Eliciting imitation in early infancy

Meltzoff, Andrew N.; Murray, Lynne; Simpson, Elizabeth A.; Heimann, Mikael; Nagy, Emese; Nadel, Jacqueline; Pedersen, Eric J.; Brooks, Rechele; Messinger, Daniel S.; Pascalis, Leonardo De; Subiaul, Francys; Paukner, Annika; Ferrari, Pier Francesco

doi:10.1111/desc.12738

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the difference in results can be due to a moderator: Although the groups may have intended to conduct the same experiment, a procedural difference may have changed the true, underlying effect size being measured. Subsequent to Oostenbroek et al's (2016) and Meltzoff et al's (2017) articles mentioned in the introduction, these research groups published additional commentaries that continued to debate this precise issue (Meltzoff et al, 2018;Oostenbroek et al, 2018), and they continued to face the problem that they were making arguments with considerable knowledge of the data set in question. Meltzoff et al contended that the procedural differences they pointed to were not post hoc objections, but reflected known moderators discussed in previous reports on neonate imitation.…”

Section: Data Checkout and The Replication Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both sets of authors could have benefited from preregistration and data checkout. Meltzoff et al (2018) could have created a preregistration including an updated statement of expected moderators and their predicted effects. Similarly, Oostenbroek et al (2018) could have preregistered their additional analyses and then accessed one of the other existing imitation data sets to test their predictions.…”

Section: Data Checkout and The Replication Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enabling Confirmatory Secondary Data Analysis by Logging Data Checkout

Scott

Kline

2019

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As more researchers make their datasets openly available, the potential of secondary data analysis to address new questions increases. However, the distinction between primary and secondary data analysis is unnecessarily confounded with the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory research. We propose a framework, akin to library book checkout records, for logging access to datasets in order to support confirmatory analysis where appropriate. This would support a standard form of preregistration for secondary data analysis, allowing authors to demonstrate that their plans were registered prior to data access. We discuss the critical elements of such a system, its strengths and limitations, and potential extensions. DATA CHECKOUT FOR CONFIRMATORY SECONDARY ANALYSIS3 Enabling Confirmatory Secondary Data Analysis by Logging Data 'Checkout'Many scientific practices are based on norms rather than strict rules from our institutions, professional societies, or funders. These norms evolve over time -for example, methods sections of psychology papers have changed greatly since the 1950s, thanks to advances in graphing methods, the reduced role of page limits in paper journals, and changes in the scientific community's beliefs about what information is appropriate or necessary to share. In the last five years, norms around how we replicate and share data have been changing rapidly, to promote both increased transparency in our processes and an increased focus on ensuring -and testing -

show abstract

Section: Data Checkout and The Replication Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Checkout and The Replication Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling Confirmatory Secondary Data Analysis by Logging Data Checkout

Scott

Kline

2019

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although it is debateable whether the neonates in our sample met criterion (a) for tongue protrusion (cf. Meltzoff et al, , ; Oostenbroek et al, , ), there can be no doubt that they failed to meet criterion (b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…for tongue protrusion (cf. Meltzoff et al, 2018Meltzoff et al, , 2017Oostenbroek et al, 2016Oostenbroek et al, , 2018, there can be no doubt that they failed to meet criterion (b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in neonatal “imitation” fail to predict early social cognitive behaviour

Redshaw

Nielsen

Slaughter

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influential hypothesis that humans imitate from birth – and that this capacity is foundational to social cognition – is currently being challenged from several angles. Most prominently, the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal study of neonatal imitation to date failed to find evidence that neonates copied any of nine actions at any of four time points (Oostenbroek et al., [2016] Current Biology, 26, 1334–1338). The authors of an alternative and statistically liberal post‐hoc analysis of these same data (Meltzoff et al., [2017] Developmental Science, 21, e12609), however, concluded that the infants actually did imitate one of the nine actions: tongue protrusion. In line with the original intentions of this longitudinal study, we here report on whether individual differences in neonatal “imitation” predict later‐developing social cognitive behaviours. We measured a variety of social cognitive behaviours in a subset of the original sample of infants (N = 71) during the first 18 months: object‐directed imitation, joint attention, synchronous imitation and mirror self‐recognition. Results show that, even using the liberal operationalization, individual scores for neonatal “imitation” of tongue protrusion failed to predict any of the later‐developing social cognitive behaviours. The average Spearman correlation was close to zero, mean rs = 0.027, 95% CI [−0.020, 0.075], with all Bonferroni adjusted p values > .999. These results run counter to Meltzoff et al.'s rebuttal, and to the existence of a “like me” mechanism in neonates that is foundational to human social cognition.

show abstract

“…Newborns' apparent imitation of others' facial and manual gestures (Meltzoff & Moore 1977) has been a prime example for this trend. On the one hand, it has been interpreted as a process of active matching between others' and one's own actions (Meltzoff & Moore 1977), a primitive form of self-consciousness (Gallagher 2000), and even as the early basis of intersubjectivity, communication, and social cognition (Meltzoff & Moore 1999a). During the past 20 years, these cognitively rich interpretations have attracted much interest, despite a substantial number of failed attempts in replicating the original effects (e.g., Anisfeld 1996; Koepke et al 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Turning the tide: A plea for cognitively lean interpretations of infant behaviour

Beisert

Zmyj²,

Daum

2017

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keven & Akins (K&A) revisit the controversial subject of neonatal imitation through analysing the physiological foundations of neonatal spontaneous behaviour. Consequently, they regard imitative capacities in neonates as unlikely. We welcome this approach as an overdue encouragement to refuse cognitively rich interpretations as far as cognitively lean interpretations are conceivable, and apply this rationale to other phenomena in early childhood development.

show abstract

Eliciting imitation in early infancy

Cited by 14 publications

References 12 publications

Enabling Confirmatory Secondary Data Analysis by Logging Data Checkout

Enabling Confirmatory Secondary Data Analysis by Logging Data Checkout

Individual differences in neonatal “imitation” fail to predict early social cognitive behaviour

Turning the tide: A plea for cognitively lean interpretations of infant behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About