4.5 Article

Children's imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence

Journal

COGNITION
Volume 120, Issue 3, Pages 331-340

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.001

Keywords

Cognitive development; Imitation; Pedagogy; Statistical learning; Causal inference; Bayesian inference

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Children are ubiquitous imitators, but how do they decide which actions to imitate? One possibility is that children rationally combine multiple sources of information about which actions are necessary to cause a particular outcome. For instance, children might learn from contingencies between action sequences and outcomes across repeated demonstrations, and they might also use information about the actor's knowledge state and pedagogical intentions. We define a Bayesian model that predicts children will decide whether to imitate part or all of an action sequence based on both the pattern of statistical evidence and the demonstrator's pedagogical stance. To test this prediction, we conducted an experiment in which preschool children watched an experimenter repeatedly perform sequences of varying actions followed by an outcome. Children's imitation of sequences that produced the outcome increased, in some cases resulting in production of shorter sequences of actions that the children had never seen performed in isolation. A second experiment established that children interpret the same statistical evidence differently when it comes from a knowledgeable teacher versus a naive demonstrator. In particular, in the pedagogical case children are more likely to overimitate by reproducing the entire demonstrated sequence. This behavior is consistent with our model's predictions, and suggests that children attend to both statistical and pedagogical evidence in deciding which actions to imitate, rather than obligately imitating successful action sequences. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available