Lecture 6: Social Communication Flashcards
- When does conscious communication begin? (several cards looking at this question)
- is there a communicative goal? (before 1 year do infants really seek to communicate to care giver or are they just recipients of it?
infants communicate subjective states (show emotion eg contentment, amazement ect) and respond to other people’s protoconversation (1st form of conversation we see, word same as mature conversation when people talk and pause some), emotional contagion (infants will catch mothers emotional expression) and imitation (right from birth will imitate, unconscious mimicking)
-But is there a communicative goal? (before 1 year do infants really seek to communicate to care giver or are they just recipients of it?
Emotional responses are subjective responses to environment, signalling might be considered a bi-product
Infants APPEAR to be actively conversing, but maybe proto-conversations are the product of social scaffolding, they appear like a dialogue only as the mother pauses and interjects where appropriate
Perhaps emotional contagion and imitation occur on an automatic basis i.e. are subjective responses to the environment?
The mirror neuron system = when you see someone else perform an action, the same neurons/areas in your brain fire as when you perform the action yourself. PERHAPS early imitation is an innate urge?
This would imply babies don’t have conscious communicative intent
(next slide)
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Nagy and Molnar 2004
Nagy & Molnar (2004) video-taped newborns (3 to 54 hours old) observing experimenter protrude tongue
- 1 minute modelling – 2 minute waiting for imitation –1 minute modelling (typical imitation paradigm)
- After 5 minutes of this, instead of modelling the experimenter waited for 2 to 5 minutes, giving the infant the opportunity to initiate interaction (restart conversation by sticking out tongue, see if take leadership role)
- If the infant protruded their tongue, the experimenter imitated and waited for infant to respond (roles were switched). If no tongue protrusion was produced the original cycle restarted.
- 78% newborns imitated in response to the experimenter modelling
- 38% newborns also initiated tongue protrusion
Nagy & Molnar (2004) interpret these initiations as communicative overtures (termed ‘provocations’) – a manifestation of the intention to communicate
-Tongue stuck out 2 minutes after experimenter = provocation
Accelerated heart rate (as seen in imitation) associated with excitement/pleasure/stress (emotional arousal) and movement.
Decelerated heart rate (as seen in provocation) associated with expectancy of a response/preparation for an expected stimulus in adults, and attention in infants
- > better evidence for difference between two things
- > still need more
- > Have we ruled out deferred imitation?
- When does conscious communication begin?
- some evidence infants respond socially, any other evidence?
- Tronick, Als, Adamson, Wise & Brazelton (1978)
- Murray and Trevarthen
Some evidence infants respond socially. Any other evidence?
What about proto-conversation?
If infants are taking an active role in proto-conversations, they should react negatively when signals from their mother stop…… (if passively interjecting, shouldn’t care if stops)
Tronick, Als, Adamson, Wise & Brazelton (1978) Still Face (SF) paradigm, designed to observe infant reactions to disrupted protoconversations
- Engagement, still face 2 to 3 minutes (freeze), re-engagement
- Classic SF response (2 months onwards) = attempt to re-engage (point, talk), followed by sobering (negative) and gaze aversion (look away), wariness when interaction reinstated (take while to get back in conversation
- > baby appears to care: the babies intend to communicate, upset when stops
Tronick et al (1978) interpreted the still face response as implying that infants are annoyed by breaks in communication, and therefore INTEND to communicate.
Why else might the infants react negatively?
- lack of attention
- stimulus stops
- negative, strange stimulus, stress signal
One way to rule out negative ‘contagion’ or intimidation (the staring effect) is to substitute the still face with an active but non contingent face.
Murray & Trevarthen (1985) observed 2-month-olds responses to live video feed, then the same video replayed later
- Infant sees live video feed of parent = engagement
- Infant then sees footage of parent replayed (and so non contingent) = classic still face response (reduction smiling and gaze)
Problem?
- problem with boredom still remain, reason why not reacting negatively because seen mother do before
- see if repetition or time effects play role.
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Braarud and Stormark (2006)
Braarud & Stormark (2006) ruled out repetition/time effects
- Infant-parent live video feed = engagement
- Infant sees replay parent (so non contingent) = gaze aversion
- Infant-parent live video feed = engagement
- Infant sees live parent, but parent sees replayed infant (so non contingent AND novel) = gaze aversion
- Infant-parent live video feed = engagement
->still face response about break down in communication
Remember purpose was to check still face isn’t due to negative facial expression. Easier way to do this?
