An official website of the United States government
We (Meltzoff et al., 2018) described how Oostenbroek et al.’s (2016) design likely dampened infant imitation. In their commentary, Oostenbroek et al. (2018) argue that our points are post hoc. It is important for readers to know that they are not. Our paper restated “best practices” described in published papers. Based on the literature, the design used by Oostenbroek et al. (2016) would be predicted to dampen infant imitation. First, Oostenbroek et al.’s (2016) test periods were too brief. The stimulus presentation for each type of gesture was too short to ensure that neonates saw the display. The response measurement period did not allow neonates sufficient time to organize a motor response. Meltzoff and Moore (1983a, 1994) introduced experimental procedures specifically designed to address these issues (also, Simpson, Murray, Paukner, & Ferrari, 2014). Oostenbroek et al. did not capitalize on these procedural advances. Second, Oostenbroek et al. allowed uncontrolled experimenter–infant interactions during the test session itself. Previous papers on imitation provided analyses of how uncontrolled interactions with the experimenter can introduce “noise” in experiments of facial imitation (Meltzoff & Moore, 1983b, 1994). Third, Oostenbroek et al. used suboptimal eliciting conditions. Neonates cannot support their own heads; in Oostenbroek et al., infants’ heads were allowed to flop from side-to-side unsupported on the experimenter’s lap while the experimenter gestured with both hands. In addition, papers have listed techniques for maximizing visual attention (controlled lighting, homogeneous background) (Meltzoff & Moore, 1989, 1994). Oostenbroek et al. tested infants on a couch in the home. Despite a design that would blunt imitation, our reanalysis of Oostenbroek et al.’s data showed a response pattern that is consistent with the imitation of tongue protrusion (TP). In their commentary, Oostenbroek et al. (2018) now propose limiting analyses to a subset of their original controls. We reanalyzed their data accordingly. Again, the results support early imitation. Their cross-sectional data (Oostenbroek et al., 2016, Table S4) collapsed across age show significantly more infant TP in response to the TP demonstration than to the mean of the six dynamic face controls (mouth, happy, sad, mmm, ee, and click): t(104) = 4.62, p = 0.00001. The results are also significant using a narrower subset of stimuli (mouth, happy, and sad): t(104) = 3.20, p = 0.0018. These results rule out arousal, because the adult TP demonstration was significantly more effective in eliciting infant tongue protrusions than the category of dynamic face controls. Tongue protrusion matching is a robust phenomenon successfully elicited in more than two dozen studies (reviews: Meltzoff & Moore, 1997; Nagy, Pilling, Orvos, & Molnar, 2013; Simpson et al., 2014). There are more general lessons to be drawn. Psychology is experiencing what some call a “replication crisis.” Those who attempt to reproduce effects have scientific responsibilities, as do original authors. Both can help psychology become a more cumulative science. It is crucial for investigators to label whether or not a study is a direct replication attempt. If it is not a direct replication, procedural alterations and associated limitations should be discussed. It sows confusion to use procedures that are already predicted to dampen effects, without alerting readers. Psychology will be advanced by more stringent standards for reporting and evaluating studies aimed at reproducing published effects. Infant imitation is a fundamental skill prior to language and contributes to the development of social cognition. On this both Oostenbroek et al. and we agree.
