政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/136956
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113822/144841 (79%)
造访人次 : 51789056      在线人数 : 497
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
    政大機構典藏 > 理學院 > 心理學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/136956


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136956


    题名: 錯誤在幼兒觀察學習工具使用的角色
    The role of mistakes in young children`s observational learning of tool use
    作者: 鍾宛玲
    Chung, Wan-Ling
    贡献者: 黃啟泰
    Huang, Chi-Tai
    鍾宛玲
    Chung, Wan-Ling
    关键词: 觀察錯誤
    工具使用
    模仿
    仿效
    目標
    mistakes
    tool use
    imitation
    emulation
    goal
    日期: 2021
    上传时间: 2021-09-02 16:50:10 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 發展學家以研究靈長類使用工具行為的陷阱管子，探討幼兒觀察錯誤的學習歷程，顯示2歲幼兒不理解錯誤提示的動作因果，沒有複製示範以工具取物的模仿增進效果，卻能用自己知道的作業物理知識，透過仿效途徑改以其他方法取物。然而，過去研究未排除失誤、重置、最後成功取物的大人錯誤示範，失誤與取物兩動作之間的重置，是否導致幼兒注意新近的成功取物動作、忽略初始的失誤動作，以致於沒有整合兩動作之間的關聯，難以產生掌握用工具取物因果的模仿學習。本研究旨在探討錯誤示範程序對2歲幼兒模仿使用工具的影響，進一步釐清錯誤伴隨的意圖目標線索與因果結構訊息，是否引導幼兒的目標仿效學習。
    實驗1檢視錯誤示範的重置步驟，造成兩動作的顯著程度差異，是否干擾幼兒組織兩動作與取物的因果規則，導致模仿困難。如果錯誤訊息的顯著性提升，有利於幼兒整合兩動作的因果關聯，省略錯誤示範中的重置步驟，應增加幼兒成功複製示範方法以取物的模仿表現。結果發現，不論幼兒看的錯誤示範中有無重置步驟，都沒有增進理解用工具取物因果的模仿成功率，但幼兒看包含重置的錯誤示範，有偏好以示範方法取物的模仿表現，看省略重置的錯誤示範，相對有利於用其他方法取物的目標仿效表現。
    實驗2檢視在省略重置的錯誤示範下，幼兒產生取物目標仿效的原因，是否來自保留現場的失敗結果，提供了錯誤的記憶線索，有助於幼兒瞭解先失誤後取物的事件關聯，並表徵兩事件的主要目標為取物。如果錯誤記憶提升錯誤的顯著性，是幼兒產生取物目標仿效的導因，即使錯誤示範中有重置步驟，移除了提示錯誤記憶的失敗結果，只要在成功取物前，記憶強化失敗結果以提升錯誤顯著性，幫助幼兒整合兩事件並表徵目標，應同省略重置的錯誤示範情境，幼兒不會產生取物的模仿偏好，有利於取物的目標仿效表現，另一方面，在省略重置的錯誤示範情境，留下來的失敗結果，也可能突顯大人的失誤為意外而取物為意圖目標，幫助幼兒瞭解大人在情境中的整體目標為取物，並產生取物的目標仿效學習，如果意圖線索是幼兒取物目標仿效的導因，當大人在包含重置的錯誤示範中，口語和表情將錯誤也標示為意圖目標，不提供偏好特定物件結果的意圖線索，也無法即時視覺比對兩物件結果，以致於整個情境的意圖訊息弱化，應相比省略重置的錯誤示範情境，減少幼兒取物的目標仿效表現。結果發現，不論包含重置的錯誤示範中，加強記憶線索以提升錯誤顯著性，或者減弱意圖線索對整體情境目標的烘托，幼兒模仿與仿效取物的表現，皆與看省略重置錯誤示範的幼兒有相似偏好，表示大人錯誤示範時，加強錯誤記憶以降低成功取物事件的顯著程度、提升錯誤顯著性，會削弱幼兒模仿取物的傾向，有利幼兒取物的目標仿效表現，但幼兒取物的目標仿效表現無關大人意圖。
    實驗3檢視大人意圖在幼兒目標仿效歷程中沒有扮演角色，是否因錯誤本身引導幼兒注意物件在管子的因果結構，引發幼兒透過仿效途徑，完成作業預設的取物目標。如果錯誤示範彰顯的作業因果結構，是指引幼兒聚焦作業目標並引發取物目標仿效的主因，當情境中的大人口語與表情皆標示取物為失誤，應不影響幼兒以作業目標為主的取物目標仿效表現，也應與沒有示範只有作業本身訊息的情境，有相似的幼兒取物目標仿效表現，結果發現幼兒偏好完成取物結果，而非偏好重現失誤結果，且比沒有觀看示範的幼兒，有較多用示範方法取物的表現。
    整體而言，錯誤示範的錯誤顯著性高，有助於幼兒表徵示範事件的主要目標，進而產生目標仿效學習，錯誤的顯著性低，則幼兒傾向保守模仿示範的動作與結果，此外，觀察錯誤比觀察單純正確，提供幼兒更多對作業產生基本認識的機會，誘發幼兒動用自身因果知識、探索問題的解決方法。由於陷阱管子是特定因果結構作業，作業設計的工具性目標，主導了幼兒的目標仿效學習，雖然此強勢效應無法被大人示範提供的意圖線索所覆蓋，但大人提供了動作方法的參考，也在溝通互動情境下暗示了社會性訊息，這些來自大人的觀察線索，有調節幼兒選擇模仿與仿效學習策略的效果。
    Trap-tube is a classic tool-use task to explore primate learning behavior. Developmental scientists have been employed trap-tube to study children`s observational learning from others’ mistakes. All studies show that 2-year-old children could not understand the causal effect of retrieving rewards by the tool so that they have no improvement of imitative learning. However, children know about the task physics and they can still retrieve rewards successfully in other ways via emulation. Despite the findings, the demonstration sequence of mistakes in previous studies included mistakes, reset tasks, and successful attempts. This situation might lead children to only focus on the last successful retrieve but neglect the initial mistake. Thus, they consequently could not integrate the association between the two actions, which made them had difficulty in imitative learning. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the resetting procedure in the mistaken demonstration on imitation of tool use in 2-year-old children and to clarify whether the intentional goal and causal structure behind the mistake induce emulative learning.
