學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 嬰兒的選擇性模仿：動作－效果整合或目的推理？
Selective imitation in infancy: Ideomotor theory or teleological reasoning?作者 楊悅如
Yang, Yueh Ju貢獻者 黃啟泰
Huang, Chi Tai
楊悅如
Yang, Yueh Ju關鍵詞 目的推理
因果效能
概念運動原則
模仿
teleological reasoning
causal efficacy
ideomotor theory
imitation日期 2016 上傳時間 2-May-2016 13:54:34 (UTC+8) 摘要 選擇性模仿是指嬰兒在不同情境中選擇性地模仿他人的行為，為當今發展心理學備受矚目的議題。在Gergely、Bekkering與Király（2002）著名的研究中，當實驗者的雙手自由放在桌上，示範以額頭碰盒子開燈，嬰兒偏好模仿此新奇動作；但當實驗者雙手緊抓毛毯示範相同的動作則未發現嬰兒有顯著的模仿偏好。有些研究者認嬰兒可以透過目的推理理解他人的意圖，並認為模仿是建立在對意圖的解讀之上；相反地，動作－效果整合理論則認為動作本身的執行困難度與動作－效果連結的穩定性才是影響嬰兒選擇性模仿的主因。為了解決兩者長久以來對於嬰兒模仿的爭議，本研究修訂Gergely等人（2002）的光盒研究派典，將焦點放在過去一直未受到重視的因果效能概念，降低示範動作的因果效能，嬰兒在實驗過程中會發現示範動作不是每次都能成功讓光盒發亮，藉此釐清目的推理論與動作－效果整合理論對嬰兒選擇性模仿的解釋適當性。實驗1的結果重製了Gergely等人（2002）的實驗結果，實驗2A與實驗2B皆發現18個月大的嬰兒在因果效能較低的情境中很少會模仿示範動作，顯示嬰兒的模仿行為較符合動作－效果整合理論的觀點，主要是受到動作執行的困難度與動作－效果聯結的穩定性的影響。
Selective imitation refers to a phenomenon which infants differentially imitate the demonstrated action in different contexts. Recently, it has also become a popular research topic in developmental psychology. Gergely, Bekkering and Király (2002) uncovered a classic example of selective imitation. They found that infants tend to imitate the action of touching a light box with their forehead when they saw a model perform the action with her hands placed on the table, but not when her hands were restricted by a blanket. Some researchers claim that infants can interpret others’ intention through teleological reasoning, and they consider infants’ imitation is based on decoding of intentionality. Conversely, ideomotor theory argues that imitation depends on difficulty of the action execution and the stability of link between action and its effect. To address the long-standing dispute with infants’ imitation, we revised the paradigm in Gergely et al. (2002) and focused on the concept of causal efficacy which had been long ignored in the past. Infant would find that the demonstrated action, sometimes won’t turn on the light during the experimentation. In experiment 1, we replicated the results obtained in Gergely et al. (2002). Experiment 2A and 2B both found that 18-month-old infants rarely imitated the demonstrated action when the causal efficacy was relatively low. These results are closer to the ideomotor approach viewpoint of imitation, and it reveals that infants’ imitation depends on difficulty of the action execution and the stability of link between action and effect.參考文獻 Barr, R., Dowden, A., & Hayne, H. (1996). Developmental changes in deferred imitation by 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 19(2), 159–170. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (2003). It’s not what you know, it’s who you know: Older siblings facilitate imitation during infancy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1080/0966976032000066055Bauer, P. J., & Hertsgaard, L. A. (1993). Increasing steps in recall of events: Factors facilitating immediate and long-term memory in 13.5-and 16.5-month-old children. Child Development, 64(4), 1204–1223.Beisert, M., Zmyj, N., Liepelt, R., Jung, F., Prinz, W., & Daum, M. M. (2012). Rethinking “rational imitation” in 14-month-old infants: A perceptual distraction approach. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032563Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., & Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the right thing: Infants’ selection of actions to imitate from observed event sequences. Child Development, 78(3), 806–824. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01034.xButtelmann, D., & Zmyj, N. (2012). Evaluating the empirical evidence for the two-stage-model of infant imitation. A commentary on Paulus, Hunnius, Vissers, and Bekkering (2011). Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00512Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(2), 315–330. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90009-1Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 367–405. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367Chen, M. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2013). “Shall we blick?”: Novel words highlight actors’ underlying intentions for 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 426–431. doi: 10.1037/a0029486Collie, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Deferred imitation by 6-and 9-month-old infants: More evidence for declarative memory. Developmental Psychobiology, 35(2), 83–90.Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120(3), 341–349. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.03.003Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2007). “Obsessed with goals”: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 60–78. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.007Elsner, B. (2007). Infants’ imitation of goal-directed actions: The role of movements and action effects. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 44–59. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.006Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (2003). Do I get what you get? Learning about the effects of self-performed and observed actions in infancy. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(4), 732–751. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00073-4Elsner, B., Pfeifer, C., Parker, C., & Hauf, P. (2013). Infants’ perception of actions and situational constraints: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 428–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.014Farroni, T., Johnson, M. H., Brockbank, M., & Simion, F. (2000). Infants’ use of gaze direction to cue attention: The importance of perceived motion. Visual Cognition, 7(6), 705–718. doi: 10.1080/13506280050144399Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Developmental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi: 10.1038/415755aGergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naı̈ve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 287–292. