Effects of Social Cues on Search and Visual Anticipation for Hidden Objects in 2-Year-Olds

• In Event: 2-029 - Effects of Motor Imitation and Social Cues on A-not-B Task Performance in Infants and Toddlers

Integrative Statement

Effects of social cues from the experimenter on infants’ search for occluded objects have recently been demonstrated (e.g., Topal, et al., 2008). This raises the question of when the effects of social cues are replaced by effects of representation of occluded object location. We tested for lingering effects of social cues on search behavior as well as on anticipatory looking behavior in 20- to 22-month-olds.

The apparatus contained two doors, each opening to a different room. The doors were mounted on the front wall of the apparatus, which could be raised and lowered to reveal both rooms simultaneously. A different toy was used on each trial.

Table 2 shows the task features. In all three tasks, there was a 4-second Viewing Period before occlusion, followed by a 5-second Delay Period between occlusion and response. In the Hide/Search task (two trials), the experimenter (E) opened one door, placed a toy in a room, and closed the door. In Reveal/Search (four to six trials), E instead raised the front wall to show the child both rooms with a toy in one room, and then lowered the front wall. In both tasks, children were allowed to search, and were first familiarized with the “rule” that they should open only one door, which meant that opening the incorrect door resulted in not obtaining the toy on that trial. Children almost always opened only one door per trial.

The Reveal/Look task (one A-trial and one B-trial) began in the same way as Reveal/Search, but then after the front wall was lowered, E said, “I’m going to show you where it is. I wonder where it is.” E slowly opened both doors simultaneously. We coded anticipatory looking (from video), defined as which door the child first looked at after E said the word “wonder.”

Across three studies, each task was presented two different times (once first; Ns = 10 to 14 per task). All findings replicated between- and within-subjects. Figure 3A shows that children searched correctly over 80% of the time in Hide/Search, but searched randomly in Reveal/Search, suggesting that they succeeded in Hide/Search by imitating the experimenter’s hiding behavior of opening and reaching in that doorway. Figure 3B shows that on the A-trial of Reveal/Look, over 90% showed correct anticipatory looking to A, but on the B-trial, over 80% perseverated by looking at A again, suggesting that when E repeated, “I’m going to show you where it is,” children expected E to do the same thing (i.e., to show them the toy at A again); thus, they looked at A, not B. A new study is currently underway testing this “social cue” explanation of B-trial looking perseveration.

Summary: It is startling to find random searching, and perseverative anticipatory looking at this age. There was no effect of the toy’s location on performance; instead, there were stronger social effects, raising questions about what role representation of occluded objects plays in manual search and visual anticipation behaviors during the first two years.

Authors

• William Fabricius, Arizona State University
  Presenting Author

• Rachel Keen, University of Virginia
  Non-Presenting Author