The development of co-representation effects in a joint task: Do children represent a co-actor?

Milward, Sophie J.; Kita, Sotaro; Apperly, Ian A.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.008

Cited by 38 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Observations of mother-child interactions showed that joint play gradually developed from unilateral engagement by the mother to a more symmetric and reciprocal engagement of mother and child between infants' first and second year of life [14]. Moreover, it has been suggested that in early joint actions, infants might represent mainly their own task and goal while only later representing also their action partner's task [15][16][17]. As alluded to before, by 18 months of age toddlers protest when their play partner stops his or her contribution to a joint game (e.g.…”

Section: (B) Accommodating the Other's Actions: Effects On Affiliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning my actions to accommodate yours: joint action development during early childhood

Meyer

Wel

Hunnius

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One contribution of 15 to a theme issue 'Attending to and neglecting people'. The planning and adjusting of one's actions in relation to an action partner is fundamental to smooth joint action. During their first years of life, children gradually become more engaged in joint actions. Here, we investigated whether and at what age children take their partner into account in their action plans to accommodate the other's actions. We focused on children's proactive planning (without prior experience) and flexible adjustment of action plans over time. In a behavioural study, we tested 96 children from four age groups (2 1 2 , 3, 3 1 2 and 5 years) in a joint cup-stacking task. Children passed cups to their partner who had only one hand available (alternating over time) to build a tower. Children's response choices were assessed (i.e. passing the cup on the free or occupied side to their partner). The study yielded two major findings. At all ages, children proactively planned their actions in a way that accommodated their partner's actions. However, only by 3 1 2 years did children start to flexibly integrate their partner into their action plans. Even at age 5, children only showed minimal adjustments to their action partner. Candidate processes underlying these developmental changes (e.g. inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, perspective taking) are discussed.

show abstract

Section: (B) Accommodating the Other's Actions: Effects On Affiliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning my actions to accommodate yours: joint action development during early childhood

Meyer

Wel

Hunnius

2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to test whether high‐level cognitive skills are involved in CR effects, we carried out an individual difference study, in which we examined whether 4‐ to 5‐year‐olds' performance on the CR task in Milward et al. () was associated with their abilities in theory of mind (ToM), inhibitory control (IC), and working memory (WM).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Children's Corepresentation of Self and Other in Joint Action

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that children aged 4-5 years, but not 2-3 years, show adult-like interference from a partner when performing a joint task (Milward, Kita, & Apperly, 2014). This raises questions about the cognitive skills involved in the development of such "corepresentation (CR)" of a partner (Sebanz, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2003). Here, individual differences data from one hundred and thirteen 4- to 5-year-olds showed theory of mind (ToM) and inhibitory control (IC) as predictors of ability to avoid CR interference, suggesting that children with better ToM abilities are more likely to succeed in decoupling self and other representations in a joint task, while better IC is likely to help children avoid interference from a partner's response when selecting their own response on the task.

show abstract

“…The notion of minimalism appeals to evolutionary (Tomasello et al, 2005; de Waal, 2008; Decety, 2011) and developmental (Milward et al, 2014; Milward and Sebanz, 2016; Steinbeis, 2016) continuity regarding the mechanisms applicable to social interaction. It provides a bottom-up approach, which attempts to minimize assumptions about the cognitive mechanisms that may account for a particular behavioral phenomenon.…”

Section: Minimal Mechanisms and Coordination “Smoothers” In Joint Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimalist Social-Affective Value for Use in Joint Action: A Neural-Computational Hypothesis

Lowe

Almer

Lindblad

et al. 2016

Front. Comput. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joint Action is typically described as social interaction that requires coordination among two or more co-actors in order to achieve a common goal. In this article, we put forward a hypothesis for the existence of a neural-computational mechanism of affective valuation that may be critically exploited in Joint Action. Such a mechanism would serve to facilitate coordination between co-actors permitting a reduction of required information. Our hypothesized affective mechanism provides a value function based implementation of Associative Two-Process (ATP) theory that entails the classification of external stimuli according to outcome expectancies. This approach has been used to describe animal and human action that concerns differential outcome expectancies. Until now it has not been applied to social interaction. We describe our Affective ATP model as applied to social learning consistent with an "extended common currency" perspective in the social neuroscience literature. We contrast this to an alternative mechanism that provides an example implementation of the so-called social-specific value perspective. In brief, our Social-Affective ATP mechanism builds upon established formalisms for reinforcement learning (temporal difference learning models) nuanced to accommodate expectations (consistent with ATP theory) and extended to integrate non-social and social cues for use in Joint Action.

show abstract

The development of co-representation effects in a joint task: Do children represent a co-actor?

Cited by 38 publications

References 23 publications

Planning my actions to accommodate yours: joint action development during early childhood

Planning my actions to accommodate yours: joint action development during early childhood

Individual Differences in Children's Corepresentation of Self and Other in Joint Action

Minimalist Social-Affective Value for Use in Joint Action: A Neural-Computational Hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About