1 / 37

Mechanisms of Learning and Acculturation:

Mechanisms of Learning and Acculturation:. Contingency Learning and Cultural Learning. Contingency Learning & Attachment. Just as children learn conditional probabilities in language and physical world, is this a mechanism of learning about their social world?

avitagliano
Download Presentation

Mechanisms of Learning and Acculturation:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Mechanisms of Learning and Acculturation: Contingency Learning and Cultural Learning

  2. Contingency Learning & Attachment • Just as children learn conditional probabilities in language and physical world, is this a mechanism of learning about their social world? • Watson: Conditional probability of mother’s response given child’s action (cf. Johnson, et al.) • Dweck, Davidson, Nelson, & Enna: Contingencies of teacher’s praise and criticism • Are attachment styles a result of contingency learning?

  3. Preliminary Evidence:van den Boom (1994) • A manipulation of sensitive responsiveness • Aims: • 1) To promote maternal respon. to positive & negative expressions or actions of infant Responsiveness = contingency between infant behaviors (crying, vocalizing) and mother behaviors (soothing, verbalizing to infant) • 2) To see if this affects attachment relationship

  4. van den Boom, cont.Methods • Ps were 100 irritable (low SES) infants randomly assigned to experimental or control group • Experimental group: 3 intervention sessions (2 hrs each) while infants were between 6 & 9 mos. of age • Baselines taken for both Exp and Control goups of maternal and infant behavior.

  5. van den Boom, cont.Methods Intervention targeted at 4 stages of the response process: • Perceiving the infant’s signal • Interpreting it correctly • Selecting an appropriate response • Implementing the response appropriately Note similarity to Dodge’s processing model of aggression

  6. Van den Boom, cont.Dependent variables Compared to control group, she predicted: • Increase in mother’s responsiveness (manip. check) • Change in infant’s behavior, including exploratory behavior • Change in attachment classification

  7. van den Boom, cont.Results for Mothers Compared to control mothers, intervention mothers were significantly more: • Visually attentive • Contingently responsive • Stimulating (not just reactive): vocalizing, offering play objects • Controlling: verbal disappr & phys. restraint (?)

  8. van den Boom, cont.Results for Infants Attachment-relevant behaviors • More sociable (pos. vocalization, smiling) • More (& more sophisticated) physical exploration--picking up and manipulating toys Attachment (measured 3 mos. later): • 31/50 securely attached vs. 11/50 in the control group. (Control grp: 26/50 avoidant)

  9. van den Boom (1995)Follow-up • Evaluated mother-child interaction at 18, 24, & 42 mos. • Attachment re-measured at 18 mos.: Would secure attachment remain stable? • Interaction with unfamiliar peer at 42 mos. Would gains generalize to new people?

  10. van den Boom, cont.Results • Mothers remained more sensitive: More responsive to pos. & neg. child initiatives, more sharing of interest in objects & activities, more accepting, etc. • 72% securely attached vs. 26% in control group (51% of control group avoidant) • Children more cooperative in peer interaction.

  11. van den Boom, cont.Conclusions • High-risk infants (irritable, low SES, relatively insensitive mothers) benefited from intervention. • Enhancing maternal responsiveness fostered attachment security, exploration, sociability. • Intervention effects appeared to endure and generalize (e.g., to peer interactions).

  12. How Do Humans Differ?

  13. How Do Humans Differ? • Are we humans simply more generally intelligent than other species? • Or are we more intelligent in specific ways? • Tomasello’s “Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis”

  14. General vs. Adaptive/Cultural Intelligence Hypotheses • General Intelligence Hypothesis: Bigger brain--> smarter in all ways (better perceptual processing, memory, learning, planning) • Adaptive Intelligence Hypothesis: Abilities evolve in response to species-specific environmental challenges: e.g., caching birds-amazing memory skills homing pigeons--spatial navigation bees--complex communication • What is the human challenge?