more »
« less
Re-examination of Oostenbroek et al. (2016): evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion
The meaning, mechanism, and function of imitation in early infancy have been actively discussed since Meltzoff and Moore’s (1977) report of facial and manual imitation by human neonates. Oostenbroek et al. (2016) claim to challenge the existence of early imitation and to counter all interpretations so far offered. Such claims, if true, would have implications for theories of social- cognitive development. Here we identify 11 flaws in Oostenbroek et al.’s experimental design that biased the results toward null effects. We requested and obtained the authors’ raw data. Contrary to the authors’ conclusions, new analyses reveal significant tongue- protrusion imitation at all four ages tested (1, 3, 6, and 9 weeks old). We explain how the authors missed this pattern and offer five recommendations for designing future experiments. Infant imitation raises fundamental issues about action representation, social learning, and brain–be-havior relations. The debate about the origins and development of imitation reflects its importance to theories of developmental science.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1653737
- PAR ID:
- 10047127
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Developmental Science
- ISSN:
- 1363-755X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e12609
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract In humans, socioeconomic status (SES) has profound outcomes on socio‐emotional development and health. However, while much is known about theconsequencesofSES, little research has examined thepredictorsofSESdue to the longitudinal nature of such studies. We sought to explore whether interindividual differences in neonatal sociality, temperament, and early social experiences predicted juvenile social status in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), as a proxy forSESin humans. We performed neonatal imitation tests in infants’ first week of life and emotional reactivity assessments at 2 and 4 weeks of age. We examined whether these traits, as well as the rearing environment in the first 8 months of life (with the mother or with same‐aged peers only) and maternal social status predicted juvenile (2–3 years old) social status following the formation of peer social groups at 8 months. We found that infants who exhibited higher rates of neonatal imitation and newborn emotional reactivity achieved higher social status as juveniles, as did infants who were reared with their mothers, compared to infants reared with peers. Maternal social status was only associated with juvenile status for infant dyads reared in the same maternal group, indicating that relative social relationships were transferred through social experience. These results suggest that neonatal imitation and emotional reactivity may reflect ingrained predispositions toward sociality that predict later outcomes, and that nonnormative social experiences can alter socio‐developmental trajectories. Our results indicate that neonatal characteristics and early social experiences predict later social outcomes in adolescence, including gradients of social stratification.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The outbreak of COVID-19 and sudden transition to remote learning brought many changes and challenges to higher education campuses across the nation. This paper evaluates the impact of the transition to remote learning on the engineering-related social cognitions of self-efficacy (belief in one’s abilities to successfully accomplish tasks in engineering) and outcome expectations (beliefs about the consequences of performing engineering behaviors). These social cognitions can be attributed to important academic and career outcomes, such as the development of STEM interests and goals (Lent et al., 2019) and may be especially important in the success of women in non-traditional fields such as engineering. As an extension to a NSF RIEF (Research Initiation in Engineering Formation) study evaluating engineering social cognitions, students in 8 engineering classes were surveyed at the beginning of Spring 2020 semester (N=224), shortly after the transition to remote learning (N = 190), and at the end of the semester (N=101). The classes surveyed included a common early engineering class at the sophomore level (Engineering Statics) and required junior level courses in different departments. The students were surveyed using reliable and validated instruments to measure engineering self-efficacy (Lent et al. 2005, Frantz et al. 2011), engineering outcome expectations (Lent et al. 2003, Lee et al. 2018), and engineering persistence intentions (Lent et al. 2003). The results show a gradual increase in the mean scores on the engineering self-efficacy and outcome expectation measures through the semester. Two tailed t-tests of matched participants showed no significance when comparing the data between the beginning and mid-semester surveys, as well as the mid-semester and end surveys. However, significance was found in the two engineering self-efficacy measures between the beginning and end of semester surveys. Results are compared across courses at different levels and across gender. Results indicate that despite the sudden change in instructional mode, students’ perceptions of engineering self-efficacy and outcome expectations showed a slight increase or no change.more » « less
-
Abstract We compare and contrast the 60 commentaries by 109 authors on the pair of target articles by Mehr et al. and ourselves. The commentators largely reject Mehr et al.'s fundamental definition of music and their attempts to refute (1) our social bonding hypothesis, (2) byproduct hypotheses, and (3) sexual selection hypotheses for the evolution of musicality. Instead, the commentators generally support our more inclusive proposal that social bonding and credible signaling mechanisms complement one another in explaining cooperation within and competition between groups in a coevolutionary framework (albeit with some confusion regarding terminologies such as “byproduct” and “exaptation”). We discuss the proposed criticisms and extensions, with a focus on moving beyond adaptation/byproduct dichotomies and toward testing of cross-species, cross-cultural, and other empirical predictions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12609