    Experiment 1 examined whether the reset step of mistaken demonstration (restored demo), which resulted in a difference of salience between the two actions, interfered with children`s integration of the two actions of causal association and thus led to children’s difficulties with imitation. If the salience of mistake is helpful for children to imitate the retrieving action by the tool, children`s imitation performance should be improved when the restored demonstration had omitted the reset step (retained demo). Nevertheless, it was found that whether the mistaken demonstration included reset procedure or not, children`s imitation performance was not facilitated. But children well used their own way to retrieve the reward through goal emulation when they observed retained demonstration.
    Experiment 2 examined whether the reason for children`s goal emulation after they observed retained demonstration was the trapped reward, which was kept in the situation till the end, providing a memory cue for initial mistake. The memory cue helped children to recognize the association of the mistaken event followed by the successful outcome and supported children to represent from the previous events that the main goal is to retrieve the reward. If the salience of mistake is enhanced by the memory cue and then induced children’s goal emulation, children’s imitation and emulation performances would be similar to those children who observed retained demonstration when they observed restored demonstration was presented to emphasize the memory of mistake before it showed the successful outcome (memory demo). On the other hand, based on the previous mistakes, the demonstrator’s mistaken demonstration and intentional goal of retrieving the reward might be highlighted. Thus it will be beneficial to children to comprehend the main goal of the holistic situation in the retained demonstration. If the intention cue helped children to realize the main goal and provoke children to emulate the retrieving outcome, children`s emulation performance should be less than those children who observed retained demonstration when they observed the demonstrator’s verbal and facial expressions mark the mistake as an intended goal and show no preference towards the pre-and-post outcomes (two-goal demo). It was found children observed the demonstration regardless of whether the memory cue was strengthened or the intention cue was weakened. Both of Their imitation and emulation performances had no differences from those who observed retained demonstration. All that means when children observe the mistaken demonstration, salient mistakes will decrease their imitative learning and persuade their emulative learning. But there is no relation between the demonstrator’s intention and children’s goal emulation.
