@article {4193, title = {Third-Party Preferences for Imitators in Preverbal Infants}, journal = {Open Mind}, volume = {2}, year = {2018}, month = {12/2018}, pages = {61 - 71}, abstract = {

Participants in social interactions often imitate one another, thereby enhancing their affiliation. Here we probe the nature and early development of imitation-based affiliation through studies of infants{\textquoteright} preferences for animated characters who imitate, or are imitated by, other characters. Four experiments provide evidence that preverbal infants preferentially attend to and approach individuals who imitate others. This preferential engagement is elicited by the elements of mimicry in simple acts of helping. It does not, however, extend to the targets of imitation in these interactions. This set of findings suggests infants{\textquoteright} imitation-based preferences are not well explained by homophily, prestige, or familiarity. We propose instead that infants perceive imitation as an indicator of valuable attributes in a potential social partner, including the capacity and motivation for social attention and coordinated action.

}, keywords = {imitation, infancy, social cognition}, doi = {10.1162/opmi_a_00018}, url = {https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/opmi_a_00018}, author = {Lindsey J Powell and Elizabeth S Spelke} } @article {1959, title = {Preverbal Infants{\textquoteright} Third-Party Imitator Preferences: Animated Displays versus Filmed Actors}, year = {2016}, month = {05/2016}, address = {New Orleans, Louisiana}, abstract = {

Research on social imitation shows that, from toddlerhood to adulthood, individuals respond more positively to social partners who imitate them compared to those who do not (Chartrand \& Bargh, 1999; Meltzoff, 1990; Agnetta \& Rochat, 2004). It is unknown, however, whether (i) positive responses to imitation are present in the first year of life, before infants engage in robust social imitation themselves and (ii) whether positive evaluations of imitators are restricted to direct, 1st person interactions. A recent study found that infants 13 months old and younger who observed imitative and non-imitative interactions between animated, geometric figures looked at and reached for imitators more than non-imitators, but found no difference in looking to targets of imitation versus non-targets (Powell \& Spelke, in prep). These data suggest infants may recognize and prefer imitators on the basis of 3rd party observation. However, it is unknown whether this pattern would generalize from simplified, animated displays to more ecologically valid stimuli (e.g. videos of complex human movement).

In our current study, we tested 4- to 5.5-month-old infants (N = 112) using animations and videos of human actors. For both stimulus types, infants saw either two individuals take turns responding to a third, one imitating and one not (responders condition), or one individual respond to two others, imitating one but not the other (initiators condition; Figure 1). In the animated stimuli, each character jumped and made either a high- or low-pitched sound. In the video stimuli each actor made one of two hand motions modified from American Sign Language. The sound or motion matched in imitative interactions but not in non-imitative ones. Depending on condition, the experiment concluded with a differential looking test between either the imitating and non-imitating responder or the imitated and non-imitated initiator. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition (F(1,97) = 6.58; P \< .05) but not of stimulus type (P \> 0.8) on infants{\textquoteright} looking during the preference test. Regardless of stimulus type, infants in the responders condition looked longer to imitators (M = 6.79 s) than non-imitators (M = 4.38 s; t(47) = 4.05 P \< 0.001), while infants in the targets condition did not differentiate between targets (M = 5.89 s) and non-targets of imitation (M = 6.09 s; t(48) = 0.80; P \> 0.2). We are replicating the responders condition using videos of new actors performing simpler actions. Preliminary results indicate infants (N = 14 of an intended 32) continue to look longer at imitators than non-imitators. The congruent results obtained with both animated and video stimuli confirm the validity of the use of animated stimuli for studying infant social cognition. Additionally, these results demonstrate that young infants recognize imitation as 3rd party observers and are biased to attend more to those who have imitated others. Consistent with social imitation research, our results suggest infants may have an early-emerging preference for imitators. This potential preference may lay the foundation for the capacity to engage in socially guided learning.\ 

}, author = {Heather L Kosakowski and Lindsey J Powell and Elizabeth S Spelke} } @article {1956, title = {Infants{\textquoteright} Categorization of Social Actions}, number = {ID: 476 / PS - II: 48}, year = {2015}, month = {10/2015}, address = {Columbus, OH}, abstract = {

Infants use information about efficiency to identify agents{\textquoteright} physical goals. But how do they recognize actions with social rather than physical functions? They may rely on an understanding that socially meaningful actions work not by efficiently enacting physical changes, but instead through shared use across group members. We found support for this hypothesis across several experiments that probed the conditions under which 8- and 9-month-old infants expect an action to be performed by additional members of the initial actor{\textquoteright}s social group. Infants generalized actions to new members of social groups if and only if the actions in question werenon-instrumental and infants had observed two socially related individuals repeating the action, whether or not they were members of the group across which generalization was tested. Thus, infants use characteristics of social behavior {\textendash} physical inefficiency and shared use by group members {\textendash} to categorize actions as social.

}, author = {Lindsey J Powell and Elizabeth S Spelke} } @article {2693, title = {Preverbal Infants{\textquoteright} Third-Party Imitator Preferences: Animated Displays versus Filmed Actors}, year = {2015}, month = {08/2015}, address = {MIT, Cambridge, MA}, author = {Heather L Kosakowski and Lindsey J Powell and Elizabeth S Spelke} } @article {1260, title = {Using fNIRS to Map Functional Specificity in the Infant Brain: An fROI Approach}, year = {2015}, author = {Lindsey J Powell and Ben Deen and Li Guo and Rebecca Saxe} } @article {1342, title = {Imitation Preferences of Preverbal Infants.}, year = {2014}, month = {08/2014}, publisher = {Poster presentation at the Center for Brain Minds and Machines Summer Conference, Cambridge, MA}, author = {Heather L Kosakowski and Lindsey J Powell and Elizabeth S Spelke} }