Knowing before doing: Review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-29 DOI:10.1037/bul0000393
Shari Liu, Melyssa Almeida
{"title":"Knowing before doing: Review and mega-analysis of action understanding in prereaching infants.","authors":"Shari Liu, Melyssa Almeida","doi":"10.1037/bul0000393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between experience and knowledge is one of the oldest and deepest questions in psychology. In developmental science, research on this question has focused on prereaching infants who cannot yet retrieve objects by reaching for and grasping them. Over the past 2 decades, behavioral research in this population has produced two seemingly contradictory findings: After first-person experience with reaching via \"sticky mittens\" training, (a) infants come to expect that people reach efficiently, toward goal objects, but (b) under some conditions, they can express these expectations without training. We hypothesize that prereaching infants' understanding of other people's actions is driven by the representational demands of the tasks used to test their abilities, rather than by first-person motor experience per se. We conducted a qualitative review and a quantitative, preregistered \"mega-analysis\" of the original data from this past work (i.e., an analysis of looking responses from <i>N</i> = 650 infants, 30 conditions, and 8 articles). We found that the manipulations with the strongest effects (measured via effect sizes and Bayes factors) on infants' understanding of other people's goals and physical constraints, controlling for infant age, were abstract features of action: Whether the action produced an observable effect in the world on contact and provided unambiguous evidence for the actor's goal. We end by presenting a broad hypothesis about how young infants learn about other people's minds and actions, centered on an early intuitive theory of action planning, to be tested with future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"149 5-6","pages":"294-310"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000393","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The relationship between experience and knowledge is one of the oldest and deepest questions in psychology. In developmental science, research on this question has focused on prereaching infants who cannot yet retrieve objects by reaching for and grasping them. Over the past 2 decades, behavioral research in this population has produced two seemingly contradictory findings: After first-person experience with reaching via "sticky mittens" training, (a) infants come to expect that people reach efficiently, toward goal objects, but (b) under some conditions, they can express these expectations without training. We hypothesize that prereaching infants' understanding of other people's actions is driven by the representational demands of the tasks used to test their abilities, rather than by first-person motor experience per se. We conducted a qualitative review and a quantitative, preregistered "mega-analysis" of the original data from this past work (i.e., an analysis of looking responses from N = 650 infants, 30 conditions, and 8 articles). We found that the manipulations with the strongest effects (measured via effect sizes and Bayes factors) on infants' understanding of other people's goals and physical constraints, controlling for infant age, were abstract features of action: Whether the action produced an observable effect in the world on contact and provided unambiguous evidence for the actor's goal. We end by presenting a broad hypothesis about how young infants learn about other people's minds and actions, centered on an early intuitive theory of action planning, to be tested with future work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

先知后做:对学前教育婴儿动作理解的回顾和大型分析。
经验和知识之间的关系是心理学中最古老、最深刻的问题之一。在发展科学中,对这个问题的研究集中在那些还不能通过伸手和抓住物体来取回物体的预教育婴儿身上。在过去的20年里,对这一人群的行为研究产生了两个看似矛盾的发现:在第一人称体验到通过“粘性手套”训练达到目的后,(a)婴儿开始期望人们能够有效地达到目标物体,但(b)在某些条件下,他们可以在没有训练的情况下表达这些期望。我们假设,幼儿对他人行为的理解是由用于测试其能力的任务的代表性需求驱动的,而不是由第一人称运动体验本身驱动的,对过去工作中的原始数据进行预先注册的“大型分析”(即,对650名婴儿、30种情况和8篇文章的视觉反应进行分析)。我们发现,在控制婴儿年龄的情况下,对婴儿理解他人目标和身体约束具有最强影响(通过效应大小和贝叶斯因子测量)的操作是行为的抽象特征:该行为是否在世界上对接触产生了可观察的影响,并为行为者的目标提供了明确的证据。最后,我们提出了一个关于婴儿如何了解他人思想和行为的广泛假设,以早期的行动计划直觉理论为中心,并在未来的工作中进行测试。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信