D’Entremont & Moore (1997) Do 5-month-olds show classic SF response (sobering, averted gaze) when still face is happy? (see next slide)
- When does conscious communication begin?
Do 5-month-olds show classic SF response (sobering, averted gaze) when still face is happy?
D’Entremont & Moore (1997) Do 5-month-olds show classic SF response (sobering, averted gaze) when still face is happy?
The SF response appears to be a negative reaction not to facial expression, but to a break down in contingency in social interaction
BUT perhaps infants are reacting not to their parents social withdrawal per se, but to the violation of expectation?
-Protoconversations are ‘scaffolded’ from birth, the SF paradigm comes as a surprise!
Evidence?
-The SF paradigm was originally formulated to ‘model’ the impact of postnatal depression on mother and child. Field et al (2005) infants of depressed mothers show ‘depressed’ SF response
Counter evidence?
Do newborns show the still face response? If so, taking pleasure in social contingency is innate, not learnt……..
- When does conscious communication begin?
Do newborns show the still face response?
Bertin & Striano (2006) tested 18 newborns, 1.5 and 3-month-old infants. SF 60 seconds.
3-month-olds showed sig. decreases in gaze and smiling during SF– and sig. increases following reengagement
1.5-month-olds showed sig. decreases in gaze during SF, but the recovery was non sig. Sig. decreases and increases in smiling
Newborn changes were non sig.
- only older infants show still face effect
- makes want to say not innate, social learning but measure is smiling and newborns don’t smileDevelopmental increase in keeping with social scaffolding of responses/violation of expectation explanation
-maybe 60 sec not enough
-smile unfair measure
-maybe comparing infants and newborns unfair
(look next card)
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Nagy 2008
Maybe 60 seconds wasn’t enough? Maybe smiles unfair measure? Maybe comparing newborns to older infants unfair (less scope for variability)?
Nagy (2008) newborns 3 minute SF, measured gaze and distress
Sig. decrease gazing (non sig. recovery)
Sig. increase distress face (little recovery)
-evidence takes quite a while to recovery
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Lewis, Alessandri and Sullivan 1990
If we accept that the SF response is present in newborns, we accept that social contingency (COMMUNICATION) is a positive stimulus from birth
That communication is an innate expectation?
->from birth without any interaction, will react when communication stops
BUT infants also enjoy non social contingency
Lewis, Alessandri & Sullivan (1990)
-2- to 8-month-old infants exposed to pleasant stimulus (seseame street song)
-For half the control group presentation was random, for the experimental group presentation was contingent on their arm movement (wrist attached by ribbon to lever which activated stimulus)
-Facial expressions coded
-infants in experimental condition showed more joy when stimulated than infants in control
->baby likes when in control
->also upset when stops
Infants in the experimental group showed more anger when stimulation stopped (EX) than infants in the control group
The anger dissipated when the stimulus returned
Infant’s responses to the cessation of non social contingency look very similar to their responses to the cessation of social contingency as measured in the still face effect
This implies that rather than being driven to communicate per se, infants may be driven to have an impact on their surroundings
Is the SF response about communication with other or about feeling powerless?
It is not clear that paradigms based on imitation or protoconversation offer sufficient evidence for conscious communication
Perhaps we need to look later in development?
- When does conscious communication begin?
- looking later in development
- pointing and gaze
It is unclear whether infants early social responses are driven by an intent to communicate with others
In the context of a conversation between two people, where similar behaviours are exchanged (smiling, laughing, babbling, speaking) it is difficult to tell which partner is trying to provoke a reaction, and which is reacting (hard to tell who is leading and who is responding)
This is not the case when attention is drawn to a separate entity outwith the conversation……as in referential communication
- Referential communication occurs when person A sends person B a signal about an object/entity (referent), and person B processes that signal
- The INTENT is to draw the attention of the conversational partner to a specific stimulus (with the expectation of a reaction)
Perhaps this behaviour might provide clearer evidence of the onset of intentional communication?
3 basic pro-active behaviours in referential communication
- Gaze alternation
- Pointing
- Speaking
- >
Gaze alternation and pointing typically considered together (referential communication). On its own, gaze alternation between social partner and object is a weaker indicator of intention. Why?
- can’t shut down looking in social paradigm, look at what is interesting
- don’t point unless intent to signal
- > if point mean it to communicate
Gaze indicates attention, you look at interesting things in your visual field. If social partner and interesting referent are in visual field, alternation is likely. This may not be an invitation for joint attention.
Whilst awake, you have to look at something, you don’t have to point (the only reason to point is to draw others attention)
Why bother with gaze alternation at all?
