Under what conditions do children have difficulty in inhibiting imitation? Evidence for the importance of planning specific responses

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Volumn 109, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 512-524

  Simpson, Andrew ^a   Riggs, Kevin J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Child development; Imitation; Inhibition; Intention; Prepotency; Response set

Indexed keywords

AGE; ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CONDITIONING; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMITATION; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

AGE FACTORS; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS;

EID: 79955482093     PISSN: 00220965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.02.015     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Aziz-Zadeh L., Maeda F., Zaidel E., Mazziotta J., Iacoboni M. Lateralization in motor facilitation during action observation: A TMS study. Experimental Brain Research 2002, 144:127-131.
2. Bapi R.S., Doya K., Harner A.M. Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research 2000, 132:149-162.
3. Bird G., Brindley R., Leighton J., Heyes C. General processes, rather than " goals", explain imitation errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 35:1158-1169.
4. Bird, G., & Heyes, C. M. (2007). Imitation: Thoughts and theories. In K. Dautenhahn & C. Nehaniv (Eds.), Models and mechanisms of imitation and social learning in robots, humans, and animals (pp. 23-25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Brass M., Bekkering H., Prinz W. Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica 2001, 106:3-22.
6. Carroll, D. J. (2004). Interactions between children's reasoning and executive function: Evidence from a reverse-contingency task. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.
7. Dagenbach D., Carr T.H. Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language 1994, Academic Press, San Diego.
8. Dempster F.N., Brainerds C.J. Interference and inhibition in cognition and behavior 1995, Academic Press, San Diego.
9. Diamond A., Taylor C. Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the ability to remember what I said and to " do as I say, not as I do" Developmental Psychobiology 1996, 29:315-334.
10. Diamond A., Kirkham N., Amso D. Conditions under which young children can hold two rules in mind and inhibit a prepotent response. Developmental Psychology 2002, 38:352-362.
11. Friedman N.P., Miyake A. The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2004, 133:101-135.
12. Gattis M., Bekkering H., Wohlschlager A. Goal-directed imitation. The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases 2002, 183-205. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. A.N. Meltzoff, W. Prinz (Eds.).
13. Gerstadt C.L., Hong Y.J., Diamond A. The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of 3.5-7year olds on Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition 1994, 53:129-153.
14. Hanauer J.B., Brooks P.J. Developmental change in the cross-modal Stroop effect. Perception and Psychophysics 2003, 65:359-366.
15. Heyes C., Bird G., Johnson H., Haggard P. Experience modulates automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:233-240.
16. Heyes C., Ray E. What is the significance of imitation in animals?. Advances in the Study of Behavior 2000, 29:215-245.
17. Huizinga H., Dolan C.V., van der Molen M.W. Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44:2017-2036.
18. Keysers C., Perrett D.I. Demystifying social cognition: A Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science 2004, 8:501-507.
19. Lakin J.L., Chartrand T.L. Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science 2003, 14:334-339.
20. Leeson V.C., Simpson A., McKenna P.J., Laws K.R. Executive inhibition and semantic association in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research 2005, 74:61-67.
21. Luria A.R. The working brain 1973, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.
22. Mayr U., Awh E., Laurey P. Conflict adaption effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6:450-452.
23. Meltzoff A.N. Elements of developmental theory of imitation. The imitative mind: Development, evolution, and brain bases 2002, 19-41. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. A.N. Meltzoff, W. Prinz (Eds.).
24. Miyake A., Friedman N.P., Emerson M.J., Witzki A.H., Howerter A. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex " frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology 2000, 41:49-100.
25. Montgomery D.E., Anderson M., Uhl E. Interference control in preschoolers: Factors influencing performance on the day-night task. Infant and Child Development 2008, 17:457-470.
26. Norman D.A., Shallice T. Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. Conscious self-modulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4) 1986, 1-18. Plenum, New York. R.J. Davidson, G.E. Schwartz, D. Shapiro (Eds.).
27. Proctor R.W. Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task. Perception and Psychophysics 1978, 23:413-419.
28. Schneider W., Shiffrin R.M. Controlled and automatic processes: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review 1977, 84:1-66.
29. Simpson, A. (2005). Investigating the factors that create inhibitory demands in developmental tasks. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.
30. Simpson A., Riggs K.J. Factors responsible for performance on the day-night task: Response set or semantic relation?. Developmental Science 2005, 8:360-371.
31. Simpson A., Riggs K.J. Under what conditions do young children have difficulty inhibiting manual actions?. Developmental Psychology 2007, 43:417-428.
32. Simpson A., Riggs K.J. What makes responses prepotent for young children? Insights from the grass-snow task. Infant and Child Development 2009, 18:21-35.
33. Simpson, A., Riggs, K. J., Beck, S. R., Gorniak, S. L., Wu, Y., Abbott, D., & Diamond, A. (2011). Refining the understanding of inhibitory control: How response prepotency is created and overcome. Unpublished manuscript, University of Essex.
34. Simpson, A., Riggs, K. J., & Ferrand, L. (2006, March). Is inhibitory control required to prevent imitation? Poster presented at the meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society. Birmingham, UK.
35. Zelazo P.D., Muller U. Executive function in typical and atypical development. Childhood cognitive development 2002, 445-469. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. U. Goswami (Ed.).