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00128-1Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia’s recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction (pp. 229–255). Oxford, England: Berg Publisher. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165–193. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-HGopnik, A., & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71(5), 1205–1222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00224Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 620–629. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2008). Action–effect anticipation in infant action control. Psychological Research, 72(2), 203–210. doi: 10.1007/s00426-006-0101-3Herbert, J., & Hayne, H. (2000). Memory retrieval by 18–30-month-olds: Age-related changes in representational flexibility. Developmental Psychology, 36(4), 473–484. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.4.473Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2004). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8(3), 164–181. doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6James, W. (1998). The Principles of Psychology. New York: H. Hoit and Company. Király, I., Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2013). Beyond rational imitation: Learning arbitrary means actions from communicative demonstrations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 471–486. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.003Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 678–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01595.xLyons, D. E., Damrosch, D. H., Lin, J. K., Macris, D. M., & Keil, F. C. (2011). The scope and limits of overimitation in the transmission of artefact culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1158–1167. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0335Lyons, D. E., Young, A. G., & Keil, F. C. (2007). The hidden structure of overimitation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19751–19756. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704452104Marno, H., & Csibra, G. (2015). Toddlers Favor Communicatively Presented Information over Statistical Reliability in Learning about Artifacts. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0122129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122129Meltzoff, A. N. (1988a). Imitation of televised models by infants. Child Development, 59(5), 1221–1229.Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 470–476. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.470Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838–850. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78.Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 702–709.Nagell, K., Olguin, R. S., & Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107(2), 174–186. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.107.2.174Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 555–565. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.555Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2012). Putting the social into social learning: Explaining both selectivity and fidelity in children’s copying behavior. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 182–192. doi: 10.1037/a0024555Paulus, M. (2014). How and why do infants imitate? An ideomotor approach to social and imitative learning in infancy (and beyond). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1139–1156. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0598-1Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2013). Examining functional mechanisms of imitative learning in infancy: Does teleological reasoning affect infants’ imitation beyond motor resonance? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 487–498. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.009Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2011a). Bridging the gap between the other and me: The functional role of motor resonance and action effects in infants’ imitation. Developmental Science, 14(4), 901–910. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01040.xPaulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2011b). Imitation in infancy: Rational or motor resonance? Child Development, 82(4), 1047–1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01610.xPiaget, J. (1952).The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Piaget, J. (1962). Play dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Pinkham, A. M., & Jaswal, V. K. (2011). Watch and learn? Infants privilege efficiency over pedagogy during imitative learning. Infancy, 16(5), 535–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00059.xPrinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154. doi: 10.1080/713752551Schulz, L. E., Hooppell, C., & Jenkins, A. C. (2008). Judicious imitation: Children differentially imitate deterministically and probabilistically effective actions. Child Development, 79(2), 395–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01132.xSchulz, L. E., & Sommerville, J. (2006). God does not play dice: Causal determinism and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Child Development, 77(2), 427–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00880.xSchwier, C., van Maanen, C., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Rational imitation in 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 10(3), 303–311. