Wk 2 - Children Flashcards
Lumsden and Wilson (1981) argue for the ‘leash principle’ of natural selection on culture, in that…(x5)
Culture and genes interact
As shown by cultural invariance in colour classification, fear objects, and biological taboos against incest
Genetic codes are affected by development, environmental chemicals, drugs/pharma, aging, diet,
Which then act on genes
Genetic evolution can be greatly speeded by cultural bias (but not reduced)
Overimitation is defined as…(x2)
Developing at ages…(x3)
Tendency to copy others so inclusively that visibly, causally irrelevant actions will be reproduced -
ie actions over outcomes
12mo don’t do it, at 18 mo are 50/50, by 24 months they’re imitating absolutely every action (to point of failing at end-goal of task – so focussed on objects/actions)
Explain WEIRDS
61% of all papers in top three dev journals were from US
19% from other English speaking countries
14% from other European,
Effectively 0 from Africa and South America,
Asia 2%,
1% of Israel,
2% on primates,
6 articles for billion Africans, 852 for 314 million Americans
The difference between indigenous and Western teaching processes…(x2)
Western is very explicit instructed, guided, verbal – teaches us that this is how to learn…
Many indig is through observation and trial and error, eg Bushmen teaching bow and arrow use
Nielsen and Tomasello (2010) established that overimitation is not a function of…(x5)
In a study involving…(x1)
Finding…(x1)
SES, parental education, test environment, age, cultural background
Western and African kids and opening of the puzzle box
Little difference - outcome is secondary to process
Nielsen and Susianto (2011) compared imitation of Jakarta zoo orangutans and kids in a study involving…(x1)
Finding…(x2)
Demonstrating the box opening process
Orangutans display typical emulation behaviour, knows there’s food in the box, removes dowels, but doing it his own way
Is able to open the box, but is much longer process – kids ‘get it’ immediately, have gained a new skill
Gergely (2002) established ‘rational imitation’ in a study involving…(x3)
Finding…(x2)
Touching light on platform turns it on, but demonstrated odd action of using head
One condition, 14 mo saw experimenter took blanket out, said she’s cold, does action (uses head) holding onto blanket
Other one same, but experimenter puts hands on table
‘Hands-occupied’ condition, kids use hands, as they’re free (kids aren’t given a blanket in testing)
In ‘hands free’, kids use head - there must be some other reason
Meltzoff (1995) argued for overimitation as a function of interpretation of intent, in a series of studies involving/finding…(x8)
‘Object-directed actions’
Little dumbbell – dowel with one cube glued on, the other loose
Give to 18mo, may or may not pull it apart but if you show them, they’ll all do it. But…
If you hold apparatus and look like you’re trying but failing to pull it apart, they can also do it - intent is key
Second experiment – substituted in a machine for experimenter
Showed them dumbbell, not pulled apart,
Machine pulls it apart leads to doing behaviour
But slipping, when cube comes off accidentally, doesn’t
Lyons (2009) explanation of the intersection of action, outcome and connection in causing overimitation (x1)
Because they lack causal understanding of what outcome of action will be – least accurate argument
Kenward (2011) explanation of the intersection of action, outcome and connection in causing overimitation (x1 plus describe evidence)
Normative behaviour – this is how we do things here.
Asked 4yo kids first what they were going to do - they describe all the actions, say they do it for normative reasons, but know that those behaviours aren’t necessary for outcome
Whiten (2009) explanation of the intersection of action, outcome and connection in causing overimitation (x4)
Evolutionary foundation –
Copy/acquire skill now, then refine it later if you need to
Enables quick gaining of skill, and later refinement
Similar to cooking, following instructions to the letter, then when more experienced and being able to vary the recipe
Dean et al (2012) demonstraated the role of social motivation/prosociality in overimitation in a study involving…(x3)
Finding….(x3)
Concluding…(x1)
Tested 3-4 yo kids, chimps and capuchins in groups – assessing where evolutionary diffs set in
Demonstrated sequence of actions to get treats from apparatus – action 1 needed to get to 2, 2 to 3
Looking at success rate, but critical point – how they do it together
Kids most successful, chimps get through some stages
Teaching – where one kid figures it out and shows others: at reasonable frequency, but absent in other two species = uniquely human, also a social interaction
Prosociality – kid gives treat to other; didn’t happen in other species
We are motivated to behave for purely social reasons
Uzgiris (1981) argues for two distinct but overlapping functions of imitation…
Cognitive function: promotes learning about events in the world – copy the skill to get it (Lions and Whiten focus on this)
Interpersonal function: promotes sharing of experience - More controversial, shifting… Copying to be like you, show liking, want to be liked; allows bonding with ingroup
Nielson and Blank (2011) strengthened evidence for affiliation as a motivator for overimitation in a study involving…(x5)
Finding…(x1)
Concluding…(x1)
4-5 yo, and two experimenters -
First demonstrates task (opening of the box), then gives it to second exp – does it slightly different
Key - e1 just opens box, e2 does the silly process – obvious that the silly actions are irrelevant
Manipulate which E leaves room - In one condition C1 (efficient model), E1 stays, other leaves
C2 the one doing the silly action remains, other leaves (redundant model stays)
High copying of silly actions in redundant adult condition, low levels when efficient adult stays
More aligned to social purposes: possibly normative – this is how we do things here
Skill acquisition through overimitation is contingent upon…(x1)
And also potentially leads to…(x1)
Meaning that there is a…(x1)
Assumed expertise – if you show kid person is incompetent, they are less likely to copy
Acquisition of causally irrelevant and redundant behaviours (even those that lead to failure) –
Trail of assumption of expertise, then copy, then account for costs