    Experiment 3 examined whether children could retrieve the reward via goal emulation that was triggered by the mistake which guided children to notice the causal structure of trap-tube and the instrumental goal of the task. If the causal structure of the task behind the mistaken demonstration was the core reason for leading children to retrieve the reward, it should not affect the children`s resulting retrieve performance when the demonstrator`s verbal and facial expressions indicated that the retrieve was a mistake (reverse demo). Besides, these children’s retrieving performances would be similar to those children who did not observe any demonstration (baseline). It was found that children preferred to complete the retrieval task rather than to reproduce the mistaken outcome. They adopt the preset tool-use method to retrieve the reward more often in reverse demonstration than those in the baseline condition.
    In conclusion, when children observe the mistaken demonstration, high salience of mistake is helpful for them to represent the goal and emulate the outcome. On the contrary, when the situation is low salience of mistake, it makes children bring out imitation more than emulation. In contrast to only observe correctly, children have more opportunities to be aware of the affordances and causal structure of the task through observing mistakes. The basic understanding of the task induces them to use their own causal knowledge to explore the solutions to the problem. To be mentioned the trap-tube is an instrumental task, which is well designed in a specific causal structure so that the task goal dominates children’s emulation performance but not the demonstrator’s intentional goal. However, the demonstrator’s actions and social cues during communicative learning situations will moderate children’s selection of strategies between imitation and emulation.
    參考文獻: 王瑾婷、姜忠信（2011）：〈16至20個月嬰幼兒對意圖線索的理解〉。《中華心理學刊》，53，149-166。[Wang, C. T., & Chiang, C. H. (2005). 16- to 20-month-old understanding of others’ intentional cues. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 149-166.]
    鍾宛玲、黃啟泰（2015）：〈前置意圖與因果理解對幼兒觀察學習他人錯誤的影響〉。《中華心理學刊》，57，213-227。[Chung, W. L., & Huang, C. T. (2015).The influences of prior intention and causal understanding on preschoolers’ observational learning from others’ mistakes. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 57(3), 213–227.]
    鍾宛玲、黃啟泰（2017）：〈二歲幼兒在工具使用情境下的觀察學習：模仿與仿效〉。《中華心理學刊》，57，213-227。[Chung, W. L., & Huang, C. T. (2017). Two-Year-Old Children’s Observational Learning in Tool-Use Contexts: Imitation versus Emulation. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 59(1), 29–44.]
    Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning theory of identificatory processes. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp.213–262). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
    Barresi, J., & Moore, C. (1996). Intentional relations and social understanding. Behavioral and Brain Science, 19(1), 107–154.
    Barrett, T. M., Davis, E. F., & Needham, A. (2007). Learning about tools in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 352–368.
    Bauer, P. J., & Kleinknecht, E. E. (2002). To ‘ape’ or to emulate? Young children’s use of both strategies in a single study. Developmental Science, 5(1), 18–20.
    Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal Tool Behavior: The Use and Manufacture of Tools. New York, NY: Garland Press.
    Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 53(1), 153–164.
    Bellagamba, F., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Re-enacting intended acts: comparing 12- and 18-month olds. Infant Behavior and Development, 22(2), 277–282.
    Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60(1), 1–29.
