1
Q
5 levels of self awareness in early life Rochat (2003)
A
Level 0: confusion
1: differentiation
2: situation
3: identification
4: Permanence
5: ‘meta’ self awareness
2
Q
Level 0: confusion
early life self-awareness
A
- Oblivious to mirrors or reflection of mirrors
3
Q
Level 1: differentiation
A
- start recognising there are other individuals who are “models” and may also imitate them.
= seen vs felt. see something and are trying to feel that. - at birth, infants differentiate their body as a different entity from others
- 10 minute old babies: tongue protrusion (Meltzoff + Moore) (may not be replicable)
- 1 day old infants can differentiate between themselves and someone else touching their cheek (Rochat & Hespos, 1996)
4
Q
Level 2: Situation
A
- children more mobile, recognise how body is situated in relation to other objects
- By 6 weeks, immitation becomes more fine tuned
- By 2 months, involve in protoconversations (pretend to have convo, making sounds, taking turns)
- By 2-4 months, infants aware they can control objects
5
Q
Level 3: Identification
A
- referred to as the Birth of “me”. In the second year of life (18 months)
- Classic study by Lewis and Brooks-Gun (1979)
- employed the “mirror test” (previously used with non-human primates) on infants aged 9-24 months.
- Infants had red mark on face, placed infront of mirror and observed for 90 seconds.
Found
9-12 mnths didn’t touch nose
15-18, minority touched nose
21-24 did touch nose (70-73 %
6
Q
Level 4: Permenance
A
- Birth of “me” extending over time after 18 months.
- Me-but-not-me Dilemma: “me” as another.
e.g. image seen in mirror or on TV is refereed to in 3rd person. - develops at age 4. They refer to an old image of them as “me” and grasp the temporal dimension of self.
7
Q
Level 5: Meta-awareness
A
- Others in mind. Evaluative and meta-cognitive awarness at age 4-5.
- Hold multiple representations and perspectives on objects and people
- Showing “embarrassment” for their image -> self conscious how others might see them
- Corresponds to the developmental period of false belief understanding (theory of mind)
8
Q
are the 5 levels of early self recognition universal?
A
- Cross cultural studies:
18-20 mnth olds from Costa-Rica, Greece, Germany, Cameroon. - Found Cameroon children to pass the test less than 4% (rest showed 50%). May indicate that these cultures require diff measures.
- Only 2 out of 82 children 18mnth - 6years Kenyan children touched nose. most froze, staring at their image. (Broesch, 2011)
9
Q
why may we find cross cultural differences in children from Kenya compared to WEIRD culture
A
- parenting style (maternal contingent responsiveness) e.g. parent follows in to a change in the environment, talking to the child.
- less exposure to the stimuli
- General lack of expressivity
- Confused about what is expected of them
10
Q
how is imitation a paradox
A
- important form of social theory (and relatedness)
A paradox. - children imitate selectively
- children imitate faithfully (OVer immitation)
11
Q
selective immitation
what age does this occour
what do they select for
A
14 month old children imitate selectively: they understand others goals and intentions
- copy intentional acts and not accidental acts or failed attempts
- copy the rational acts e.g. turning on a light switch with elbow)
12
Q
Overimitation
A
Children also copy slavishly (e.g. also copy head scratch when not part of demonstration)
study: 3-5 yr olds & chimps observe an adult giving an unfamiliar puzzle box w opaque walls (so how it works was not clear).
Once worked out some were unnecessary, chimps imitated only necessary, children imitated slavishly.
13
Q
Imitate to Affiliate
different goals
A
Social side: People’s dependence on others and need for belonging to a group creates motivations and pressures to imitate.
- learning goals: when the goal is to learn something, we usually imitate selectively.
- Social goals: usually faithful and conveys social info such as “I am like you” or, at a group level “I am one of you”.
- Learning AND Social goals (Norms): copy the actions of ingroup members (e.g. native speakers) more faithfully than outgroup members
- Social pressures: children might feel pressure to imitate (e.g. making a wrong choice simply because they want to stick with the group
14
Q
How do children respond to threat of social exclusions
A
Being excluded from groups is painful for all adults.
- Adults sometimes respond to exclusion with affiliative behaviours.
