Re‐evaluating the neonatal imitation hypothesis

Oostenbroek, Janine; Redshaw, Jonathan; Davis, Jacqueline; Kennedy‐Costantini, Siobhan; Nielsen, Mark; Slaughter, Virginia; Suddendorf, Thomas

doi:10.1111/desc.12720

Cited by 25 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirteen prominent neonatal imitation researchers published a rebuttal (Meltzoff et al, ), in which they made two seemingly contradictory arguments: (a) our study was too methodologically flawed to detect imitation effects, but also (b) our data do in fact contain evidence for neonatal imitation of tongue protrusion. In a response (Oostenbroek et al, ), we outlined why the so‐called “flaws” were inconsistent with our actual patterns of results, inconsistent with broader findings in the literature, and/or incompatible with earlier claims made by Meltzoff and others. For instance, Meltzoff et al (, pp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 53%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Redshaw

Nielsen

Slaughter

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

Self Cite

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…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%

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

Redshaw

Nielsen

Slaughter

et al. 2019

Developmental Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, Heyes cites with delight a recent “decisive” study (p. 133) of “unprecedented power and rigor” (p. 128) showing that facial imitation is absent in neonates (Oostenbroek et al, ). However, Meltzoff et al () identify no less that 11 serious flaws in the experimental design of this study (which was never intended as a test of neonate imitation, in any case; Oostenbroek et al, ), chief among which are that the experimenters coded for imitation of actions that are not even in the neonate behavioral repertoire (like tongue clicks), and that they tested for no less than 11 distinct forms of imitation sequentially over a period of more than 10‐min. Moreover, despite these flaws, Meltzoff and colleagues' re‐analysis of the original data from the study found evidence of imitation of tongue‐protrusion after all.…”

Section: Imitationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Cognitive instincts versus cognitive gadgets: A fallacy

Roige

Carruthers

2019

Mind & Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main thesis of Heyes' book is that all of the domain‐specific learning mechanisms that make the human mind so different from the minds of other animals are culturally created and culturally acquired gadgets. The only innate differences are some motivational tweaks, enhanced capacities for associative learning, and enhanced executive function abilities. But Heyes' argument depends on contrasting cognitive gadgets with cognitive instincts, which are said to be innately specified. This ignores what has for some years been the mainstream nativist/anti‐empiricist view, which commits only to partially specified learning systems that become elaborated and built through domain‐specific learning.

show abstract

“…In their commentary, Oostenbroek et al. () argue that our points are post hoc. It is important for readers to know that they are not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In their commentary, Oostenbroek et al. () now propose limiting analyses to a subset of their original controls. We reanalyzed their data accordingly.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%