    Biro, S., & Leslie, A. M. (2007). Infants’ perception of goal-directed actions. Development through cue-based bootstrapping. Developmental Science, 10(3), 379–398.
    Brand, R. J., Baldwin, D. A., & Ashburn, L. A. (2002). Evidence for‘motionese’ in mother’s infant-directed action. Developmental Science, 5(1), 72–83.
    Brown, A. L. (1990). Domain-specific principles affect learning and transfer in children. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 107–133.
    Brugger, A., Lariviere, L A., Mumme, D. L., & Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the Right Thing: Infants` Selection of Actions to Imitate From Observed Event Sequences. Child Development, 78(3), 806–824.
    Buttelmann, D., & Zmyj, N. (2014). Evaluating the empirical evidence for the two-stage-model of infant imitation. A commentary on Paulus, Hunnius,Vissers,and Bekkering (2011). Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 512.
    Byrne, R. W. (1998). Comment on chimpanzee and human cultures. Current Anthropology, 39, 591–614.
    Byrne, R. W. (2004). The manual skills behind hominid tool use. In A. E. Russon & D. R. Begun (Eds.), Evolutionary origins of great ape intelligence (pp. 31–44). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Call, J. (2009). Contrasting the social cognition of humans and nonhuman apes: The shared intentionality hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 368–379.
    Call, J., & Carpenter, M. (2002). Three sources of information in social learning. In K. Dautenham & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Imitation in animals and artifacts. 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(3), 151–163.
    Cannon, E. N., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal-based action predictions. Developmental Science, 15(2), 292–298.
    Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant behavior and development, 21(2), 315–330.
    Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2002). Understanding ‘prior intentions’ enables 2-year-olds to imitatively learn a complex task. Child Development, 73(5), 1431–1441.
    Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Twelve‐and 18‐month‐olds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8(1), 13–20.
    Carpenter, M., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T. (2005). Role reversal imitation and language in typically developing infants and children with autism. Infancy, 8(3), 253–278.
    Casler, K., Terziyan, T., & Greene, K. (2009). Toddlers view artifact function normatively. Cognitive Development, 24(3), 240–247.
    Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2007). `Obsessed with goals`: functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 60–78.
    Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(4), 148–153.
    Custance, D., Whiten, A., & Fredman, T. (1999). Social learning of an artificial fruit task in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113(1), 13–23.
    Cutting, A., Apperly, I. A., Chappell, J., & Beck, S. R. (2014). The puzzling difficulty of tool innovation: Why can’t children piece their knowledge together? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 125, 110–117.
    Decety, J., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). Empathy, imitation, and the social brain. In A. Copland & P. Goldie (Eds.), Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives (pp. 58–81). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    DiYanni, C., & Kelemen, D. (2008) Using a bad tool with good intention: young children`s imitation of adults` questionable choices. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 101(4), 241–261.
    Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229–240
    Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in the acquisition of action effects. Psychological Research, 68(2-3), 138–154
    Elsner, B., Pfeifer, C., Parker, C., & Hauf , P. (2013). Infants’ perception of actions and situational constrains: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 428–422.
    Fagard, J., Rat-Fischer, L., Esseily, R., Somogyi, E., & O’Regan, J. K. (2016). What Does It Take for an Infant to Learn How to Use a Tool by Observation? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–11.
    Falck-Ytter, T., Gredeback, G., von Hofsten, C. (2006). Infants predict other peoples’ action goals. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 878–879.
    Flynn, V., Masur, E. F., & Eichorst, D. L. (2004). Opportunity versus disposition as predictors of infants’ and mothers’ verbal and action imitation. Infant Behavior and Development, 27(3), 303–314.
    Flynn, E., & Whiten, A. (2012). Experimental ‘‘Microcultures’’ in Young Children: Identifying Biographic, Cognitive, and Social Predictors of Information Transmission. Child Development, 83(3), 911–925.