- How sensitive are children to ostricism?
study via third party ostracism. they see the threat of ostracism for someone else.
do they respond via affiliation?
watched one video where objects experienced ostracism (a leaf wanted to play with two leaves)
and a control ( a bee wasn’t interested in playing and the two leaves did the same movement
Found
children who watched the ostracism video not only imitated more, but (faithfully) over imitated more than children who watched control videos.
Suggests
children are sensitive to social exclusion and modify their social behaviour in response to ostracism.
- often affiliate with others through ostracism
similar study also showed children to draw images of them and friend more positive emotion and closer proximity to friend, more complex.
15
Q
Reputation management
in adults
A
to avoid exclusion and ostracism -> reputation management.
As adults, our behaviour is modulated by our perception of what others think think of us
- adjust beh so others see us in positive light.
- More generous in presence of others (multiple citations)
16
Q
Audience presence
in reputation management
A
- 5 yr olds in 4 conditions
stealing task vs helping task.
had to fill board with stickers. stealing task, other child had large excess stickers, you had missing.
Helping task, you had a couple excess, they were missing one.
would you steal? would you help?
Half children in each task were either observed or unobserved. by another child.
if they care more about reputation, they should help more/steal less when observed
THIS WAS THE CASE.
17
Q
Commitment to the group
identity in children
A
- children prefer members of own groups to members of other groups (Dunham et al., 2011)
- 5-8 yr olds predict that their team preferences would not change even if their team lost all of their games.
- 5 yr olds are loyal to their groups. e.g. keep secrets even if offered bribes when in group secret but took sticker bribe immediately if out group secret.
18
Q
commitment to the group and reputation management
A
strategic reputation mangement requires not only whether people are watching, but also who is watching.
- more generous when observed by ingroup than outgroup. e.g. important partner they need to impress.
19
Q
core features of play
A
- flexibility: diff forms and lengths
- Positive affect: about having fun
- Non - literality: paradoxical literacy. don’t have learning goals. but they do end up learning lots
- Intrinsic motivation: voluntary
20
Q
piaget identified 4 kinds of play. we focus on which 2 types
A
functional play: child repeats motor actions on objects
pretend or symbolic play: child substitutes imagined world for reality
other types are
construction play
games with rules
not mutually exclusive
21
Q
through development, what happens to trends of pretend and undifferentiated playq
A
undifferentiated play (e.g. throwing all objects on floor or making same noise) decreases.
pretend play increases with age
22
Q
functional play study.
playing to resolve uncertainty
- children like to play with new things.
But how long would it take a child to be enticed by a new toy if they are uncertain about how the toy they already played with works
how was this studied
A
had a clear condition and unclear condition. unclear = children pulled down sticks A and B which popped up a frog and a duck. unclear what the individual sticks do.
Then a novel toy is introduced.
if children playing to explore, they should spend more time with old toy than new toy in unclear condition.
this was the case.
23
Q
Playing to discover & pedagogy
question
A
- children naturally curious to discover new things.
- They also pay attention to others who might indicate whether there is something interesting to be discovered.
is this relience on “elders” beneficial to the child
24
Q
pedagogical sign exploration.
magnet study
A
Butler & Markman
3 + 4 yr olds
chidldren learned that a blicket is a magnet in 2 condtions (made up).
Accidental condition: E says oops. demontrated was but acted as if they didn’t know how the object functions.
Pedagogical condition: adult demonstrated intnetionally that the blicket was magnetic.
Then children given 10 inert (non magnetic) blickets.
wanted to see how many attempts to get paperclips to stick.
wanted to see how mang blickets tested.
children tried significantly more in pedagogical condition than in accidental.
shows that both 3 and 4 yr olds. in pedagogical condition, they have more trust in pedagogical cues.
25
pedagogy as a double edged sword
demonstrations provide evidence of causal relationships.
BUT
also about what relationships do not exist. and so these would not be explored.
evidence shows that children perform better when given chance to explore the toys functions (e.g. in accidental condition) compared to when purposefully demonstrated what toy does (e.g. pedagogical)
26
pretend (symbolic play)
when does it emerge. when does it peak
- as if stance
- pretence is complex
- pretender intentionally projects an alternative on the present situation.
- is Counterfactual.
- allows to develop meta-representative and linguistic skills.
