B1 C4 Early Cognitive dev Imitating studies P1

B1 C4 Early Cognitive dev Imitating studies P1

1. PIAGET 1951

   • METHODOLOGY
     • Obs of own C over 1st 5yrs
   • FINDINGS
     • 0. Imitate crying
       • 1-3 hand gestures
         • 4-7 hitting banging objs
           • 8-11mouth opening tounge poking, facial gestures
             • 12-17 novel beha never performend before
               • 18-24 deferred- can reproduce later
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • infants born with some relfexs that they can't control
       • having learnt to store exp in mem they can use them to think and reason
         • being able to imitate shows that an infant has successfully coded an action they've seen
           • and be able to recall it, hence dev this mem
   • Pros
     • repeating same process with small nº of same C over long time allows for indiv diffe noted
   • CRITISIMS
     • Small sample- can't generalise
     • poss ethnocentric

2. Uzgiris & Hunt 1975

   • METHODOLOGY
     • Obs 12 USA C over 1st 2yrs
   • FINDINGS
     • 5-7 quite complex beha, smtimes didn't complete actions
       • 9-11 beha they couldn't see e.g poking tongues
         • 12-17 matched new visual exp with novel action of their own
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • Confirmed piaget's findings
       • also showed that his obs were not culturally spec
   • PROS
     • repeating same process with small nº of same C over long time allows for indiv diffe noted

3. METLZOFF & MOORE 1977

   • METHODOLOGY
     • s1 1977
       • demo 1 of 4 behav to 6 12-21 do for 15 sec
         • tongue poking, lip protrusion, mouth opening, wagging finger
           • followed by 20sec of still face which was recorded
             • recording shown 1 of 6 judges who say which behav infant has been shown based on reaction
     • s 2 1977
       • 12 2wko exposed impassive face then 15 sec
         • either tongue poking or mouth opening
           • filmed 2.5 mins- researchers face still
             • procedure repeated using other behav
     • S3:1983
       • 40 72hr. Same conditions as S1+S2
         • results cross checked between judges
           • high level confirmation found
   • FINDINGS
     • S1
       • judges reported correctly most time
     • S2
       • judged counted more occurance of demo behav than other
     • s 1983
       • 30/40 judged to match tongue poking
         • 25/40 matched mouth opening
           • 12/40 more tonuge poking when shown mouth opening
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • infants had selectively imitated demo behav
       • implies infans can imiate v early
         • contradicts Piaget's findingd that C only learn after 9-12 mo
           • NATIVIST-suggest born with ability
   • PROS
     • using larger groups more representative, more generalisation
       • groups allow effects of diff settings to be examined
         • can compare diff ages or test diff cond
   • CRITISMS
     • S1
       • no option for judges select "no behav exhibited"
         • scores appear higher
       • Kaye 1982- although 12 infant poked tongue 39 times after seeing adult, they alsoe did this after seeing mouth opening, + 15 times after still face
       • doesn't consider indiviual differences
     • S2 + s3 1983
       • doesn't consider indiviual differences

4. METLOFF & MOORE 2002

   • FINDINGS
     • infants able to imitate after 24hrs delay
   • METHODOLOGY
     • 40 6wko each exposed 1 of 4 beha over 3 consecutive days
       • passive face, mouth open, tongue poking- middle or side
     • day 1: filmed 90sec after beha to see if imitated
       • day 2 + 3: filmed 90sec while being shown passive face
         • shown beha again + filmed 90 sec
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • to be able to imitate from memory, infants must have made stored representation of beha
     • tongue poking side novel, slightly diffi behav, infants couldn't see
       • the fact they improved showed they understand what they're doing
         • relate it to the actions of others, eve when they can't see themselves
   • PROS
     • using larger groups more representative, more generalisation
       • groups allow effects of diff settings to be examined
         • can compare diff ages or test diff cond
   • CRITICISMS
     • doesn't consider individual differences

5. JACOBSEN 1979

   • METHODOLOGY
     • 1. Tested 6, 10 + 14 wk o
       • 2. showed tongue poking, finger wagging, moving pen ot white bal towards them
   • FINDINGS
     • responded to tongue poking by doing same
       • also poking tongie to moving obj
   • CONCLUSIONS
     • it can't be assumed that early tongue poking is imiation
   • PROS
     • using larger groups more representative, more generalisation
       • groups allow effects of diff settings to be examined
   • CRITCISMS
     • doesn't consider individual differences