Do Infants Show Generalized Imitation of Gestures? Ii. The Effects of Skills Training and Multiple Exemplar Matching Training

Abstract

The determinants of generalized imitation of manual gestures were investigated in 1- to 2-year-old infants. Eleven infants were first trained eight baseline matching relations; then, four novel gestures that the infants did not match in probe trials were selected as target behaviors. Next, in a generalized imitation test in which matching responses to baseline models were intermittently reinforced, but matching responses to target models were not eligible for reinforcement, the infants matched baseline models but not the majority of their target behaviors. To ensure their failure to match the target behaviors was not due to motor constraints, the infants were trained, in a multiple-baseline procedure, to produce the target responses under stimulus control that did not include an antecedent model of the target behavior. There was no evidence of generalized imitation in subsequent tests. When the infants were next trained to match each target behavior to criterion (tested in extinction) in a multiple-baseline-across-behaviors procedure, only 2 infants continued to match all their targets in subsequent tests; the remaining infants matched only some of them. Seven infants were next given mixed matching training with the target behaviors to criterion (tested in extinction); they subsequently matched these targets without reinforcement when interspersed with trials on which matching responses to baseline models were intermittently reinforced. In repeat tests, administered at 3-week intervals, these 7 children (and 2 that did not take part in mixed matching training) continued to match most of their target behaviors. The results support a trained matching account, but provide no evidence of generalized imitation, in 1- to 2-year-old infants.

The Impact of Body‐part‐naming Training on the Accuracy of Imitative Performances in 2‐ to 3‐year‐old Children

“…In the matching tests that followed baseline matching training and prior to the first round of tact training (i.e., across Test 1 sessions for the first pair of targets, and Test 1 and Test 2 for the second pair of targets), out of a total of 12 untrained target gestures across all 3 children, 6 were infrequently matched, and the remaining 6 were not matched at all. Our data show no evidence that repeated modeling of target gestures resulted in increased matching, which is consistent with our previous findings (Erjavec & Horne, 2008; Erjavec et al, 2009; Horne & Erjavec, 2007).…”

“…The remaining 2 participants required direct matching training, administered next. As expected, direct matching training resulted in consistent matching of all target behaviors for these 2 children (see Test 9 for Mol, Figure 4, and Emma, Figure 5); this outcome replicated our previous findings (Erjavec et al, 2009; Horne & Erjavec, 2007).…”

“…The analyses showed that before the naming interventions were introduced, mean target behavior matching was only 8% in the generalized imitation tests. This initial low level of target matching, here over as many as 12 successive generalized imitation tests, replicates the findings reported in our earlier studies on generalized imitation (Erjavec et al, 2009; Horne & Erjavec, 2007). However, in the generalized imitation tests conducted after all the naming interventions had been implemented, target‐matching responses had increased to a mean of 65%.…”

“…119–120), and generalized imitation, a repertoire of emergent matching relations (Catania, 1998, p. 228). This latter kind of imitative repertoire, which could enable young children to learn new behaviors quickly and without the need for direct training, has been the focus of numerous experiments (e.g., Baer & Deguchi, 1985; Baer & Sherman, 1964; Erjavec, Lovett, & Horne, 2009; Horne & Erjavec, 2007; Kymissis & Poulson, 1994; Poulson & Kymmissis, 1988; Poulson, Kyparissos, Andreatos, Kymissis, & Parnes, 2002; Poulson, Kymissis, Reeve, Andreatos, & Reeve, 1991; Steinman, 1970; Waxler & Yarrow, 1970). Traditionally, the methodology for examining generalized imitation consists of the presentation of discrete trials on each of which the child observes a different modeled action to which he or she is asked to respond.…”

“…Recent studies examining the determinants of imitation in infants and young children that have employed these experimental controls have failed to replicate the results of earlier studies. For example, neither extensive exposure to modeling nor multiple‐exemplar matching training led to the emergence of novel untrained matching relations in infants (Erjavec et al, 2009; Horne & Erjavec, 2007). These results indicate that the imitative abilities of infants and young children may have been overestimated in the earlier behavior analytic literature, and for similar reasons, also in cognitive‐developmental studies (e.g., see Hurley & Chater, 2005).…”