    Flynn, E., & Whiten, A. (2013). Dissecting children’s observational learning of complex actions through selective video displays. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 247–263.
    Galef, B. G., Jr. (1988). Imitation in animals: History, definition, and interpretation of data from the psychological laboratory. In T. R. Zentall & B. G. Galef Jr. (Eds.), Social learning: Psychological and biological perspectives (pp. 3–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Gardiner, A. K., Bjorklund, D. F., Greif, M. L., & Gray, S. K. (2012). Choosing and using tools: Prior experience and task difficulty influence preschoolers’ tool-use strategies. Cognitive Development, 27(3), 240–254.
    Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415(6873), 755.
    Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(7), 287–292.
    Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165–193.
    German, T. P., & Johnson, S. C. (2002). Function and the origins of the design stance. Journal of Cognition and Development, 3(3), 279–300.
    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(4), 405–414.
    Gredebäck, G., Stasiewicz, D., Falck-ytter, T., von Hofsten, C., Rosander, K., Gredeba, G., … Hofsten, C. Von. (2009). Action type and goal type modulate goal-directed gaze shifts in 14-month-old infants. Developmental psychology, 45(4), 1190–1194.
    Hamilton, A. F. (2008). Emulation and mimicry for social interaction: A theoretical approach to imitation in autism. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Colchester), 61(1), 101–115.
    Harnick, F. S. (1978). The relationship between ability level and task difficulty in producing imitation in infants. Child Development, 49(1), 209–212.
    Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2008). Action-effect anticipation in infant action control. Psychological Research, 72(2), 203–210.
    Hauf, P., Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (2004). The role of action eVects in infants` action control. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 115–125.
    Hernik, M., & Csibra, G. (2009). Functional understanding acilitates learning about tools in human children. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(1), 34–38.
    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.
    Heyes, C. M. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 253–261.
    Heyes, C. M. (2005). Imitation by association. In N. Chater & S. Hurley (Eds.), Perspectives on Imitation: from Cognitive Neuroscience to Social Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Heyes, C. M. (2012). New thinking: the evolution of human cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367(1599), 2091–2096.
    Heyes, C. M. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Harvard University Press.
    Heyes, C. M. & Galef, B. G. Jr. (Eds.). (1996). Social learning in animals: The roots of culture. London: Academic Press.
    Heyes, C. M., & Ray, E. D. (2000). What is the significance of imitation in animals? Advances in the Study of Behavior, 29, 215–245.
    Horowitz, A. C. (2003). Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117(3), 325–336.
    Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8(3), 164–181.
    Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2007). Learning From Others’ Mistakes? Limits on Understanding a Trap-Tube Task by Young Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Children (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(1), 12–21.
    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(1), 82–97.
    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(1636), 835–840.
    Hopper, L. M., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J., & Whiten, A. (2015). The importance of witnessed agency in chimpanzee social learning of tool use. Behavioural Processes, 112, 120–129.
    Hopper, L. M., Spiteri, A., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J., Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2007). Experimental studies of traditions and underlying transmission processes in chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 73(6), 1021–1032.
    Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. (2013). Social learning: An introduction to mechanisms, methods, and models. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Huang, C-T. & Charman, T. (2005). Gradations of emulation learning in infants’ imitation of actions on objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(3), 276–302.
    Huang, C-T. (2013). Development contexts of a person’s prior intentions facilitate observational learning in 2.5-year-old children. Cognitive Development, 28(4), 374–385.
    Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2014) What are you doing? How active and observational experience shape infants` action understanding. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 369(1644), 1–9.
    Kaye, K., & Marcus, J. (1978). Imitation over a series of trials without feedback: age six months. Infant Behavior and Development, 1, 141–155.
    Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and Understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254.
    Kenward, B., Karlsson, M., & Persson, J. (2011). Over-imitation is better explained by norm learning than by distorted causal learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 278(1709), 1239–1246.