- hard to distinguish pretend play from other types of play. e.g. physical play
- emerges from around 12-15 months and peaks around 3-5 years.
27
decontextualization and imagination in early years
key aspect of early pretend play is the use of realistic objects
- over time, children become more skilled at decontextualisation. using non realistic objects in pretend play.
By age 3, children use more imaginative behaviour. less reliance on props.
28
Development of pretend play
by 18 months, begin to perfom individually pretend acts (individual)
2-3 years children start engaging in joint pretense with play partners (cooperative)
by age 3, children could coordinate fictional scenarios with others
29
3 views explaining development of pretend play
what are they and what do they all focus on?
all focus on relationship between pretense and ToM (mental state attribution)
- Rich account
- Lean account
- We-intentionality account
30
Rich account of the development of pretend play
Alan Leslie (1978)
- Being able to keep reality apart is a complex ability
- Children are not egocentric in this ability. i.e. they are aware others are pretending to play.
- By 18-24 Months, children also respond to others pretend acts.
- They fill up empty teacups or wipe up when pretend teacups are spilt
- Children have adult-like meta-representations
31
what is Lean account of development of pretend play
Angeline Lillard. children are behaving "as-if" without really understanding the diff between fiction and play
32
Lean account of development of pretend play **study**
children given stories about a character called Moe , from another planet. The "as if" behaviour was that Moe hopped like a rabbit.
study 1: Moe's behaviour lacked cognitive prerequisite (he did not know about rabbits)
study 2: Moe lacked intentional prerequisite (he did not want to hop like a rabbit.
asked was Moe pretending to hop like a rabbit or not?
All 4 & 5 yr olds said yes. he is pretending
33
methodological issue with lean account of pretend play research
and a study that corrected for this
Confusing. Interviews may not be the best way to gain a childs understanding.
So, Action based methodology was used to investigate the intentional prerequisite with 2 and 3 year olds.
e.g. adult clearly intentionally wanted to pretend to pour water from a cup, in otehr condition, looked like they were actually trying and failing. After pretend condition, children also pretended.
34
We-intentionality pretend play
+ study
joint pretending, both need to pretend X is Y.
pretended green block was soap.
wanted to see if child would protest when green block was used as a carrot.
found that 2 and 3 yr olds protested.
at age 2, they understood pretending as a specific form of inentional, non serious activity
35
How crucial is pretend play?
Methodological issues
Inconsistent results and methodological issues.
Lillard (2013) conducted a review of 40 years of research
- most studies are correlational
- Non-random assignment of children (can't deny children of play)
- Experimenter are not blind. they have to observe children who partake in pretend play and they know that these children should show higher intelligence
36
Areas of development in pretend play. (what is it beneficial to)
- Non social aptitudes: Creativity, intelligence, problem solving, reasoning , conservation
- Social aptitudes: Theory of mind
- Symbolic understanding: Language development
- Self-regulation: Executive function, Emotion regulation
37
so how does pretend play impact IQ
correlational IQ test studies show that More intelligent children engaged in pretend play more often.
BUT
hard to establish direction of effects.
Training studies show that Other adult interventions such as music, raised IQ scores just as much
38
Nonsocial aptitudes: Reasoning
Logical syllogisms: Dogs live in trees, Rex is a dog, does REx live in a tree?
correct asnwer is yes, but must inhibit real world knowlege
Pretend play might help children to reason about false premises, since they are definitial to pretend play.
39
pretend play on theory of mind
false belief understanding requires the same architecture as X represents Y.
e.g. I believe my phone is in my bag when it isn't there.
- Through role play, children put themselves in someone elses shoes.
- Children who engage in pretend play also perform better in false belief tasks.
40
pretend play in symbolic understanding: language development
pretend play, like language, is symbolic.
children who are more advanced in their play at 1 display better language skills at 2
there is some evidence that play-based interventions affect later language development
41
Cross cultural differences in play
big diff in attitudes towards play.
- In Mayan Culture (Gaskins + Goncu, 192):
Children do not have time to play as are engaged in chores. Spend little time with same age peers as aspend most time with family. Adults do not value play.
