Lecture 6 Flashcards
(section 2) Self-awareness & affiliation
self-awareness
understanding that we are distinct from the environment
the development of self-awareness
emerges in early infancy though continues to develop into adulthood
5 levels of self-awareness in early life
Rochat 2003
level 0: confusion
level 1: differentiation
level 2: situation
level 3: identification
level 4: permanence
level 5: self-consciousness or ‘meta’ self-awareness
level 0
confusion
- oblivious to mirror or the reflections on the mirrors
- children have little understanding of what they look like
evidence: sing courtship songs / think its someone else / don’t recognize themselves - same as children
level 1: differentiation
- early self-world differentiation: seen vs. felt
- at birth babies differentiate their body as a ‘different entity’ from others
evidence for level 1
- 10 minute old babies imitate tongue protrusion (Meltzoff et al 1995)
- recent studies did not replicate this, no imitation
- 24-hour old babies differentiate when someone touches their cheek vs when they touch their own cheek (Rochat 1996)
level 2
situation
- babies begin to recognize how their bodies are situated in relation to other object in the world
evidence for level 2
- at 6 weeks imitation becomes more fine-tuned
- by 2 months they engage in protoconversations (making souonds)
- by 2-4 months infants are aware that they can control objects and cause changes in the physical environment
level 3
identification
- referred to as the ‘birth’ of ‘me’
- around 18 months/second year of life
- recognize reflection in mirror
evidence for level 3
‘mirror test’: Lewis et al 1979
- infants age 9-24 months
- infants had a red mark on face
- observed child’s behaviour for 90s
- around 18 mo some noticed mark, 21-24 months ~ 70% touched red mark
- recognize their reflection
level 4
permanence
- understanding the temporal dimension of the self
- birth of ‘me’ extending over time after 18 months
- me-but-not-me dilemma: before age of 4 they refer to their image in the mirror as 3rd person, recognise them but confused
- age 4: refer to image as ‘me’… grasp temporal dimension
level 5
meta-awareness
- children have others in mind/how they view them: evaluative and the meta-cognitive self-awareness at age 4-5
- hold multiple representations and perspectives on objects and people
e.g. become shy/embarrassed as self-conscious how others might see them
what does level 5 correspond to
the developmental period of false belief understanding (theory of mind)
is the mirror self recognition test universal ?
cross-cultural studies: Keller et al 2005
- 18-20 mo greece, costa rica, germany, cameroon
- cameroonian chldren passed the test less than 4% whereas rest were 50%
- maybe more appropriate for western cultures
- Broesch 2011, only 2/82 18mo-6 year old kenyan children responded to the mark, most freezing while looking at children
why do cross-cultural differences occur in mirror test
- parenting styles(parents don’t point things out as much)
- less exposure to mirror
- general lack of expressiveness (may recognise mark but not say anything)
- confused about what is expected from them
summary: self-recognition
- most children can recognize themselves in a mirror by around 18 months
- self-recognition and meta-representation are related to other developmental milestones e.g. language:
understanding that one thing can represent something else e.g. mirror and child….. different people might represent the same thing differently
why do children imitate
- important in social learning, recreating what models are doing and relating to them
imitation paradox
- children imitate selectively
- children imitate faithfully -> over-imitation
selective imitation
- 14 imitate selectively: understanding others’ goals and intentions
- copy intentional acts and not accidental acts (not accidental) (Tomasello 1995)
(Copy rational acts)
over-imitation
children copy slavishly: learn about objects whose causal properties are not immediately obvious
over-imitation evidence
Lyons et al. 2007
- 3-5 year olds and chimpanzees observed an adult using an unfamiliar puzzle box with opaque walls.
- chimps imitated only necessary actions
- children imitated all actions, including unnecessary ones
imitate to affiliate: social side
- people’s dependence on others and need for belonging to a group creates motivation and pressures to imitate
imitate to affiliate: learning side
when we have a learning goals imitation is more selective
imitate to affiliate: social goals
usually faithful and conveys social information such as ‘I am like you’ or at a group level ‘I am one of you’
result: over-imitation e.g. competition or empathetic responses
norms of learning and social goals
copy actions of in-group members more faithfully than out-group members
imitation and affiliation: social pressures
children might feel pressure to imitate e.g. making a wrong choice to fit in to a group
the threat of social exclusion: adults
- as an adult, being excluded is painful
- adults sometimes respond to exclusion with affiliative behaviours e.g. imitation to fit in more
the threat of social exclusion in children: response to ostracism
- 5 year olds
- control: video shows bee not interested in playing
- other: ostracism video: leaf tries to play but they are uninterested
- children who watched ostracism videos imitated more (and more faithfully) than children who watched control
Over et al. 2009
what did the ostracism video experiment show
- children are sensitive to social exclusion and modify their social behaviour in response to ostracism
- ostracism elicits affiliative behaviour (imitation)
- they try to affiliate with others through over-imitation despite not being excluded
ostracism and affiliation: further evidence
same 2 conditions (Over et al. 2015)
- children in ostracism condition drew themselves and their friend standing significantly closer together + more complex drawings
- adults rated drawings, ostracism condition as more affiliative (happ)
reputation management
to avoid exclusion and ostracism
- our behaviour is modulated by our perception of what others think of us
- we adjust our behaviour so that others see us in a positive light
- we are more conformative e.g. generosity increases in the presence of others
audience presence - study - Tomasello et al. 2012
(sticker tasks)
when observed: children stole less and helped more
when unobserved: children stole more and helped less
Summary of imitation
Children imitate to affiliate
- imitation is selective when the goal is to learn (how an object works?)
- imitation is faithful, when the goal is to convey messages e.g. ‘I am one of you’
Children are sensitive to ostracism
- even if it is not them being ostracized/ even is inanimate object
- witnessing ostracism elicits more affiliative behaviour
Children act in conforming ways more often when they are observed
Commitment to the group
children prefer members of their own group to members of other groups
evidence for commitment to group
5-8 year olds predict that their team preferences would not change even if their team lost all games (James 2001)
Reputation management 2 - groups
strategic management of reputation requires not only that we care whether people are watching but also who is watching
reputation management 2 evidence - groups
children more generous when they are observed by an ingroup member to an outgroup member (Engelmann et al 2013)
general summary
