There is abundant evidence for the 'video deficit': children under 2 years old learn better in person than from video. We evaluated whether these findings applied to video chat by testing whether children aged 12-25 months could form relationships with and learn from on-screen partners. We manipulated social contingency: children experienced either real-time FaceTime conversations or pre-recorded Videos as the partner taught novel words, actions and patterns. Children were attentive and responsive in both conditions, but only children in the FaceTime group responded to the partner in a temporally synced manner. After one week, children in the FaceTime condition (but not the Video condition) preferred and recognized their Partner, learned more novel patterns, and the oldest children learned more novel words. Results extend previous studies to demonstrate that children under 2 years show social and cognitive learning from video chat because it retains social contingency. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at: https://youtu.be/rTXaAYd5adA.

Video chat may allow young children and grandparents to develop and maintain bonds when they are physically separated because it enables them to share experiences with each other in real time. We used an ecological model framework to examine factors associated with the development of the grandparent-grandchild relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many families were experiencing reduced opportunities for in-person interaction. We analyzed survey data from grandparents (N = 855) and parents (N = 846) of children ages 0-5 years. Predictor variables included participant characteristics (age and education level), proximity variables (geographical distance and whether grandparents had met their grandchildren in person), as well as video chat-specific factors (e.g., frequency of video chats, activities used during video

No abstract

The contribution of intentionality understanding to symbolic development was examined. Actors added colored dots to a map, displaying either symbolic or aesthetic intentions. In Study 1, most children (5-6 years) understood actors' intentions, but when asked which graphic would help find hidden objects, most selected the incorrect (aesthetic) one whose dot color matched referent color. On a similar task in Study 2, 5- and 6-year-olds systematically picked incorrectly, 9- and 10-year-olds picked correctly, and 7- and 8-year-olds showed mixed performance. When referent color matched neither symbolic nor aesthetic dot colors, children performed better overall, but only the oldest children universally selected the correct graphic and justified choices with intentionality. Results bear on theory of mind, symbolic understanding, and map understanding.

Children gradually develop interpretive theory of mind (iToM)-the understanding that different people may interpret identical events or stimuli differently. The present study tested whether more advanced iToM underlies children's recognition that map symbols' meanings must be communicated to others when symbols are iconic (resemble their referents). Children (6-9 years; N = 80) made maps using either iconic or abstract symbols. After accounting for age, intelligence, vocabulary, and memory, iToM predicted children's success in communicating symbols' meaning to a naïve map-user when mapping tasks involved iconic (but not abstract) symbols. Findings suggest children's growing appreciation of alternative representations and of the intentional assignment of meaning, and support the contention that ToM progresses beyond mastery of false belief.