學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 教育式線索對嬰兒概括化模仿的影響
The influence of pedagogical cues on infants’ generalized imitation作者 李岳庭
Lee, Yueh-Ting貢獻者 黃啟泰
Huang, Chi-Tai
李岳庭
Lee, Yueh-Ting關鍵詞 模仿
意圖
概括化
社會學習
自然教育學
Imitation
Intention
Generalization
Social learning
Natural pedagogy日期 2022 上傳時間 5-Jan-2023 15:19:14 (UTC+8) 摘要 自然教育學理論認為人類與生俱有對教育式線索的敏感度，明示溝通不僅指引嬰兒模仿他人意圖傳達的訊息，且有助於嬰兒將學習的動作或知識概括化至團體中其他成員或歸屬於同類的不相同事物。本研究目的在於釐清歸因意圖與溝通互動在概括化模仿可能的角色。我們依循Gergely等人（2002）的光盒派典，他們發現：當大人雙手閒置放在桌上（手自由）示範用頭開燈的動作，比當她雙手抓著毛毯（手限制）示範開燈動作時，更成功引發嬰兒模仿。在五組不同觀察情境中，18個月大的嬰兒（N = 100）觀看實驗者透過眼神和口語或鈴聲，吸引其注意手自由示範的頭開燈動作，其中一半的嬰兒在測試時拿到與示範相同的光盒（溝通示範／相同光盒、意圖示範／相同光盒），另一半則拿到大小顏色不同的光盒（溝通示範／尺寸顏色改變光盒、意圖示範／尺寸顏色改變光盒），參照比較／手限制組則觀看手限制且為溝通互動的方式示範。結果分析顯示各組間的模仿人數有顯著差異，在事後比較發現只有溝通示範／相同光盒組的模仿人數顯著高於參照比較／手限制。由研究發現可知，動作意圖本身並不是引發嬰兒模仿的唯一因素，嬰兒必須依賴溝通線索來決定是否模仿示範的意圖動作，雖然在概括化組別的結果中沒有支持自然教育學理論的預測，但是不能排除模仿的概括化相較於語言的概括化需要更多的認知資源，或是知覺複雜度對概括化模仿的影響。
The natural pedagogy theory holds that human beings are inherently sensitive to communication cues, and explicit communication not only guides infants to imitate the intended messages of others, but also helps infants generalize learned actions or knowledge to other members of the group or to belong to same kind of different things. The purpose of this study was to clarify the possible roles of attributional intention and communicative interaction in generalized imitation. We followed Gergely et al.’s (2002) light-box paradigm, and they found that infants tended to imitate the action of turning on the light-box with her forehead when an adult demonstrated with her hands resting on the table (hands-free), but not when she was clutching the blanket with both hands (hands-occupied). We designed 5 conditions for 18-month-old infants (N = 100), the first independent variable was the pedagogical cues, whether the experimenter’s action was communicative or intentional to the infant; the other was the generalization, half of the babies were given the same light box as the demonstration during the test, and the other half were given light boxes of different size and color (transferred). The first four conditions are the hands-free condition, the final is hands-occupied condition (control group). Results analysis showed that there were significant differences in the number of imitations among the groups, and post-hoc comparison found that only the number of imitations in the communicative condition was significantly higher than that in the hands-occupied condition. According to the research findings, action intention itself is not the only factor that triggers infants’ imitation. Infants must rely on communicative cues to decide whether to imitate the demonstrated intentional action, which is contrary to the prediction of natural pedagogy theory. However, it cannot be ruled out that the generalization of imitation requires more cognitive resources than the generalization of language, or the influence of perceptual complexity on generalized imitation.參考文獻 Asher, Y. M., & Nelson, D. G. K. (2008). Was it designed to do that? Children’s focus on intended function in their conceptualization of artifacts. Cognition, 106(1), 474-483. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.007Barnat, S. B., Klein, P. J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Deferred imitation across changes in context and object: Memory and generalization in 14-month-old infants. Infant behavior and development, 19(2), 241-251. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90023-5Barr, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(1), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249800390718Bruner, J. (1995). From joint attention to the meeting of minds: An introduction. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, 1-14.Butler, L. P., Gibbs, H. M., & Levush, K. C. (2020). Look again: Pedagogical demonstration facilitates children’s use of counterevidence. Child Development, 91(6), 1194-1210. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/cdev.13414Butler, L. P., & Markman, E. M. (2012). Preschoolers use intentional and pedagogical cues to guide inductive inferences and exploration. Child Development, 83(4), 1416-1428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01775.xButler, L. P., & Markman, E. M. (2014). Preschoolers use pedagogical cues to guide radical reorganization of category knowledge. Cognition, 130(1), 116-127. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.002Butler, L. P., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Two-and 3-year-olds integrate linguistic and pedagogical cues in guiding inductive generalization and exploration. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 64-78. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.12.001Buttelmann, 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, 512. https://psycnet.apa.org/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 & Development, 21(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90009-1Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve‐and 18‐month‐olds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8(1), F13-F20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00385.xCarpenter, M., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T. (2005). Role reversal imitation and language in typically developing infants and children with autism. Infancy, 8(3), 253-278. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327078in0803_4Chen, 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0029486Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2005). The absence of a shape bias in children`s word learning. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 1003. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.1003Clegg, J. M., & Legare, C. H. (2016). Instrumental and conventional interpretations of behavior are associated with distinct outcomes in early childhood. Child Development, 87(2), 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12472Collie, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Deferred imitation by 6‐and 9‐month‐old infants: More evidence for declarative memory. Developmental Psychobiology: The Journal of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology, 35(2), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2302(199909)35:2%3C83::aid-dev1%3E3.0.co;2-sCsibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. Processes of change in brain and cognitive development. Attention and performance XXI, 21, 249-274.Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415(6873), 755-755. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1038/415755aGergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia’s recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction, 229-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003135517-11Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-hGoldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1515/COGL.2009.005Grossmann, T., Johnson, M. H., Lloyd-Fox, S., Blasi, A., Deligianni, F., Elwell, C., & Csibra, G. (2008). Early cortical specialization for face-to-face communication in human infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1653), 2803-2811. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2008.0986Hamlin, J. K., Hallinan, E. V., & Woodward, A. L. (2008). Do as I do: 7‐month‐old infants selectively reproduce others’ goals. Developmental Science, 11(4), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00694.xHauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2008). Action–effect anticipation in infant action control. Psychological Research, 72(2), 203-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0101-3Király, 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.003Király, I., Oláh, K., Csibra, G., & Kovács, Á. M. (2018). Retrospective attribution of false beliefs in 3-year-old children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11477-11482. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803505115Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive development, 3(3), 299-321. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0885-2014(88)90014-7Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 688-699. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005Legare, C. H., Wen, N. J., Herrmann, P. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2015). Imitative flexibility and the development of cultural learning. Cognition, 142, 351-361. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.020Liebal, K., Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Infants use shared experience to interpret pointing gestures. Developmental Science, 12(2), 264-271. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00758.xMarno, H., & Csibra, G. (2015). Toddlers favor communicatively presented information over statistical reliability in learning about artifacts. PloS one, 10(3), e0122129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122129Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., & Paradise, R. (2005). Cultural variation in children`s observation during a demonstration. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(4), 282-291. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/01650250544000062Meltzoff, A. N. (1988a). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 470. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.470Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b). Infant imitation and memory: Nine-month-olds in immediate and deferred tests. Child Development, 59(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1988.tb03210.xMeltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838-850. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0012-1649.31.5.838Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.897687Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54(3), 702-709. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1130058Nelson, D. G. K., Russell, R., Duke, N., & Jones, K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. Child development, 71(5), 1271-1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00228Nielsen, M., & Blank, C. (2011). Imitation in young children: when who gets copied is more important than what gets copied. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1050-1053. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0023866Over, 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024555Paulus, M. (2014). The emergence of prosocial behavior: Why do infants and toddlers help, comfort, and share? Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12066Paulus, 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. https://doi.org/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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01610.xPiaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/11168-000Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Scaife, M., & Bruner, J. S. (1975). The capacity for joint visual attention in the infant. Nature, 253(5489), 265-266. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1038/253265a0Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18(9), 668-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059Shneidman, L., Gaskins, S., & Woodward, A. (2016). Child‐directed teaching and social learning at 18 months of age: evidence from Yucatec Mayan and US infants. Developmental Science, 19(3), 372-381. