Infants Imitate Others When Only Weeks Old
One of the most basic forms of social behaviour is copying another person. Although imitation is something we adults take for granted, it's actually a pretty demanding process for a young infant.
At the heart of imitation is understanding the difference between yourself and others - something that famous Swiss child psychologist Jean Piaget thought didn't emerge immediately in infants. Consequently he argued that infants could not imitate others until they were 8 to 12 months of age.
Stick your tongue out
In 1977, though, Andrew Meltzoff from Oxford University and M. Keith Moore from the University of Washington published a study that questioned Piaget's theory and was destined to become a classic in child psychology (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977).
Their study was straightforward enough. An experimenter sat in front of tiny infants who were between 12 and 21-days-old. There he stuck his tongue out, opened his mouth, pursed his lips and moved his fingers, then watched, with a blank face, for the infants' reactions.
Sure enough the infants seemed to copy him.
The key to their study, though, was in showing that the infants were really imitating the experimenter rather than just sticking their tongues out or opening their mouths for some other reason. In other words: was this true imitation or something much more basic that couldn't be considered social interaction?
Imitation or something simpler?
Meltzoff and Moore tested all sorts of alternative explanations:
- Were the infants simply getting excited by the experimenter? Probably not: when the experimenter opened his mouth, the infants responded with the same gesture, not by sticking their tongue out. And when the experimenter stuck his tongue out, infants stuck theirs out.
- Was the imitation just a reflex of some kind? Probably not: when infants had a pacifier in their mouths while the experimenter stuck their tongue out, they still imitated him after it was taken out a short time later.
- Had parents been training their children beforehand? No, parents were not told about the purpose of the experiment until afterwards.
- Was the experimenter accidentally signalling the infants after the initial tongue protrusion or mouth purse through further small facial movements? No, the experimenter's face was videotaped and rated independently as blank in the 'infant response periods'.
Born with social skills
This study is a major piece of ammunition for those who argue that infants are born into the world partly pre-programmed for social interactions. It has now been replicated many times and suggests infants don't have to learn to navigate the social world completely from scratch; from a very early age they have some grasp of their bodies and can copy other people.
» This is part of a series on 10 crucial child psychology studies. Read more on the emergence of infant memory, self-concept, learning, attachment, theory of mind, object permanence, language, play and knowledge.
[Image credit: xtopalopaquetl]
Reference
Meltzoff, A., & Moore, M. (1977). Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75-78.
Join 22301 readers
What a shame that you would promote this study when subsequent work by Susan Jones and Moshe Anisfeld has shown just how unreliable and overinterpreted Meltzoff's work is. For a review of this troubled literature and related issues, see chapter 5 in my book, Basic Instinct: The Genesis of Behavior.
In general, when it comes to these claims of extraordinary abilities in newborn infants, it is wise be very skeptical. The literature is awash in studies that cannot be replicated and that promote an inaccurate view of cognitive development.
Hi Blum, the idea of my top 10 studies is to give people a flavour of a few influential child psychology studies. Agreed: most of these studies represent the start of the argument rather than the end.
I'm always interested in suggestions for this series so if you, or anyone, would like to nominate their favourite developmental studies either in the comments or by email, I'd be most interested.
Hi, Jeremy: Thanks for your response. Still, I do wonder what it is about these kinds of articles that attracts so much attention from people like yourself. They don't represent the best that psychological science has to offer. You ask for suggestions. I write about them extensively in my book. But my perspective -- and that of so many of my colleagues -- does not tap into the sound bite science that the evolutionary psychology types -- Pinker, Spelke, Hauser, Marcus -- have played to full effect. So I appreciate your desire to start the argument, but you would do a real service if you considered promoting examples of truly rigorous and thoughtful research.
BLUM:
Are you kidding? Not only are you not reading the same research I am, you obviously don't have any kids of your own -- or perhaps if you do, you never noticed that normal NEWBORN infants will imitate facial expressions, when they are in a relaxed and regulated state. Brazelton's Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale is accepted and used world-wide, and looks for this behavior as part of the assessment process.