- Pretend play seems to show same developmental trajectory across cultures (Lillard 2017)
42
take home practical applications from lecture 8 on play
- don't need expensive branded toys for children
- open ended toys are better
- adults should facilitate just enough , and not too much to dominate
play provides important contexts to practice various social, cognitive skills.
for pretend play, chldren become skillful pretenders at around age 2 and 3.
is a very sophisticated socio-cognitive act
43
what are social norms?
norms that are a form of "social reality" prescribing people act in certain ways in certain contexts
(e.g. money is paper but in social reality has value)
44
Domain theory says there are how many types of social norms and what are they
- Moral norms
- Conventional norms
45
what are moral norms
Concern the welfare of others. Evolved from 2 natural tendancies:
- natural tendency to help one another
- people avoid to harm one another
46
Conventional norms
don't directly concern welfare of others and have the following 3 properties:
example rule: in this nursery, blue toys must go in blue box
- Idiosyncratic: (what is wrong with putting green toys in green box
- Agent-neutral: all children in school should respect the rule, not just one.
- Context specific: rule is only valid in this nursery.
47
Classic view of moral development
- Children are egocentric, selfish, amoral
(Piaget, Kohlberg, Damon)
48
Two step model of Ontogeny of human Morality
step 1: second person morality before age 3. (preference).
"i don't like to see you suffer" "I like to help you"
- Helping, sympathy
-collaboration + sharing
it is nice to be nice
Step 2: Pre-schoolers' norm based morality. (Agent-neutral)
"people should not harm others". "people should help eachother".
- Enforcement of social norms
- Guilt + shame
it is right to be nice
49
Development of 2nd person morality
Infancy 0-12 months
- empathy
- social preferences
Ages 1-3 More "active" pro sociality
- Helping, sympathy
- Collaboration and sharing
50
example of infant showing empathy
Infant not bothered about own pre recorded crying, but is distressed by another babies crying
51
Example of social preferences in Infants
prefer Good over Bad.
presented a puppet show with shapes helping or hindering each other up the hill.
which shape did babies touch first? or more?
infants preferred helpers to hinderers
helpers > neutral
Neutral > hinderers
52
issue with comparing infants to 1-3 yr olds
Methodological differences
e.g. Indirect measures have to be used with infants: touching one object over another, preferential looking.
Ages 1-3 can employ active behavioural paradigms (directly dealing with moral behaviour or sentiments)
53
Active helping at age 1-2
Children read the intentions/goals of individuals and determine whether that individual needs help or not
Children help others to achieve their goals
e.g. if adult in same situation and makes it clear they are not interested in opening the cabinet, children do not help.
- Control conditions
54
Children' s Motivation for helping.
two possible types
Intrinsic motivation: one does things because it feels nice and right
Extrinsic motivation: for external rewards
55
Pupil dialation study to explore motivation of morality
pupil dialation indicates stress.
3 conditions where adult needs help:
- needs help and child helps
- need helps and no one helps
- needs help and other helps.
pupils only didn't reduce in dilation, indicating remaining stress
56
Selective helping.
Do children look at harm caused or indivs intentions
will a 3 yr old help the following people or a neutral person?
- HArmful person: destroys somoenes picture
- Helpful person
- Neutral person
- Intended but failed to harm
- Accidental harm
Found Children didn't help those with ill intentions.
Did help those who accidentally harmed
57
which step do children develop a sense of fairness and deservingness.
how is this studied
Towards step 2.
children work together to earn something.
One child gets lucky and earns more.
Will children notice the unfairness?
Will they try to make things fair?
Did study with marbels.
after work, 1 child give n 3 marbels, other given 1
after collaberative work, they shared equally
after parallel work, they didn't
58
limitations of moral judgement studies
- Interview method relies heavily on verbal ability, hypothetical thinking, counterfactual reasoning
- Is moral judgement enough?
. e.g. One may know what is right or wrong but may not act on it
59
How can full fledged morality be investigated?
- how do young children make moral judgements?
. evaluation of an action as right and wrong
- Do children have normative expectations?
. Do they enforce norms on others?
- Do young children appreciate generality of norms?
. Do they enforce norms as an unaffected observer?
. Impersonal perspectave (we/one should do X)
60
Experimental studies on Moral Judgement in action
How do children react when they experience norms violation?
2 and 3 yr olds taught a novel game.
Children witness puppet playing game wrong.