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in1003_6Valenza, E., Simion, F., Cassia, V. M., & Umiltà, C. (1996). Face preference at birth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(4), 892–903. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.892Vinter, A. (1986). The role of movement in eliciting early imitations. Child Development, 66–71.Waismeyer, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Gopnik, A. (2015). Causal learning from probabilistic events in 24-month-olds: An action measure. Developmental Science, 18(1), 175–182. doi: 10.1111/desc.12208Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5Wohlschläger, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: an instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 501–515. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1257Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69(1), 1–34. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00058-4Wu, Y., Muentener, P., & Schulz, L. E. (2013). The invisible hand: Toddlers infer hidden agents when events occur probabilistically. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3807–3810). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Zmyj, N., Daum, M. M., & Aschersleben, G. (2009). The development of rational imitation in 9- and 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 14(1), 131–141. doi: 10.1080/15250000802569884Zmyj, N., & Buttelmann, D. (2014). An integrative model of rational imitation in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 37(1), 21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.10.001 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系
102752007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102752007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 黃啟泰 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Huang, Chi Tai en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊悅如 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Yueh Ju en_US dc.creator (作者) 楊悅如 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yang, Yueh Ju en_US dc.date (日期) 2016 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-May-2016 13:54:34 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-May-2016 13:54:34 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-May-2016 13:54:34 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102752007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/89065 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 心理學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102752007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 選擇性模仿是指嬰兒在不同情境中選擇性地模仿他人的行為，為當今發展心理學備受矚目的議題。在Gergely、Bekkering與Király（2002）著名的研究中，當實驗者的雙手自由放在桌上，示範以額頭碰盒子開燈，嬰兒偏好模仿此新奇動作；但當實驗者雙手緊抓毛毯示範相同的動作則未發現嬰兒有顯著的模仿偏好。有些研究者認嬰兒可以透過目的推理理解他人的意圖，並認為模仿是建立在對意圖的解讀之上；相反地，動作－效果整合理論則認為動作本身的執行困難度與動作－效果連結的穩定性才是影響嬰兒選擇性模仿的主因。為了解決兩者長久以來對於嬰兒模仿的爭議，本研究修訂Gergely等人（2002）的光盒研究派典，將焦點放在過去一直未受到重視的因果效能概念，降低示範動作的因果效能，嬰兒在實驗過程中會發現示範動作不是每次都能成功讓光盒發亮，藉此釐清目的推理論與動作－效果整合理論對嬰兒選擇性模仿的解釋適當性。實驗1的結果重製了Gergely等人（2002）的實驗結果，實驗2A與實驗2B皆發現18個月大的嬰兒在因果效能較低的情境中很少會模仿示範動作，顯示嬰兒的模仿行為較符合動作－效果整合理論的觀點，主要是受到動作執行的困難度與動作－效果聯結的穩定性的影響。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Selective imitation refers to a phenomenon which infants differentially imitate the demonstrated action in different contexts. Recently, it has also become a popular research topic in developmental psychology. Gergely, Bekkering and Király (2002) uncovered a classic example of selective imitation. They found that infants tend to imitate the action of touching a light box with their forehead when they saw a model perform the action with her hands placed on the table, but not when her hands were restricted by a blanket. Some researchers claim that infants can interpret others’ intention through teleological reasoning, and they consider infants’ imitation is based on decoding of intentionality. Conversely, ideomotor theory argues that imitation depends on difficulty of the action execution and the stability of link between action and its effect. To address the long-standing dispute with infants’ imitation, we revised the paradigm in Gergely et al. (2002) and focused on the concept of causal efficacy which had been long ignored in the past. Infant would find that the demonstrated action, sometimes won’t turn on the light during the experimentation. In experiment 1, we replicated the results obtained in Gergely et al. (2002). Experiment 2A and 2B both found that 18-month-old infants rarely imitated the demonstrated action when the causal efficacy was relatively low. These results are closer to the ideomotor approach viewpoint of imitation, and it reveals that infants’ imitation depends on difficulty of the action execution and the stability of link between action and effect. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節、 研究動機 1第二節、 研究目的 3第二章 文獻回顧 5第一節、 意圖解讀與模仿 5第二節、 動作－效果整合與模仿 11第三節、 兩理論取向的比較 17第四節、 因果效能對模仿的調節影響 20第五節、 研究問題與假設 27第三章 實驗1 嬰兒的選擇性模仿：動作的因果必然性 29第一節、 研究目的 29第二節、 研究對象 29第三節、 研究材料 31第四節、 研究程序 32第五節、 計分與統計分析 36第六節、 研究結果 38第七節、 討論 40第四章 實驗2A 嬰兒的選擇性模仿：動作的因果或然性 41第一節、 研究目的 41第二節、 研究對象 41第三節、 研究材料 42第四節、 研究設計 42第五節、 研究程序 43第六節、 計分與統計分析 45第七節、 研究結果 45第八節、 討論 49第五章 實驗2B嬰兒的選擇性模仿：因果必然性或動作可靠性？ 51第一節、 研究目的 51第二節、 研究對象 52第三節、 研究材料 52第四節、 研究程序 53第五節、 計分與統計分析 54第六節、 研究結果 55第七節、 討論 56第六章 綜合討論 57第一節、 因果效能與動作－效果整合 58第二節、 因果效能與動作可靠性 59第三節、 其他可能的解釋 61第四節、 本研究的限制與未來方向 66第五節、 結論 67參考文獻 68 zh_TW dc.format.extent 5896955 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102752007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 目的推理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 因果效能 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 概念運動原則 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模仿 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) teleological reasoning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) causal efficacy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) ideomotor theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) imitation en_US dc.title (題名) 嬰兒的選擇性模仿：動作－效果整合或目的推理？ zh_TW dc.title (題名) Selective imitation in infancy: Ideomotor theory or teleological reasoning? en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Barr, R., Dowden, A., & Hayne, H. (1996). Developmental changes in deferred imitation by 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 19(2), 159–170. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (2003). It’s not what you know, it’s who you know: Older siblings facilitate imitation during infancy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 7–21. doi: 10.1080/0966976032000066055Bauer, P. J., & Hertsgaard, L. A. (1993). Increasing steps in recall of events: Factors facilitating immediate and long-term memory in 13.5-and 16.5-month-old children. Child Development, 64(4), 1204–1223.Beisert, M., Zmyj, N., Liepelt, R., Jung, F., Prinz, W., & Daum, M. M. (2012). Rethinking “rational imitation” in 14-month-old infants: A perceptual distraction approach. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032563Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., & Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the right thing: Infants’ selection of actions to imitate from observed event sequences. Child Development, 78(3), 806–824. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01034.xButtelmann, D., & Zmyj, N. (2012). Evaluating the empirical evidence for the two-stage-model of infant imitation. A commentary on Paulus, Hunnius, Vissers, and Bekkering (2011). Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00512Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(2), 315–330. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90009-1Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 367–405. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.367Chen, M. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2013). “Shall we blick?”: Novel words highlight actors’ underlying intentions for 14-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 49(3), 426–431. doi: 10.1037/a0029486Collie, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Deferred imitation by 6-and 9-month-old infants: More evidence for declarative memory. Developmental Psychobiology, 35(2), 83–90.Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: Spontaneous experiments in preschoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120(3), 341–349. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.03.003Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2007). “Obsessed with goals”: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 60–78. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.007Elsner, B. (2007). Infants’ imitation of goal-directed actions: The role of movements and action effects. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 44–59. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.09.006Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (2003). Do I get what you get? Learning about the effects of self-performed and observed actions in infancy. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(4), 732–751. doi: 10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00073-4Elsner, B., Pfeifer, C., Parker, C., & Hauf, P. (2013). Infants’ perception of actions and situational constraints: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 428–442. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.014Farroni, T., Johnson, M. H., Brockbank, M., & Simion, F. (2000). Infants’ use of gaze direction to cue attention: The importance of perceived motion. Visual Cognition, 7(6), 705–718. doi: 10.1080/13506280050144399Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Developmental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi: 10.1038/415755aGergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naı̈ve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 287–292. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00128-1Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia’s recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction (pp. 229–255). Oxford, England: Berg Publisher. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165–193. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-HGopnik, A., & Sobel, D. M. (2000). Detecting blickets: How young children use information about novel causal powers in categorization and induction. Child Development, 71(5), 1205–1222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00224Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: Two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 620–629. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2008). Action–effect anticipation in infant action control. Psychological Research, 72(2), 203–210. doi: 10.1007/s00426-006-0101-3Herbert, J., & Hayne, H. (2000). Memory retrieval by 18–30-month-olds: Age-related changes in representational flexibility. Developmental Psychology, 36(4), 473–484. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.4.473Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2004). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8(3), 164–181. doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6James, W. (1998). The Principles of Psychology. New York: H. Hoit and Company. Király, I., Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2013). Beyond rational imitation: Learning arbitrary means actions from communicative demonstrations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 471–486. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.003Kushnir, T., & Gopnik, A. (2005). Young children infer causal strength from probabilities and interventions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 678–683. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01595.xLyons, D. E., Damrosch, D. H., Lin, J. K., Macris, D. M., & Keil, F. C. (2011). The scope and limits of overimitation in the transmission of artefact culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1158–1167. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0335Lyons, D. E., Young, A. G., & Keil, F. C. (2007). The hidden structure of overimitation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19751–19756. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704452104Marno, H., & Csibra, G. (2015). Toddlers Favor Communicatively Presented Information over Statistical Reliability in Learning about Artifacts. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0122129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122129Meltzoff, A. N. (1988a). Imitation of televised models by infants. Child Development, 59(5), 1221–1229.Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 470–476. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.470Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838–850. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78.Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 702–709.Nagell, K., Olguin, R. S., & Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107(2), 174–186. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.107.2.174Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 555–565. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.555Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2012). Putting the social into social learning: Explaining both selectivity and fidelity in children’s copying behavior. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 182–192. doi: 10.1037/a0024555Paulus, M. (2014). How and why do infants imitate? An ideomotor approach to social and imitative learning in infancy (and beyond). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1139–1156. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0598-1Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2013). Examining functional mechanisms of imitative learning in infancy: Does teleological reasoning affect infants’ imitation beyond motor resonance? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 487–498. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.009Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2011a). Bridging the gap between the other and me: The functional role of motor resonance and action effects in infants’ imitation. Developmental Science, 14(4), 901–910. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01040.xPaulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2011b). Imitation in infancy: Rational or motor resonance? Child Development, 82(4), 1047–1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01610.xPiaget, J. (1952).The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Piaget, J. (1962). Play dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Pinkham, A. M., & Jaswal, V. K. (2011). Watch and learn? Infants privilege efficiency over pedagogy during imitative learning. Infancy, 16(5), 535–544. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00059.xPrinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154. doi: 10.1080/713752551Schulz, L. E., Hooppell, C., & Jenkins, A. C. (2008). Judicious imitation: Children differentially imitate deterministically and probabilistically effective actions. Child Development, 79(2), 395–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01132.xSchulz, L. E., & Sommerville, J. (2006). God does not play dice: Causal determinism and preschoolers’ causal inferences. Child Development, 77(2), 427–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00880.xSchwier, C., van Maanen, C., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Rational imitation in 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 10(3), 303–311. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in1003_6Valenza, E., Simion, F., Cassia, V. M., & Umiltà, C. (1996). Face preference at birth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(4), 892–903. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.22.4.892Vinter, A. (1986). The role of movement in eliciting early imitations. Child Development, 66–71.Waismeyer, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Gopnik, A. (2015). Causal learning from probabilistic events in 24-month-olds: An action measure. Developmental Science, 18(1), 175–182. doi: 10.1111/desc.12208Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5Wohlschläger, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: an instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 501–515. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1257Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69(1), 1–34. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00058-4Wu, Y., Muentener, P., & Schulz, L. E. (2013). The invisible hand: Toddlers infer hidden agents when events occur probabilistically. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3807–3810). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Zmyj, N., Daum, M. M., & Aschersleben, G. (2009). The development of rational imitation in 9- and 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 14(1), 131–141. doi: 10.1080/15250000802569884Zmyj, N., & Buttelmann, D. (2014). An integrative model of rational imitation in infancy. Infant Behavior and Development, 37(1), 21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.10.001 zh_TW