    Kenward, B. (2012). Over-imitating preschoolers believe unnecessary actions are normative and enforce their performance by a third party. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 112(2), 195–207.
    Kochukhova, O., & Gredeback, G. (2010). Preverbal infants anticipate that food will be brought to the mouth: An eye tracking study of manual feeding and flying spoons. Child Development, 81(6), 1729–1738.
    Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 688–699.
    Legare, C. H., & Watson-Jones, R. E. (2015). The evolution and ontogeny of ritual, In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Sons.
    Limongelli, L., Boysen, S., & Visalberghi, E. (1995). Comprehension of cause-effect relations in a tool-using task by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109(1), 18–26.
    Lonsdorf, E., Ross, S. T., & Matsuzawa, T, (2010). The Mind of the Chimpanzee: Ecological and Experimental Perspectives. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
    Loucks, J., Mutschler, C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Children`s Representation and Imitation of Events: How Goal Organization Influences 3-Year-Old Children`s Memory for Action Sequences. Cognitive Science A Multidisciplinary Journal, 41(7), 1904–1933.
    Lyons, D. K. (2009). The rational continuum of human imitation. In J. A. Pineda (Ed.), Mirror neuron systems (pp. 77–103). New York, NY: Human Press.
    Lyons, D. E., Damrosch, D. H., Lin, J. K., Macris, D. M., & Keil, F. C. (2011). The scope and limits of overimitation in the transmission of artifact culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B, 366(1567), 1158–1167.
    Marshall-Pescini, S., & Whiten, A. (2008).Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and the question of cumulative culture: an experimental approach. Animal Cognition, 11(3), 449-56.
    Martin-Ordas, G., & Call, J. (2009). Assessing generalization within and between trap tasks in the great apes. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 22(1), 43–60.
    McGuigan, N., Makinson, J., & Whiten, A. (2011). From over-imitation to super-copying: Adults imitate causally irrelevant aspects of tool use with higher fidelity than young children. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 1–18.
    McGuigan, N., & Whiten, A. (2009). Emulation and “overemulation” in the social learning of causally opaque versus causally transparent tool use by 23- and 30-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(4), 367–381.
    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(3), 353–364.
    Meltzoff , A. N. (1990). Foundations for developing a concept of self: Th e role of imitation in relating self to other and the value of social mirroring, social modeling, and selfpractice in infancy. In D. Cicchetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), Th e self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 139–164). Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press .
    Meltzoff, A. N. (1995).Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838–850.
    Meltzoff, A. N. (1999). Origins of theory of mind, cognition, and communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32(4), 251–269.
    Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. The Royal Society, 358(1431), 491–500.
    Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science,198(4312), 75–78.
    Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1983). Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Development,54(3), 702–809.
    Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting, 6(3-4), 179–192.
    Meltzoff, A. N., & Prinz, W. (2002). The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2006). How great apes perform on a modified trap-tube task. Animal Cognition, 9(3), 193–199.
    Nagell, K., Olguin, R. S., & Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees and human children. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107(2), 174–186.
    Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: social learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 555–565.
    Nielsen, M., Simcock, G., Jenkins, L. (2008). The effect of social engagement on 24-month-olds` imitation from live and televised models. Developmental Science, 11(5), 722–731.
    Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2012). Putting the social into social learning: Explaining both selective and fidelity in children’s coping behavior. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125(2), 1–11.
    Paulus, M. (2014). How and why do infants imitate? An ideomotor approach to social and imitative learning in infancy (and beyond). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1139–1156.
    Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2013). Neurocognitive mechanisms subserving social learning in infancy: Infants’ neural processing of the effects of others’ actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(7), 774–779.
    Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2011a). Bridging the gap between the other and me: The functional role of motor resonance and action effects in infants’ imitation. Developmental Science, 14(4), 901–910.
    Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., Vissers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2011b). Imitation in Infancy: Rational or Motor Resonance? Child Development, 82(4), 1047–1057.
    Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., van Elk, M., & Bekkering, H. (2012). How learning to shake a rattle affects 8-month-old infants’ perception of the rattle’s sound: Electrophysiological evidence for action-effect binding in infancy. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 90–96.
    Pawlby, S. J. (1977). Imitative interaction. In H. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 203–224). New York: Academic Press.
    Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. [Translated from French. First English edn. published 1951.]
    Povinelli, D. J. (2000). Folk physics for apes: The chimpanzee’s theory of how the world works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Ray, E., & Heyes, C. (2011). Imitation in infancy: the wealth of the stimulus. Developmental Science, 14(1), 92–105.
    Repacholi, B. M., & Gopnik, A. (1997). Early reasoning about desires: Evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 12–21.
    Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–70.
    Ross, H. S. & Lollis, S. P. (1987). Communication within infant social games. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 241–248.
    Sanz, C. M., Call, J., & Boesch, C. (2013). Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and Ecology. Cambridge University Press
    Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual
    Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 473–500.
    Schulz, L. E., Hooppell, C., & Jenkins, A. C. (2008). Judicious imitation: Children differentially imitate deterministically and probabilistically effective actions. Child Development, 79(2), 395–410.
    Seed, A. M., & Call, J. (2014). Space or Physics? Children Use Physical Reasoning to Solve the Trap Problem From 2.5 Years of Age. Developmental Psychology, 50(7), 1951–1962.
    Seigler, R.S. (2000). The rebirth of children`s learning. Child Development, 71, 26–35.
    Silva, F. J., Page, D. M., & Silva, K. M. (2005). Methodological-conceptual problems in the study of chimpanzees’ folk physics: how studies with adult humans can help. Animal Learning and Behavior, 33(1), 47–58.
    Suzuki, S., Kuroda, S., & Nishihara, T. (1995). Tool-set for termite-fishing by chimpanzees in the Ndoki forest, Congo. Behaviour, 132(3-4), 219–235.
    Tebbich, S., & Bshary, R. (2004). Cognitive abilities related to tool use in the woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallida. Animal Behaviour, 67(4), 689–697.
    Tennie, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Push or Pull: Imitation vs. Emulation in Great Apes and Human Children. Ethology, 112(12), 1159–1169.
    Tennie, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Ratcheting up the ratchet: On the evolution of cumulative culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1528), 2405–2415.
    Tennie, C., Greve, K., Gretscher, H., & Call, J. (2010). Two-year-old children copy more reliably and more often than nonhuman great apes in multiple observational learning tasks. Primates, 51(4), 337–351.
    Thompson, D. E., & Russell, J. (2004). The ghost condition: imitation versus emulation in young children’s observational learning. Developmental Psychology 40(5), 882–889.
    Tomasello, M. (1990). Cultural transmission in the tool use and communicatory signalling of chimpanzees? In S. Parker & K. Gibson (Eds.), Language and intelligence in monkeys and apes: Comparative developmental perspectives (pp. 274–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Tomasello, M. (1996). Do apes ape? In C. M. Heyes & B. G. Galef, Jr. (Eds.), Social learning in animals: The roots of culture (pp. 319-346). London: Academic Press.
    Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121–125.
    Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 28(5), 675–691.
    Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. & Ratner, H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(3), 495–511.
    Tomasello, M., & Moll, H. (2010). The gap is social: Human shared intentionality and culture. In P. Kappeler & J. Silk (Eds.), Mind the gap: Tracing the origins of human universals (pp. 331–349). Berlin: Springer.
    Tomasello, M., Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Kruger, A. C. (1993). Imitative learning of action on objects by children, chimpanzees and enculturated chimpanzees. Child Development, 64(6), 1688–1705.
    Thorpe,W. H. (1963). Learning and instinct in animals. London, UK: Methuen.