Found 3 yr olds intervened using "Normative" language.
- "No you shouldn't do that"
"not how it goes"
"One has to put it there"
61
normative conflict in 3 and 5 yr olds study
both complete sorting game But given diff rules (e.g. sort by colour vs sort by animal).
Wanted to see how they would resolve this conflict.
Found both 3 and 5 yr olds corrected their peers actions
It took 3 year olds a lot longer to resolve the conflict and agree on a rule than 5 yr olds
- 3 yr olds did not realise that the experiment was the reason for the disagreement
Suggests that normative understanding gets more flexible across preschool years
62
Is norm enforcement universal?
- 5-8 yr olds from highly diverse societies enforced conventional norms (i.e. game rules) when they observed a peer who apparently broke them.
-Germany, Argentina, Kenya, Namibia, India, Bolivia.
Found all showed enforcement of conventional norms. is human universal
but
Style of enforcement varied.
e.g. Imperative protest (don't do that, no) vs normative lamguage (one is supposed to do that)
63
Intervention against moral norm violations
experiment
explored property rights "Mine!"
studied 2 and 3 yr olds.
Actor took away and threw away objects belonging to:
- himself
- the child
- a third party
Found
both 2 and 3 yr olds protested against own picture being ripped.
- only 3 yr olds stood up for 3rd party.
64
So why do children transgress?
- Don't know its wrong (failure of knowledge)
- Didn't consider that it would hurt someone else (failure of empathy/perspective taking/theory of mind)
- Knew it was wrong or would hurt someone but did it anyway (failure of inhibition)
65
Do other species have norms?
when food in middle, alpha chimp will eat it all, others won't.
Is this social norms?
No. it is dominance. Not out of respect, but out of FEAR.
chimps do not have this collective understanding
66
3 types of mental states
-Goals, Intentions and desires. act in accordance w goals, ppl with diff goals act diff.
- Understanding perception and knowledge access.
visual perspective taking (can others see what I see?). seeing is not necessarily same as knowing, must be aware.
- Beliefs or representations of the world or the reality.
true belief = correctly represent the reality
Ignorance = unaware of reality
False belief = incorrect representation of reality
second order beliefs = belief ab belief
67
ToM study of goals and intentions development
Unsuccessful actions allow us to explore goals of agents
Behne, Carpenter, CAll & Tomasello (2005)
studied 6-, 9-, 12- and 18 mnth olds.
Adult fails to hand child an object for 2 reasons.
1. Unwilling. adult teases infant or play with toy their self.
2. Unable adult. tries but drops toy.
only 9, 12, 18 mnths were more impatient or frustrated in unwilling condition compared to unable condition.
Infants adapted their responses to different intentional acts of the experimenter
68
what do children understand about Desires
how was this studied
children often assume everyone likes what they like and dislikes what they dislike.
adult said "I love broccoli and hate goldfish crackers"
adult asked "can u give me some?"
Children younger than 2 gave goldfish crackers (could not perceive how one could like broccoli)
around age 2 gave broccoli
69
perception and knowledge access development
+ 2 studies, diff age groups
evident at age 1, more developed in age 2.
12 months. when experiemnter looks behind barrier and says oh! child will move to look behind barrier
24 month. adult entered room looking for object.
object 1: out in open
object 2: child could see, but experiemnter couldn't
- when asked to help find object, 24 mnth olds handed him object 2
70
what did wellman say about true vs false beleifs
A child's understanding that a person has a flase belief (one that contradicts reality) provides compelling evidence for appreciating this distinction between mind and world
71
developmental findings in unexpected location tasks
sam hid chocolate in cupboard, leaves room. Mum puts chocolate in drawer.
where will sam look for chocolate
3 yr olds typically answered incorrectly: drawer.
4-5 yr olds typically answered cupboard
72
unexpected contents task research
ask what u think a friend will think is in there
shake box of smarties, ask what do u think is in there. Will say smarties.
open to reveal pencils.
ask: what do u think friend will think is in there?
3 yr olds answer pencils
4 yr olds: smarties
at age 3, children do not seem to understand that another person could have a false belief about the world
73
implicit vs explicit ToM
Explicit: more conscious tracking of others mental states measured by standard false belief tasks.
