Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146509
|
| Title: | 生命性線索對嬰兒瞭解動作目標的影響
The Infulence of Animacy on infants` understanding of action goal |
| Authors: | 何金洲
He, Jin-Zhou |
| Contributors: | 黃啟泰
Huang, Chi-Tai
何金洲
He, Jin-Zhou |
| Keywords: | 社會認知
目標歸因
效率原則
動作理解
生命性
Social cognition
Goal attribution
The principles of rationality
Action understanding
Animacy |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-08-02 13:48:57 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 嬰兒是如何理解他人或物體的目標這個議題在目前文獻中頗受爭議。生命性假說認為嬰兒是否以目標導向特性解釋觀看的動作，取決於動作者是否具有生命性線索。理性動作原則則認為嬰兒會主動評估動作與結果之間的效能關係，透過理性動作原則來歸因動作者的目標。因此本研究進一步釐清生命性線索是否在嬰兒目標歸因中起到必要作用。本實驗以48位平均年齡12個月大的嬰兒為研究對象，觀察有無生命性的動作執行者是否影響嬰兒歸因目標的歷程。本研究在電腦螢幕上重複呈現一圓形物體躍過會變換高度的障礙後，以最有效率的方式碰觸到另一個物體的動畫。一半的嬰兒觀看未受撞擊且延宕1.2秒發動圓形的動畫，此時他們應當把圓形被視為有生命的動作執行者；而另一半觀看圓形在撞擊後立即發動，此時他們則不會把動作執行者視為有生命的。當注視動畫的時間達到習慣化後，先前見到的物體轉換至對側障礙後方的位置，原來障礙後方的位置會出現一個新物體。此時，嬰兒會繼續觀看圓形跳向不同位置的舊目標以及相同位置的新目標兩個事件。實驗結果發現，在環境敏感線索充足的條件下，無論圓形的運動是否呈現生命性，嬰兒觀看圓形移動到新目標時都會產生明顯的去習慣化效果。這意味著動作執行者的行為在有效率與行為等效性線索的條件下，執行者是否展示生命性綫索似乎並不影響嬰兒歸因目標的歷程。
The existence of infants’ psychological reasoning about goals has been hotly debated. The animacy hypothesis holds that infants’ proclivity to see acts in goal-directed ways is reliant on whether an agent exhibits animate cues. The principle of rationality posits that infants infer an agent’s goal by actively evaluating the efficacy of action in relation to its result (i.e., the principle of rationality). The present study test if the animate cues are crucial for infants to attribute goals to objects. In the experiment, 12-month-old infants (N = 48) watched animation stimuli repeatedly on the computer screen, where a circle jumped over variable obstacles and reached an object separated by the obstacle in the most efficient pathway. Half of the infants watched the circle jumping by itself and launching without any contact (an animate agent); The others watched the circle launch immediately following the sticking (an inanimate agent). After infants had habituated to the events, the object(goal) was switched to the other side, and a new object was placed in the previous location. And then the circle would jump to the new object with an old path or jump to the old object with a new path. The results of the present study showed that when the context-sensitive cues were sufficient in the action, infants dishabituated to the event where the circle moved to the new object regardless of whether the circle exhibited animacy. Therefore, when an agent displays efficiency and equifinality in goal-directed actions, it seems that infants’ goal attribution would not be detracted by the absence of animate cues. |
| Reference: | Bates, E., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer quarterly of behavior and development, 21(3), 205-226. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23084619
Biro, S., Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2007). The role of behavioral cues in understanding goal-directed actions in infancy. Progress in brain research, 164, 303-322. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)64017-5
Biro, S., & Leslie, A. M. (2007). Infants` perception of goal‐directed actions: development through cue‐based bootstrapping. Developmental science, 10(3), 379-398. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00544.x
Buresh, J. S., & Woodward, A. L. (2007). Infants track action goals within and across agents. Cognition, 104(2), 287-314. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.001
Csibra, G. (2008). Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition, 107(2), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.08.001
Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O., & Gergely, G. (2003). One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27(1), 111-133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2701_4
Csibra, G., Gergely, G., Bı́ró, S., Koos, O., & Brockbank, M. (1999). Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of ‘pure reason’in infancy. Cognition, 72(3), 237-267. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00039-6
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. Cultural models in language and thought, 112-148.
Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. MIT press.
Franklin, B. (1995). The handbook of children`s rights: comparative policy and practice. Routledge London.
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naıve theory of rational action. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(7), 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00128-1
Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00661-H
Haugeland, J., & Dennett, D. C. (1978). Intentionality. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, 9(3). doi: 10.5840/swjphil19789347
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American journal of psychology, 57(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/1416950
Hernik, M., & Southgate, V. (2012). Nine-months-old infants do not need to know what the agent prefers in order to reason about its goals: On the role of preference and persistence in infants` goal-attribution. Developmental science, 15(5), 714-722. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01151.x
Hofer, T., Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2005). Infant`s perception of goal-directed actions performed by a mechanical device. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(4), 466-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.04.002
Johnson, S. C., Shimizu, Y. A., & Ok, S. J. (2007). Actors and actions: The role of agent behavior in infants’ attribution of goals. Cognitive Development, 22(3), 310-322. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.01.002
Kamewari, K., Kato, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hiraki, K. (2005). Six-and-a-half-month-old children positively attribute goals to human action and to humanoid-robot motion. Cognitive Development, 20(2), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.04.004
Legerstee, M. (1990). Infants use multimodal information to imitate speech sounds. Infant behavior and development, 13(3), 343-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-6383(90)90039-B
Legerstee, M., Pomerleau, A., Malcuit, G., & Feider, H. (1987). The development of infants` responses to people and a doll: Implications for research in communication. Infant behavior and development, 10(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-6383(87)90008-7
Leslie, A. M. (1993). A theory of agency. Citeseer.
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Henning, A., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Twelve‐month‐olds point to share attention and interest. Developmental science, 7(3), 297-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00349.x
Luo, Y. (2011). Three-month-old infants attribute goals to a non-human agent. Developmental science, 14(2), 453-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00995.x
Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16(8), 601-608. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01582.x
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological review, 99(4), 587. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.587
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental psychology, 31(5), 838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838
Meltzoff, A. N., Brooks, R., Shon, A. P., & Rao, R. P. (2010). “Social” robots are psychological agents for infants: A test of gaze following. Neural networks, 23(8-9), 966-972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2010.09.005
Michotte, A. (2017). The perception of causality. Routledge.
Oakes, L. M., Sperka, D., DeBolt, M. C., & Cantrell, L. M. (2019). Habit2: A stand-alone software solution for presenting stimuli and recording infant looking times in order to study infant development. Behavior research methods, 51, 1943-1952. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01244-y
Phillips, A. T., Wellman, H. M., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Infants` ability to connect gaze and emotional expression to intentional action. Cognition, 85(1), 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00073-2
Premack, D. (1990). The infant`s theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90051-K
Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences, 1(4), 515-526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512
Rutherford, M. D. (2013). Evidence for specialized perception of animate motion. Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention, 115-138.
Schlottmann, A., & Ray, E. (2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals: do 6‐month‐olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science, 13(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00854.x
Shimizu, Y. A., & Johnson, S. C. (2004). Infants’ attribution of a goal to a morphologically unfamiliar agent. Developmental Science, 7(4), 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00362.x
Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive science, 14(1), 29-56.
Tomasello, M., & Barton, M. E. (1994). Learning words in nonostensive contexts. Developmental psychology, 30(5), 639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.5.639
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor`s reach. Cognition, 69(1), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00058-4 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系
108752028 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108752028 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [心理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 202801.pdf | | 1142Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 113 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