My using gaze alternation to check your reaction (e.g. to my point) backs up intention to communicate
Infants typically produce their first words between 10 and 15 months, vocabulary of 50 words by 18 months, and several hundreds by 24 months (see Thornton, Chapter 5 if interested)
Pointing with gaze alternation (joint attention) typically begins at around the same time (Carpenter, Nagel & Tomasello, 1998)
->same time as language developing, end of first year
When an infant points what do parents do?
label the object
fetch the object
->pointing giving infant power
Just as in dyadic communication, parents responses allow children to experience the power of agency
UNLIKE dyadic communication, it is clear the infants are sending a signal ABOUT something outwith their person
- When does conscious communication begin?
- intention behind points
Distinction between intention behind points
Proto-imperative point = point extension of material desire (intend parent to fetch)
Proto-declarative point = point extension of psychological desire (intend parents to look/label)
Which do you think might provide better evidence for communicative intent?
Proto-imperative points could well arise from reinforcement of reaching for unreachable objects, no conscious recognition of social partner necessary
Only when pointing occurs in the absence of a desire for possession (proto-declarative context) can we be sure the intent was to draw another’s attention (to communicate)
When does this start to happen?
-Around the same time, or within a matter of months (proto-imperative first) (not always easily to distinguish intent in natural situations)
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Liszkowski et al 2006 (ex 2)
Liszkowski et al (2006; Exp 2)
Experimenter used object (uninteresting adult object) in front of infant e.g. hole punch
These were then displaced (dropped by accident or moved by E2)
E1 looked around for the object and said, where is it?
All of the infants (12 months and 18 months) pointed on at least one trial, more to target (used object) than distracter (e.g. paper)
->once E1 picked up object, infant stopped pointing (looks like communicative exchange)
None made repeated points to the object after the experimenter had picked it up. What does this rule out?
It seems infants intentionally send referential signals from 12 months onwards BUT
Referential communication occurs when person A sends person B a signal about an object/entity (referent), and person B processes that signal
If infants can only take the place of person A, the communicative interaction is asymmetrical
When do infants start to process other’s signals about referents?
-this might show an intent to understand/react appropriately to the other person (providing stronger evidence of an intent to communicate)
- When does conscious communication begin?
- When do infants start to process other’s signals about referents?
Naturalistic situation finds earliest onset: D’Entremont, Hains &; Muir (1997) 3 to 6-month-olds engaged in protoconversation, puppets included (puppet type and movement kept constant)
->Adult talk to 2 puppets, see if infants look at puppet, adult talking to
-head turns matched conversational partners (including puppets)
Problem?
BUT in D’Entremont, Hains &; Muir (1997) study infants may find moving auditory stimulus (the mouth) most interesting stimulus, so follow it (attention may then be drawn to interesting puppet)
When referent visible, difficult to distinguish if reaction to it, or to communicative partner
- When does conscious communication begin?
- -Moll and Tomasello 2004
Moll and Tomasello (2004) Study 2
- Experimental: Adult looks at object infant unable to see (as behind barrier)
- Control: Adult looks at object on barrier which is visible to infant
Dependent variable: will infant locomote to look behind barrier (equally salient in both conditions) more often when they can’t see what the experimenter is looking at?
Results imply infants as young as 12 months expect adults to look at INTERESTING referents (not barrier)
- Answer: Yes
- > infants get better at this as get older, but even younger can do above chance.
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Behne, Carpenter and Tomasello
Behne, Carpenter & Tomasello (2005) 14-month-olds, 18-month-olds, 20 24-month-olds. Hide a toy in one of two containers, give a clue…….
Again, search and recover of interesting referent (both gaze and point cues) despite its lack of immediate availability
-Implies expect adults to behaviour to communicate something interesting
Barrier studies find stronger evidence of communicative understanding
BUT the dependent variable in these studies (recovery) is relatively demanding, still underestimate younger infants?
-methodological problem, quite difficult to design a paradigm for referential communication that is both well controlled, unambiguous and able to be done by young infant thats why did violation of expectation study (see next slide)
- When does conscious communication begin?
- Csibra and Volien 2008
Csibra & Volien (2008) 8-month-old, 12-month-old infants, dependent variable = looking times
- consistent: object where adults looking
- inconsistent: object opposite spot adult looking
Infants of both ages looked longer at the empty space when it had been indicated by the models looking behaviour (inconsistent trials).
This implies violation of expectation (expected referent) as young as 8 months (if found still earlier could distinguish innate versus learning accounts……)
