Neonatal Imitation: Theory, Experimental Design, and Significance for the Field of Social Cognition

Abstract

Neonatal imitation has rich implications for neuroscience, developmental psychology, and social cognition, but there is little consensus about this phenomenon. The primary empirical question, whether or not neonatal imitation exists, is not settled. Is it possible to give a balanced evaluation of the theories and methodologies at stake so as to facilitate real progress with respect to the primary empirical question? In this paper, we address this question. We present the operational definition of differential imitation and discuss why it is important to keep it in mind. The operational definition indicates that neonatal imitation may not look like prototypical imitation and sets non-obvious requirements on what can count as evidence for imitation. We also examine the principal explanations for the extant findings and argue that two theories, the arousal hypothesis and the Association by Similarity Theory, which interprets neonatal imitation as differential induction of spontaneous behavior through similarity, offer better explanations than the others. With respect to methodology, we investigate what experimental design can best provide evidence for imitation, focusing on how differential induction may be maximized and detected. Finally, we discuss the significance of neonatal imitation for the field of social cognition. Specifically, we propose links with theories of social interaction and direct social perception. Overall, our goals are to help clarify the complex theoretical issues at stake and suggest fruitful guidelines for empirical research.

Neonatal imitation in context: Sensorimotor development in the perinatal period

“…An explanation of differential imitation does not have to postulate computational processes for the recognition of selfother similaritieswhich we agree is a major fault in Meltzoff and Moore's (1997) accountnor does it have to postulate a module specifically evolved for imitation or related functions. In contrast, the commonalities between visual experiences and corresponding motor experiences may operate tacitly as the means by which spontaneous behaviors can be differentially induced (Vincini et al 2017;Vincini & Jhang, revised and resubmitted). From this perspective, infants do not actively intend to match the behavior of others but, rather.…”

Neonatal imitation: Temporal characteristics in imitative response patterns

“…The cross‐model comparison paradigm also implies, as pointed out by Meltzoff and Moore (), that no assumption of the underlying mechanism is needed when judging if an infant imitates or not. Furthermore, “differential imitation neutralizes the arousal explanation” (Vincini, Jhang, Buder, & Gallagher, , p. 14).…”

“…More specifically, Heyes proposes that an associative learning model explains how and why our capacity to imitate develops, whereas Vincini et al. () specifies an association by similarity process as most likely to explain early imitation. These opposing views, it should be noted, are not all compatible with one another; for example, the innate releasing view contradicts the idea of gradual associative learning and the claims that the effect is wholly reducible to arousal or artifacts.…”

“…Opponents have suggested that what looks like an imitative response might be better explained through arousal processes or a coincidental match (Jones, 1996(Jones, , 2017, an innate releasing mechanism (Anisfeld, 1996), as based on learning since a neonate does not have the cognitive capacity to "solve the correspondence problem that link self with other for imitation" (Heyes, 2016, p. 6), or as a response dependent on the aerodigestive system (Keven & Akins, 2017; but see Meltzoff 2017 andSimpson et al 2017 for critiques of this view). More specifically, Heyes proposes that an associative learning model explains how and why our capacity to imitate develops, whereas Vincini et al (2017) specifies an association by similarity process as most likely to explain early imitation. These opposing views, it should be noted, are not all compatible with one another; for example, the innate releasing view contradicts the idea of gradual associative learning and the claims that the effect is wholly reducible to arousal or artifacts.…”

Re‐evaluating the neonatal imitation hypothesis

“…Hayes & Watson, ; Koepke, Hamm, Legerstee, & Russell, ) outcomes. In the broader literature, there have even been mutually exclusive rationalizations of null results, with some authors attributing them to small sample sizes (Meltzoff & Moore, ) and others to large sample sizes (Vincini, Jhang, Buder, & Gallagher, ).…”