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/desc.12318Tomasello, M. (1999). The human adaptation for culture. Annual review of anthropology, 28(1), 509-529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.509Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00573.xTomasello, M., & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12-and 18-month-olds know what is new for other persons. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 906. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.906Tomasello, M., & Moll, H. (2010). The gap is social: Human shared intentionality and culture. In Mind the gap (pp. 331-349). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02725-3_16Topál, J., Gergely, G., Miklósi, Á., Erdohegyi, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Infants` perseverative search errors are induced by pragmatic misinterpretation. Science, 321(5897), 1831-1834. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161437Whiten, A., Custance, D. M., Gomez, J.-C., Teixidor, P., & Bard, K. A. (1996). Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110(1), 3-14. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0735-7036.110.1.3Williamson, R. A., & Markman, E. M. (2006). Precision of imitation as a function of preschoolers` understanding of the goal of the demonstration. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 723-731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.723Wohlschläger, 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. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 501-515. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098%2Frstb.2002.1257Yoon, J. M., Johnson, M. H., & Csibra, G. (2008). Communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(36), 13690-13695. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0804388105 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系
108752002資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108752002 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) 李岳庭 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lee, Yueh-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 李岳庭 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lee, Yueh-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 5-Jan-2023 15:19:14 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 5-Jan-2023 15:19:14 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Jan-2023 15:19:14 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0108752002 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/142894 - 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) 108752002 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 自然教育學理論認為人類與生俱有對教育式線索的敏感度，明示溝通不僅指引嬰兒模仿他人意圖傳達的訊息，且有助於嬰兒將學習的動作或知識概括化至團體中其他成員或歸屬於同類的不相同事物。本研究目的在於釐清歸因意圖與溝通互動在概括化模仿可能的角色。我們依循Gergely等人（2002）的光盒派典，他們發現：當大人雙手閒置放在桌上（手自由）示範用頭開燈的動作，比當她雙手抓著毛毯（手限制）示範開燈動作時，更成功引發嬰兒模仿。在五組不同觀察情境中，18個月大的嬰兒（N = 100）觀看實驗者透過眼神和口語或鈴聲，吸引其注意手自由示範的頭開燈動作，其中一半的嬰兒在測試時拿到與示範相同的光盒（溝通示範／相同光盒、意圖示範／相同光盒），另一半則拿到大小顏色不同的光盒（溝通示範／尺寸顏色改變光盒、意圖示範／尺寸顏色改變光盒），參照比較／手限制組則觀看手限制且為溝通互動的方式示範。結果分析顯示各組間的模仿人數有顯著差異，在事後比較發現只有溝通示範／相同光盒組的模仿人數顯著高於參照比較／手限制。由研究發現可知，動作意圖本身並不是引發嬰兒模仿的唯一因素，嬰兒必須依賴溝通線索來決定是否模仿示範的意圖動作，雖然在概括化組別的結果中沒有支持自然教育學理論的預測，但是不能排除模仿的概括化相較於語言的概括化需要更多的認知資源，或是知覺複雜度對概括化模仿的影響。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The natural pedagogy theory holds that human beings are inherently sensitive to communication cues, and explicit communication not only guides infants to imitate the intended messages of others, but also helps infants generalize learned actions or knowledge to other members of the group or to belong to same kind of different things. The purpose of this study was to clarify the possible roles of attributional intention and communicative interaction in generalized imitation. We followed Gergely et al.’s (2002) light-box paradigm, and they found that infants tended to imitate the action of turning on the light-box with her forehead when an adult demonstrated with her hands resting on the table (hands-free), but not when she was clutching the blanket with both hands (hands-occupied). We designed 5 conditions for 18-month-old infants (N = 100), the first independent variable was the pedagogical cues, whether the experimenter’s action was communicative or intentional to the infant; the other was the generalization, half of the babies were given the same light box as the demonstration during the test, and the other half were given light boxes of different size and color (transferred). The first four conditions are the hands-free condition, the final is hands-occupied condition (control group). Results analysis showed that there were significant differences in the number of imitations among the groups, and post-hoc comparison found that only the number of imitations in the communicative condition was significantly higher than that in the hands-occupied condition. According to the research findings, action intention itself is not the only factor that triggers infants’ imitation. Infants must rely on communicative cues to decide whether to imitate the demonstrated intentional action, which is contrary to the prediction of natural pedagogy theory. However, it cannot be ruled out that the generalization of imitation requires more cognitive resources than the generalization of language, or the influence of perceptual complexity on generalized imitation. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章、緒論 1第一節、研究動機與目的 1第二章、文獻回顧 3第一節、不同的模仿理論 3第二節、瞭解意圖與模仿 7第三節、自然教育學 10第四節、研究問題與假設 13第三章、研究方法 15第一節、研究對象 15第二節、研究器材 16第三節、實驗情境 17第四節、實驗程序 18第四章、資料分析與研究結果 21第一節、計分程序與分析架構 21第二節、研究結果 22第五章、綜合討論 32第一節、溝通線索與動作意圖 33第二節、概括化模仿 35第三節、溝通與社會學習對幼兒發展的啟示 38第四節、研究限制與未來展望 39第五節、結論 40參考文獻 41 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1647475 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108752002 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 模仿 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 意圖 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 概括化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自然教育學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Imitation en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Intention en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Generalization en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Natural pedagogy en_US dc.title (題名) 教育式線索對嬰兒概括化模仿的影響 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The influence of pedagogical cues on infants’ generalized imitation en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Asher, Y. M., & Nelson, D. G. K. (2008). Was it designed to do that? Children’s focus on intended function in their conceptualization of artifacts. Cognition, 106(1), 474-483. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.007Barnat, S. B., Klein, P. J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). Deferred imitation across changes in context and object: Memory and generalization in 14-month-old infants. Infant behavior and development, 19(2), 241-251. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90023-5Barr, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(1), 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249800390718Bruner, J. (1995). From joint attention to the meeting of minds: An introduction. Joint attention: Its origins and role in development, 1-14.Butler, L. P., Gibbs, H. M., & Levush, K. C. (2020). Look again: Pedagogical demonstration facilitates children’s use of counterevidence. Child Development, 91(6), 1194-1210. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/cdev.13414Butler, L. P., & Markman, E. M. (2012). Preschoolers use intentional and pedagogical cues to guide inductive inferences and exploration. Child Development, 83(4), 1416-1428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01775.xButler, L. P., & Markman, E. M. (2014). Preschoolers use pedagogical cues to guide radical reorganization of category knowledge. Cognition, 130(1), 116-127. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.10.002Butler, L. P., & Tomasello, M. (2016). Two-and 3-year-olds integrate linguistic and pedagogical cues in guiding inductive generalization and exploration. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 64-78. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.12.001Buttelmann, 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, 512. https://psycnet.apa.org/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 & Development, 21(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90009-1Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve‐and 18‐month‐olds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8(1), F13-F20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00385.xCarpenter, M., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T. (2005). Role reversal imitation and language in typically developing infants and children with autism. Infancy, 8(3), 253-278. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327078in0803_4Chen, 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0029486Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2005). The absence of a shape bias in children`s word learning. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 1003. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.1003Clegg, J. M., & Legare, C. H. (2016). Instrumental and conventional interpretations of behavior are associated with distinct outcomes in early childhood. Child Development, 87(2), 527-542. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12472Collie, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Deferred imitation by 6‐and 9‐month‐old infants: More evidence for declarative memory. Developmental Psychobiology: The Journal of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology, 35(2), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2302(199909)35:2%3C83::aid-dev1%3E3.0.co;2-sCsibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. Processes of change in brain and cognitive development. Attention and performance XXI, 21, 249-274.Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415(6873), 755-755. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1038/415755aGergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia’s recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction, 229-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003135517-11Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-hGoldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1515/COGL.2009.005Grossmann, T., Johnson, M. H., Lloyd-Fox, S., Blasi, A., Deligianni, F., Elwell, C., & Csibra, G. (2008). Early cortical specialization for face-to-face communication in human infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1653), 2803-2811. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2008.0986Hamlin, J. K., Hallinan, E. V., & Woodward, A. L. (2008). Do as I do: 7‐month‐old infants selectively reproduce others’ goals. Developmental Science, 11(4), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00694.xHauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2008). Action–effect anticipation in infant action control. Psychological Research, 72(2), 203-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0101-3Király, 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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.003Király, I., Oláh, K., Csibra, G., & Kovács, Á. M. (2018). Retrospective attribution of false beliefs in 3-year-old children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11477-11482. