4.2 Article

Emulation and overemulation in the social learning of causally opaque versus causally transparent tool use by 23-and 30-month-olds

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 4, Pages 367-381

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.07.001

Keywords

Social learning; Imitation; Emulation; Tool use; Children; Overcopying

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We explored whether a rising trend to blindly overcopy a model's causally irrelevant actions between 3 and 5 years of age, found in previous studies, predicts a more circumspect disposition in much younger children. Children between 23 and 30 months of age observed a model use a tool to retrieve a reward from either a transparent or opaque puzzle box. Some of the tool actions were irrelevant to reward retrieval, whereas others were causally necessary. The causal relevance of the tool actions was highly visible in the transparent box condition, allowing the participants to potentially discriminate which actions were necessary. In contrast, the causal efficacy of the tool was hidden in the opaque box condition. When both the 23- and 30-month-olds were presented with either the transparent or opaque box, they were most commonly emulative rather than imitative, performing only the causally necessary actions. This strategy contrasts with the blanket imitation of both causally irrelevant and causally relevant actions witnessed at 3 and 5 years of age in our previous studies. The results challenge a current view of 1- and 2-year-olds as largely blind imitators; instead, they show that these Young children have a variety of social learning processes available to them. More broadly the emerging patterns of results suggest, rather counterintuitively, that the human species becomes more imitative rather than less imitative with age, in some ways mindlessly so. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available