Does Neonatal Imitation Exist? Insights From a Meta-Analysis of 336 Effect Sizes.

IF 12.7 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

ACS Central Science Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-02-12 DOI:10.1177/1745691620959834

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

{"title":"Does Neonatal Imitation Exist? Insights From a Meta-Analysis of 336 Effect Sizes.","authors":"Jacqueline Davis, Jonathan Redshaw, Thomas Suddendorf, Mark Nielsen, Siobhan Kennedy-Costantini, Janine Oostenbroek, Virginia Slaughter","doi":"10.1177/1745691620959834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neonatal imitation is a cornerstone in many theoretical accounts of human development and social behavior, yet its existence has been debated for the past 40 years. To examine possible explanations for the inconsistent findings in this body of research, we conducted a multilevel meta-analysis synthesizing 336 effect sizes from 33 independent samples of human newborns, reported in 26 articles. The meta-analysis found significant evidence for neonatal imitation (d = 0.68, 95% CI = [0.39, 0.96], p < .001) but substantial heterogeneity between study estimates. This heterogeneity was not explained by any of 13 methodological moderators identified by previous reviews, but it was associated with researcher affiliation, test of moderators (QM) (15) = 57.09, p < .001. There are at least two possible explanations for these results: (a) Neonatal imitation exists and its detection varies as a function of uncaptured methodological factors common to a limited set of studies, and (2) neonatal imitation does not exist and the overall positive result is an artifact of high researcher degrees of freedom.","PeriodicalId":10,"journal":{"name":"ACS Central Science","volume":" ","pages":"1373-1397"},"PeriodicalIF":12.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Central Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620959834","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neonatal imitation is a cornerstone in many theoretical accounts of human development and social behavior, yet its existence has been debated for the past 40 years. To examine possible explanations for the inconsistent findings in this body of research, we conducted a multilevel meta-analysis synthesizing 336 effect sizes from 33 independent samples of human newborns, reported in 26 articles. The meta-analysis found significant evidence for neonatal imitation (d = 0.68, 95% CI = [0.39, 0.96], p < .001) but substantial heterogeneity between study estimates. This heterogeneity was not explained by any of 13 methodological moderators identified by previous reviews, but it was associated with researcher affiliation, test of moderators (QM) (15) = 57.09, p < .001. There are at least two possible explanations for these results: (a) Neonatal imitation exists and its detection varies as a function of uncaptured methodological factors common to a limited set of studies, and (2) neonatal imitation does not exist and the overall positive result is an artifact of high researcher degrees of freedom.

查看原文本刊更多论文

新生儿模仿存在吗？对 336 种效应大小的元分析的启示。

新生儿模仿是许多人类发展和社会行为理论的基石，但在过去的 40 年里，人们一直在争论它是否存在。为了研究这些研究结果不一致的可能原因，我们进行了一项多层次荟萃分析，综合了 26 篇文章中报道的 33 个独立人类新生儿样本的 336 个效应大小。荟萃分析发现了新生儿模仿的重要证据（d = 0.68，95% CI = [0.39，0.96]，p < .001），但各研究估计值之间存在很大的异质性。这种异质性无法用以往综述中确定的 13 个方法学调节因子中的任何一个来解释，但它与研究者的从属关系有关，调节因子检验（QM）(15) = 57.09，p < .001。这些结果至少有两种可能的解释：(a) 新生儿模仿是存在的，其检测结果因有限研究中常见的未捕捉到的方法学因素而异；(2) 新生儿模仿并不存在，总体上的积极结果是研究者自由度高的假象。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Central Science Chemical Engineering-General Chemical Engineering

CiteScore

25.50

自引率

0.50%

发文量

194

审稿时长

10 weeks

期刊介绍： ACS Central Science publishes significant primary reports on research in chemistry and allied fields where chemical approaches are pivotal. As the first fully open-access journal by the American Chemical Society, it covers compelling and important contributions to the broad chemistry and scientific community. "Central science," a term popularized nearly 40 years ago, emphasizes chemistry's central role in connecting physical and life sciences, and fundamental sciences with applied disciplines like medicine and engineering. The journal focuses on exceptional quality articles, addressing advances in fundamental chemistry and interdisciplinary research.