* interviews with 3 - 5 yr olds
implicit: being able to track others mental states unconsiously
* with infants
* e.g. similar stories to false belief tasks with infants looking times measured
74
Conceptual change models
ToM
Early ToM (before age 3) represents desire psychology e.g. they understand - goals and intentions, perception & knowledge access.
Then their Development represents a shift from this situation/reality based understanding of mind to a representation based.
This explains how children go from believing that belief equates reality to belief equates internal reality
75
Competence models
ToM
criticise traditional false belief tasks, proposing that they undermine childs abilities due to task demands.
3 criticisms:
- task complexity: requires verbal ability, memory, attention, counterfactual thinking -> wording of question
- Reason for displacement: deception (e.g. why would u put pencils in a smarties box?).
. salience of mental state of protagonist
. what if children involved in story.
- perhaps, it is about executive function: inability to inhibit truth ab reality.
BUT when controlled for, these factors only increase performance a little bit
76
what do active behavioural belief paradigms show
- task was for infants to help adult achieve goal (open pink or yellow box by handing over the keys)
but to determine the goal (which box), infants had to take into account what the adult believed (i.e. whether or not he falsely believed there was a toy in box).
by 18 months of age, infants successfully took into account the adults belief in the process of attempting to determine his goal (e.g. if was absent for moving of toy from pink box to yellow box, would give him yellow key BUT if he witnessed toy being moved and baby knew this, baby would give pink key as he assumed "he knows where the toy is, so must be trying to open empty box".
77
how old are children when they begin to be surprised at implicit false belief tasks
10 - 15 mnths
78
Conclusion/summary of false belief tasks
-some paradigms suggest when children recieve enoug hscaffolding, their performance increases
- However, with some exceptions, the performance of 3 yr olds seems unstable and the age diff persists
SO seems to be a significant behavioural change between 3 and 5 (a conceptual change)
79
beyond false belief tasks, what evidence is there for understanding the development of thinking mentalistically
the language they use and in pretend play
- in natural interactions, they perform "better". e.g. spotaneous language (I thought I saw a cat but it was a dog".
There are individual differences.
- Correlated with executive function, linguistic skills
- children with siblings tend to perform a bit better
- pretend play and ToM
80
is ToM universal?
- false belief tasks
- - languages
- - development stages
false beleif tasks only applies to WEIRD cultures
(Western, Eastern, Industrial , Rich, Democratic)
e.g. in some cultures it is against social norms to talk ab mental states. is considered witchcraft.
- some languages make more fine tuned distinctions in mental state verbs than others.
- Although children might master "mental states" reasoning sooner or later depending on the cultural communities (traditional vs common cultures) and language systems in which they are reared, they all seem to go through the same developmental trajectory in acquiring this ability. (Wellman et al., 2001).
81
is ToM uniquely human skill?
chimps can understand intentions and goals.
primates can percieve others as goal-oriented beings.
- able to track what is visually available to others.
- mostly in competitive settings over cooperative.
No evidence yet for explicit ToM.
(similar to 3 yr olds)
82
maternal contingent responsiveness
what is this an where is it common
parenting style (maternal contingent responsiveness) e.g. parent follows in to a change in the environment, talking to the child.
western cultures
83
WEIRD cultures =
Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, Democratic
84
helping comes naturally e.g.
- early emergence
- inefectiveness of encouragement and rewards
- cross-culturally similar in infants
- rooted in sympathetic emotions
- cognitively flexible
85
yr 2 Sem 1
flashcards
Decks in class (26)
# Cards
-
cog wk 1014
-
(don't study! extra info )cog wk 821
-
Cognition 1-468
-
Cognition wk 521
-
cog wk 715
-
Cog wk 8. study :)12
-
wk 9 cog17
-
cog wk 10 LO :)14
-
cog wk 1116
-
Evolution66
-
Evolution wk 7 ! Fin for Dec 10th23
-
wk 9 Evolution19
-
Social Psych0
-
Social wk 74
-
social wk 81
-
Developmental wk 1-493
-
Developmetnal seminar0
-
Statistics 1- 432
-
Statistics week 5 - 1156
-
stats write ups27
-
dev wk 119
-
Dev wk 225
-
Dev wk 327
-
Dev wk 425
-
Developmental wk 523
-
Dev wk 7-1085