  15. Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis • Humans come with a specific, early-emerging set of social-cognitive skills • These skills allow them to participate in cultural groups and exchange knowledge with others

  16. Are Humans Built for Social Learning?Herrmann, Call, Hernandez-Lloreda, Hare, & Tomasello (2007) • 105 2-1/2 year old children (before formal education) • 106 chimps--one of two closest relatives (3-21 yrs.) • 32 orangutans--more distant relative (3-10 yrs.) All apes were accustomed to humans, lived in semi-natural environments All naïve to the tests • Given a series of complex tasks 8 non-social tasks (general intelligence) 8 social tasks (cultural/social intelligence)

  17. Tasks • Non-social: spatial-temporal-causal relations • Spatial: Tracking the position of a reward under a cup • Discriminating quantity • Causal understanding • Social: Understanding others’ intentional actions, perceptions, knowledge • Observational learning: Imitating adult who popped open a tube to retrieve food • Understanding communicative gestures • Understanding others’ intention

  18. Herrmann et al. Results

  19. Implications and Remaining Questions • General support for Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis • However, children were better than apes at the non-social causality tasks (not tool manipulation) • What is distinctive may be ability to understand unobserved causal forces--mental states of others may be special case • Maybe social tasks more ecologically valid for humans

  20. Tomasello & Carpenter, 2007Further Ideas on What Makes Human Social-Cognition Different • A set of social-cognitive-motivational skills that can be termed “shared intentionality.” • Collaborative interactions in which participants share psychological states with each other. • Examples: In problem-solving activities, may have shared goal and shared plans for pursuing goal. In communication, may share experience with one another linguistically

  21. Tomasello & Carpenter, cont’d • Analyzed 4 sets of social-cognitive skills • In each case, claim that: Chimps have “individualistic” version of the skill 1-2 yr.old humans have a version based on shared intentionality

  22. Tomasello & Carpenter, cont’d1.Gaze following vs. joint attention • Chimps know what others see • But humans also try to share attention with others: e.g., share interest with adult; attempt to initiate joint attention through gestures

  23. Tomasello & Carpenter, cont’d2.Social manipulation vs. cooperative (shared) communication • Chimps produce and comprehend many gestures and vocalizations, but communicate to manipulate others and get what they want. • Humans gesture and vocalize also to inform others of things (helpfully) or to share experiences with them. • By 9 mos. use “showing” gestures to initiate joint attention • By 12 mos. point for others to share interest & attention

  24. Tomasello & Carpenter, cont’d3.Group activity vs. collaboration • Chimps participate in group activities--hunting--but do they collaborate in the sense of joint goals and plans or are they each pursuing own goal? • Tomasello says no to former, yes to latter. • Evidence: Human-reared chimps & 18-month olds performed collaborative tasks with adults. At some point, adult quits. Only children try to re-engage adult.

  25. Tomasello & Carpenter, cont’d4. Social learning vs. instructed learning • Chimps learn from others, but in an individualistic way--they gather information “exploitively.” • Humans sometimes imitate simply to demonstrate to the adult that they are in tune with them. • Adult chimps seldom teach things to youngsters by demonstrating things for them • Gergely & Csibra: Humans are highly attuned to “pedagogical” cues

  26. Tomasello & Carpenter, cont’dConclusions Human acculturation and learning is different because • Chimps are mostly concerned with their individual goals • Children are concerned with sharing psychological states & goals • Evolution took existing skills and transformed them in a way that allows human culture.

  27. Tomasello—Tanner LectureIs Cooperation Innate?

  28. Tomasello—Tanner LectureIs Cooperation Innate? • Early emergence: 14-18 months • Rewards don’t seem to increase it—can decrease it • Evolutionary root: Chimps sometimes do it. • Children do it in cultures with less instruction • Mediated by empathic concerns.

  29. For the sake of it.. • Helping • Informing • Sharing Then later, learn to adopt values and norms of culture

  30. Meltzoff: Like-Me • Self-other equivalences—foundation of social of social cognition • Can learn about self from observing actions of others & can learn/know about others using self-knowledge—blindfold study • e.g., Repacholi & M—information from others’ interactions are applicable to self: Infants learn what adult disapproves of

  31. Can Children Learn Altruism from Others’ Behavior? • 2-1/2 to 3-year olds • Reciprocal or parallel play with E for 6 min. • 4 helping trials (similar to W&T’s)

  32. Cortes Results

  33. Contingency Learning Can we think of more precise, laboratory studies to look at: • contingency learning • the effects of different contingencies on infant behavior

  34. Attachment-Relevant Contingencies • Consistent mother C-->M/M-->C • Tuned-out mother C-->M • Inconsistent mother C-->M/M-->C; C-->M

  35. Our Study DV’s with live person: • Subsequent interaction • Exploration of environment • Choice DVs with mother-child shapes: • Surprise at C’s choice • Own preference • Labeling (“good”)

More Related