    Uzgiris I. C. (1972). Patterns of vocal and gestural imitation in infants. In F. Monks, W. Hartup & J. de Witt (Eds.), Determinants of behavioral development, (pp 467–471). New York: Academic Press.
    Uzgiris, I. C., Benson, J. B., Kruper, J. C., & Vasek, M. E. (1989). Contextual influences on imitative interactions between mothers and infants. In J. Lockman & N. Hazen (Eds.), Action in social context: Perspectives on early development, (pp. 103–127). New York: Plenum Press.
    Verschoor, S., Weidema, M., & Bíró, S., & Hommel, B. (2010). Where do action goals come from? Evidence for spontaneous action–effect binding in infants? Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 201.
    Vaesen, K. (2012). The cognitive bases of human tool use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(4), 203–18.
    Visalberghi, E., & Limongelli, L. (1994). Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(1), 15–22.
    Vivanti, G., McCormick, C., Young, G. S., Abucayan, F., Hatt, N., Nadig, A., … Rogers, S. J. (2011). Intact and impaired mechanisms of action understanding in autism. Developmental psychology, 47(3), 841–56.
    Völter, C. J., & Call, J. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of flexible tool use in great apes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition, 40(3), 287–302.
    Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Want, S. C., & Harris, P. L. (2001). Learning from other people’s mistakes: causal understanding in learning to use a tool. Child Development, 72(2), 431–443.
    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. Development Science, 5(1), 1–14.
    Warneken, F., Chen, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Cooperative activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child Development, 77(3), 640–663.
    Wedgwood, R. (2007). The nature of normativity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Whiten, A. (2000). Primate Culture and Social Learning. Cognitive Science, 24(3), 477–508.
    Whiten, A., & Custance, D. M. (1996). Studies of imitation in chimpanzees and children. In C. M Heyes, & B. G Galef, Jr. (Eds.), Social learning in animals: The roots of culture (pp. 291–318). London: Academic Press.
    Whiten, A., Custance, D. M., Gomez, J. C., Teixidor, P., & Bard, K. A. (1996). Imitative learning of artificial fruit processing in children (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110(1), 3–14.
    Whiten, A., & Ham. A. (1992). On the nature and evolution of imitation in the animal kingdom. Reappraisal of a century of research. Advance 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(7059),737–740
    Whiten, A., Horner, V., Litchfield, C., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2004). How do apes ape? Learning and Behaviour, 32(1), 36–52.
    Whiten, A., McGuigan, N., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Hopper., L. M. (2009). Emulation, imitation, over-imitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1528), 2417–2428.
    Williamson, R. A., & Markman, E. M. (2006). Precision of imitation as a function of preschoolers` understanding of the goal of the demonstration. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 723–731.
    Williamson, R. A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Markman, E. M. (2008). Prior experiences and perceived efficacy influence 3-year-olds’ imitation. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 275–285.
    Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69(1), 1–34.
    Woodward, A. L. (2009). Infants’ grasp of others’ intentions. Current Directions in Psychological Science,18(1), 53–57.
    Wohlschläger, A., Gatti, M., & Bekkering, H.(2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: an inst of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society London B, 358(1431), 501–515.
    Zentall, T. R. (2001). Imitation in Animals: Evidence, Function, and Mechanisms. Cybernetics and Systems, 32(1-2), 53–96
    Zentall, T. R. (2012). Perspectives on Observational Learning in Animals. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 114–128.
    Zental, T. R. & Galef, B. G. Jr. (1988). Imitation in animals: History, definition, and interpretation of data from psychology laboratory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Zukow-Goldring, P., & Arbib, M. A., (2007). Affordances, effectivities, and assisted imitation: Caregivers and the directing of attention. Neurocomputing, 70(13-15), 2181 –2193.
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    心理學系
    101752503
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101752503
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202101305
    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
    250301.pdf1942KbAdobe PDF2163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