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803505115Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive development, 3(3), 299-321. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0885-2014(88)90014-7Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 688-699. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005Legare, C. H., Wen, N. J., Herrmann, P. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2015). Imitative flexibility and the development of cultural learning. Cognition, 142, 351-361. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.020Liebal, K., Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Infants use shared experience to interpret pointing gestures. Developmental Science, 12(2), 264-271. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00758.xMarno, H., & Csibra, G. (2015). Toddlers favor communicatively presented information over statistical reliability in learning about artifacts. PloS one, 10(3), e0122129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122129Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., & Paradise, R. (2005). Cultural variation in children`s observation during a demonstration. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(4), 282-291. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/01650250544000062Meltzoff, A. N. (1988a). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 470. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.470Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b). Infant imitation and memory: Nine-month-olds in immediate and deferred tests. Child Development, 59(1), 217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1988.tb03210.xMeltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838-850. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2F0012-1649.31.5.838Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.897687Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development, 54(3), 702-709. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1130058Nelson, D. G. K., Russell, R., Duke, N., & Jones, K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. Child development, 71(5), 1271-1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00228Nielsen, M., & Blank, C. (2011). Imitation in young children: when who gets copied is more important than what gets copied. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1050-1053. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0023866Over, 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024555Paulus, M. (2014). The emergence of prosocial behavior: Why do infants and toddlers help, comfort, and share? Child Development Perspectives, 8(2), 77-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12066Paulus, 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. https://doi.org/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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01610.xPiaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. (M. Cook, Trans.). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/11168-000Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Scaife, M., & Bruner, J. S. (1975). The capacity for joint visual attention in the infant. Nature, 253(5489), 265-266. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1038/253265a0Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18(9), 668-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059Shneidman, L., Gaskins, S., & Woodward, A. (2016). Child‐directed teaching and social learning at 18 months of age: evidence from Yucatec Mayan and US infants. Developmental Science, 19(3), 372-381. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/desc.12318Tomasello, M. (1999). The human adaptation for culture. Annual review of anthropology, 28(1), 509-529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.509Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00573.xTomasello, M., & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12-and 18-month-olds know what is new for other persons. Developmental Psychology, 39(5), 906. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.39.5.906Tomasello, M., & Moll, H. (2010). The gap is social: Human shared intentionality and culture. In Mind the gap (pp. 331-349). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02725-3_16Topál, J., Gergely, G., Miklósi, Á., Erdohegyi, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Infants` perseverative search errors are induced by pragmatic misinterpretation. Science, 321(5897), 1831-1834. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161437Whiten, A., Custance, D. M., Gomez, J.-C., Teixidor, P., & Bard, K. A. (1996). Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110(1), 3-14. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0735-7036.110.1.3Williamson, R. A., & Markman, E. M. (2006). Precision of imitation as a function of preschoolers` understanding of the goal of the demonstration. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 723-731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.723Wohlschläger, 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. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 501-515. https://dx.doi.org/10.1098%2Frstb.2002.1257Yoon, J. M., Johnson, M. H., & Csibra, G. (2008). Communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(36), 13690-13695. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0804388105 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201737 en_US
