政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/69225

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/69225

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文笔数/总笔数 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造访人次 : 50973347 在线人数 : 839

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜寻范围

查询小技巧：

您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果

若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据

进阶搜寻

主页 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上传 ‧ 说明 ‧ 关于政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手机版

政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/69225

请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/69225

题名:	嬰兒在無人示範情境的觀察學習：探討主事者與物體效應的角色 Infants’ Observational Learning through Ghost Conditions: The Roles of Agency and Affordance Learning
作者:	張佩雯
贡献者:	黃啟泰 Huang, Chi Tai 張佩雯
关键词:	目標歸因自發運動體物體效應學習觀察學習 affordance learning goal attribution observational learning self-propelled object
日期:	2013
上传时间:	2014-08-25 15:20:57 (UTC+8)
摘要:	發展心理家發現嬰兒在沒有人只剩下物體運動的示範情境中，也能有效的學習物體操作，因此認為意圖模仿並非其中必要的歷程，嬰兒可以透過結果狀態仿效、物體效應學習、物體運動重演……等一些非模仿的社會學習歷程學習物體操作。然而，越來越多證據指出，嬰兒有理解非人類物體行為目標的能力：根據線索基礎論的學者指出，當主事者生命性的動作形態具備自我發動性、變異性等行為線索，以及鮮明的行為效果，嬰兒就有能力歸因其目標。目的推理論也指出，嬰兒根據主事者的行為、環境的限制、行為的結果狀態表徵主事者目標導向的行為，推理主事者行為的目標。就此理論角度而言，單純觀看物體運動示範的嬰兒，也可能透過目標歸因，或目標推理的歷程，重演目標動作。本實驗設置障礙情境，在無人示範情境中，操弄自發運動體的行為線索，將自發運動體分為具有行為動因，且行為合理的主事者與不具行為動因，且行為不合理的主事者，觀察16-18個月的嬰兒分別觀看兩類自發運動體的完整示範或失敗嘗試後重演目標動作的表現。沿續Huang與Charman（2005）的研究，進一步探討嬰兒在無人示範情境中的模仿表現是否受自發運動體的動作形態與行為效果影響，亦或是單純因為物體動力特質引發的物體效應學習。我們分析嬰兒觀看示範後第一個與20秒內的動作反應是否重演物體示範的目標動作，並且記錄嬰兒達成目標動作所花費的時間，與達成目標動作前探索物體的動作反應，結果發現，自發運動體的似生命性的運動線索與行為效果，都有效提升嬰兒重演目標動作，而且只有當主事者的動作展現生命性並且伴隨鮮明結果組態時，嬰兒重演目標動作的表現會最好。顯示，在無人示範的情境中，歸因主事者的目標是嬰兒觀察學習物體操作的關鍵歷程。 Development psychologists have shown that infants can learn how to manipulate objects in ghost conditions where only the object made to move during demonstration are observed. Ghost conditions provide a variety of information that induces infants to engage in non-imitative social learning of different kinds, such as end-state emulation, affordance learning and object movement reenactment. However, there is increasing evidence that infants can infer goal-directed action produced by non-human object agents. According to the cue-based theory, infant can attribute a goal to an object from several behavioral cues, such as self-propelledness, equifinal information, and the salient action effect. As stated in the recent theory of teleological reasoning, infant can infer a behavior goal-directedness based on object’s ability to adjust its own behavior when adapting to environmental constraints. Under this interpretation, infants engage in goal emulation by attributing a goal to the behavior of the self-propelled object. In the present study, we examine how behavior features of a self-propelled objects and its action effect influence infants’ observational learning of object manipulation. The data was seem to show that infants reproduce the target action more often when behavior cues could be used to identify the object as an agent. The animate motion and the salient action effect can both improve their performance in reproduce the target action. This in turn suggest that goal emulation plays a role in the observational learning in a ghost condition.
參考文獻:	Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 3-11. Bellagamba, F., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Re-enacting intended acts: Comparing 12- and 18-month olds. Infant Behavior & Development, 22, 277–282. Bekkering, H. & Prinz, W. (2002). Goal representations in imitative actions. Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, pp. 555–572. A Bradford Book: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A. & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 53, 153–164. 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. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1996). Why culture is common, but cultural evolution is rare. Proceedings of the British Academy 88, 77–93. Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., and Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the right thing: Infants` selection of actions to imitate from observed event sequences. Child Development, 78, 806-824. Byrne, R. W. (1994). The evolution of intelligence. Behavior and Evolution (ed. P. J. B. Slater&T. R. Halliday), pp. 223–265/ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Byrne, R. W. (2002b). Imitation of novel complex actions: what does the evidence from animals mean? Advances in the Study of Behavior 31, 77–105. Caldwell, C. A. & Whiten, A. (2003). Scrounging facilitates social learning in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. Animal Behaviour 65, 1085–1092. Call, J., & Carpenter, M.(2002). Three sources of information in social learning. In K. Dautenhahn, & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts (pp. 211–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Call, J., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Copying results and copying actions in the process of social learning: Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8, 151–163. Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve- and 18-month-olds imitate actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8, F13–F20. Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological and referential understanding of action in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) B, 358, 447–458. Csibra, G., Biro, S., Koós, O., & Gergely, G. (2003). Oneyear- old infants use teleological representation of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27 (1), 111–133. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (1998). The teleological origins of mentalistic action explanations: a developmental hypothesis. Developmental Science, 1, 255–259. Csibra, G., Gergely, G., Biro, S., Koós, O., & Brockbank, M. (1999). Goal attribution without agency cues: the perception of ‘pure reason’ in infancy. Cognition, 72, 237–267. Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2006). Social learning and social cognition: The case for pedagogy. In Y. Munakata & M. H. Johnson (Eds.), Processes of change in brain and cognitive development: Attention and performance XXI (pp. 249 –274). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Custance, D., Whiten, A. & Fredman, T. (1999). Social learning of an artificial fruit task in capuchin monkeys (Cebus appella). Journal of Comparative Psychology 113, 13–25. Dawson, B. V. & Foss, B. M. (1965). Observational learning in budgerigars. Animal Behaviour 13, 47–474. Dugatkin. L. A. (1996). Copying and mate choice. In Social Learning in Animals: The Roots of Culture (C. M. Heyes and B. G. Galef, Jr., Eds.), pp. 85-106. Academic Press. New York. Elsner, B. (2007). Infants’ imitation of goal-directed actions: The role of movementsand action effects. Acta Psychologica, 124, 44–59 Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (2003). Do I get what you get? Learning about the effects of self-performed and observed actions in infancy. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 732–751. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68, 138–154. Falck-Ytter, T., Gredebäck, G., & von Hofsten, C. (2006). Infants predict other people’s action goals. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 878–879. Galef, B. G., JR. (1988a). Communication of information concerning distant diets in a social, central-place foraging species: Rattus norvegicus. In Social Learning: Psychological and Biological Perspectives (T. R. Zentall and B. G. Galef, Jr., Eds.), pp. 119-140. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Galef, B. G., & Heyes, C. H. (Eds.). (2004). Special issue on social learning in animals. Learning & Behavior, 32, 1–140. doi:10.3758/ BF03196001 Gattis, M., Bekkering, H., & Wohlschla¨ger, A. (2002). Goal-directed imitation. In A. N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases (pp. 183–205) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants.Nature, 415, 755. Gergely, G., & Csibra. G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: the one-year-olds’ naive theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 287–292. Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Biro, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56, 165–193. Gleissner, B., Meltzoff, A. N., & Bekkering, H. (2000). Children’s coding of human action: Cognitive factors influencing imitation in 3-year-olds. Developmental Science, 3, 405– 414. Heyes, C. M. (1998). Theory of mind in nonhuman primates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 101–148. Heyes, C. M. (2001) Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 253-261 Hopper, L. M., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J. & Whiten, A. (2008). Observational learning in chimpanzees and children studied through ‘ghost’ conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Societies B 275, 835–840. Hopper, L.M., Flynn, E. G., Wood, L. A.N. & Whiten, A. (2010). Observational learning of tool use in children: investigating cultural spread through diffusion chains and learning mechanisms through ghost displays. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 106, 82–97. Hoppitt, W., Laland, K.N., 2008. Social processes inﬂuencing learning in animals: a review of the evidence. Adv. Study Behav. 38, 105–165, doi:10.1016/S0065- 3454(08)00003-X. Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/ emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8, 164 –181. Huang, C. (2012). Outcome-based observational learning in human infants. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2):139-49. Huang, C-T. & Charman, T. (2005). Gradations of emulation learning in infants’ imitation of actions on objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 276–302. Huang, C.-T., Heyes, C., & Charman, T. (2002). Infants’ behavioral reenactment of ‘failed attempts’: exploring the roles of emulation learning, stimulus enhancement, and understanding of intentions. Developmental Psychology, 38, 840–855. Johnson, S. C., Booth, A., & O’Hearn, K. (2001). Inferring the goals of a nonhuman agent. Cognitive Development, 16, 637-656. 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, 303–320. Kiraly, I., Csibra. G., & Gergely, G. (2013). Beyond rational imitation: Learning arbitrary means actions from communicative demonstration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116, 471–486. Kiraly, I., Jovanovic, B., Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G., & Gergely, G. (2003). The early origins of goal attribution in infancy. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 752–769. Kuhlmeier, V., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2003). Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychological Science, 14 (5), 402–408. Luo, Y. and Baillargeon, R. (2005) Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16, 601-608. McGuigan, N., Whiten, A., Flynn, E., & Horner, V. (2007). Imitation of causally opaque versus causally transparent tool use by 3- and 5-year-old children. Cognitive Development, 22, 353-364. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.01.001 Meltzoff, A.N. (1988a). The human infant as Homo imitans. In T. Zentall & B.G. Galef, Jr. (Eds.), Social learning: Psychological and biological perspectives (pp. 319–341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Meltzoff, A. N. (1988b) Infant imitation after a one week delay: long term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 24, 470–476. Meltzoff, A.N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 1–16. Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1994). Imitation, memory, and the representation of persons. Infant Behavior and Development, 17, 83–99. Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1997) Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Dev. Parenting 6, 179–192 Mesoudi, A., & Whiten, A. (2004). The hierarchical transformation of event knowledge in human cultural transmission. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 1–24. Mesoudi, A., & Whiten, A. (2008). The multiple roles of cultural transmission experiments in understanding human cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 3489–3501. Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42, 555–565. Piaget J. 1962. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. Premack, D.(1990). The infant’ s theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36, 1 – 16. Rizzolatti, G., Craighero, L., 2004. The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev.Neurosci. 27, 169–192. Schlottmann, A., Surian, L., & Ray, E. (2009). Causal perception of action-and-reaction sequences in 8- to 10-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 87–107. Schlottmann, A., & Ray, E. (2010). Goal attribution to schematic animals: Do 6-month-olds perceive biological motion as animate? Developmental Science, 13, 1–10. Schwier, C., van Maanen, C., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Rational imitation in 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 10, 303–311. Shimizu, Y.A., & Johnson, S.C. (2004). Infants’ attribution of a goal to a morphologically unfamiliar agent. Developmental Science, 7 (4), 425–430. Tennie, C., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Push or pull: imitation vs. emulation in great apes and human children. Ethology 112, 1159–1169. Thompson, D. E. & Russell, J. (2004). The ghost condition: imitation versus emulation in young children’s observational learning. Developmental Psychology 40, 882–889. Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Review Monograph Supplement, 2 (4, Whole No. 8). Thorpe, W. H. (1963). Learning and Instinct in Animals. Methuen, London, UK. Tolman, C. W. (1964). Social facilitation of feeding behaviour in the domestic chick. Animal Behaviour 12, 245–251. Tomasello, M. (1990). Cultural transmission in the tool use and communicatory signaling of chimpanzees. In ‘‘Language’’ and Intelligence in Monkeys and Apes: Comparative Developmental Perspectives (ed. S. T. Parker & K.R. Gibson), pp. 274–311. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Tomasello, M., Davis-Dasilva, M., Camak, L. & Bard, K. (1987).Observational learning of tool-use by young chimpanzees. Human Evolution 2, 175–183. Tomasello, M. (1998). Emulation learning and cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 703-704. Want, S.C., & Harris, P.L. (2002). How do children ape? Applying concepts from the study of non-human primates to the developmental study of ‘imitation’ in children. Developmental Science, 5, 1–13. West, M. J., and King, A. P. (1996). Social learning: Synergy and song birds. In Social Learning in Animals: The Roots of Culture (C. M. Heyes and B. G. Galef, Jr., Eds.), pp. 155-178. Academic Press, San Diego. Whiten, A. & Ham, R. (1992). On the nature and evolution of imitation in the animal kingdom: reappraisal of a century of research. Advances in the Study of Behavior 21, 239–283. Whiten, A.,Horner, V. & De Waal, F. B.M. (2005).Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437, 737–40. Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchﬁeld, C., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learning and Behaviour, 32, 36– 52. Wohlschläger, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: An instantiation of the action effect principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 501-515. Wood, D. (1989). Social interaction as tutoring. Interaction in Human Development (ed. M. H. Bornstein & J. S. Bruner), pp. 59–80. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science 149, 269–274. Zentall, T.R., Sutton, J.E., & Sherburne, L.M. (1996). True imitative learning in pigeons. Psychological Science, 7, 343– 346. Zentall, T. R. (2001). Imitation in animals: evidence, function, and mechanisms. Cybernetics and Systems 32, 53–96. Zentall, T. R. (2003). Imitation by animals: how do they do it? Current Directions in Psychological Science 12, 91–95.
描述:	碩士國立政治大學心理學研究所 100752011 102
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100752011
数据类型:	thesis
显示于类别:	[心理學系] 學位論文

文件中的档案:

档案	描述	大小	格式	浏览次数
201101.pdf		3986Kb	Adobe PDF2	1187	检视/开启

在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回馈