – A different infant’s parent imitating an unfamiliar puppet
• In Study 1, tested whether the infants reached more to the unfamiliar puppet their own parent had imitated, and compared to
  whether the infants also reached more to an unfamiliar puppet a different parent had imitated
• In Studies 2 - 4, tested whether the infants inferred that the puppet their own parent had imitated was the source of a voice calling them by name
• Study 5: Measured whether the infants expected that a puppet who had interacted with them and called them by name would be more
  likely to respond to their parent’s distress than a puppet who had not interacted with them and called them by name

Question 23

Exactly what Infants saw In Studies 1-3

Answer 23

Study 1: equal looking in
silence in both conditions,
but infants reached more
to the puppet imitated by
the mother

Studies 2 & 3: equal looking
in silence (Study 2) and
music (Study 3), but infants
looked more to the puppet
imitated by the mother
after hearing their (the
infant’s) name called

in study 4 is
gone if a voice calls an
incorrect name (not the
infant’s own name), while
looking off screen

study 5 is Do infants infer that someone who knows them is more likely to affiliate with – in
this case help – their mother when she is in distress?

Question 24

variability in pro-social behaviour and thory of mind

Answer 24

• its probably more based in experiences then in biology
• evethough we can see early on autistic children have problems with both these things
• parents that talk more about ones feeling and teaches this to kids have better theory of mind
• pro sociality might not be about morals but what u can achive with relating with someone that is prosocial