If you're going against the mountain of data supporting standard infant developmental approaches today, you've got a tough row to hoe.
Jeremy, I'm so glad you are putting this information out there; the world of infant research is fascinating, and we're learning more every day that helps us maximize the developmental potential of our kids.
BabyShrink:
If it's so obvious, then you would think that it would be so easy to demonstrate scientifically. But it's not: read the original Meltzoff and Moore paper and see what kinds of statistical gymnastics they had to perform to eke out an effect. Then read the subsequent critiques of Moshe Anisfeld and Susan Jones to see what is really going on. The "mountain of data" that you think you see is actually a molehill.
Infants do eventually learn to imitate, but not until many months after birth.
blum:
Simply dismissing real-world and experimental truth is not a very convincing way to make your argument. And I say "truth", because we can clearly observe newborn imitation.
I challenge any interested reader to do your own research: View T. Berry Brazelton's work on the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale.
OR, even better: HOLD A NEWBORN BABY. When alert and awake, stick your tongue out, and watch her try to imitate you.
Blum, I have 3 young children, and I'm a doctoral psychologist who works with infants every day. I'm still not sure what your credentials are, or whether you have ever worked with infants, clinically.
What is your direct clinical experience?
Hi, BabyShrink,
Credentials are hardly the issue here. But, if you wish, you can go here to learn about me and my experience as a developmental scientist (http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Blumberg/Blumberg.html).
Rather than the two of us going back and forth, I thought I would consult an expert in this area. After reading your comments, this expert noted that you are "correct in saying that very young infants increase their tongue protruding after watching a tongue protruding adult. But you are making a common error in assuming that you know why they do this. You are observing a behavioral match and calling it imitation, not realizing that imitation is not what you see -- it's an interpretation of what you see, and it is only one possible interpretation. So what other interpretations are possible? You should try showing a newborn infant another interesting sight, or tickling the baby, or playing arousing music for the baby, or stroking the baby's palm. You are likely to see the baby increase his tongue protrusions just as he does after watching a moving adult tongue. Researchers have tried all of these and found increased tongue protruding in every case. This is evidence that tongue protruding is a common, general response to interesting or arousing stimuli. So it's likely that babies in imitation experiments, who do indeed increase their tongue movements after seeing a tongue protruding model, are just responding to an intersting stimulus with a behavior that expresses their interest -- and just happens to be the same behavior as they've been watching."
Hope this helps.
BLUM:
OK, now I get it. You're probably used to being the contrarian voice, "devil's advocate", etc.
While I appreciate your willingness to go against the grain, at heart I am a pragmatist. My website is all about practical parenting, based on what we can reasonably discern from scientific sources -- and our own good sense as parents.
You can choose to swim against the tide of work started by Mahler, Ainsworth, Bowlby, then continued on by people like Greenspan, Spitz, Brazelton, Beebe and the guys doing the "mirror neuron" work at UCSD...but I place my best bets for "Good Enough" parenting square at the feet of this group....not a "devils' advocate" provocateur.
And by the way...any parent who's ever paid attention to their newborn knows first-hand that their baby is capable of learning and interacting...at birth. So your argument not only goes against what many have found scientifically, but it flies in the face of what parents all over the world directly experience every day.
I guess this exchange also highlights the difference between research scientists and clinical practitioners. I had my reasons for pursuing my clinical doctorate -- I want to directly participate, day to day, in helping families. Staying in the lab never interested me. I'm glad it interests others -- but clearly, you and I are coming from completely different points of view.
An extraordinary response. Truly extraordinary.
You may someday wish to familiarize yourself with the history of Clever Hans, facilitated communication, and the many other examples of how "good enough" and "common sense" led psychologists down the primrose path to embarrassment and even harm. Any clinician who so denigrates experimental research and critical analysis -- and who argues merely by citing the names of others (look up "argumentum ad verecundium") -- needs to reboot.
Two final points: (1) I never stated that infants are incapable of learning and interacting (nor would I); and (2) if parents already "know" what their infants do, then what do you have to offer?
And before responding, why not try actually reading the many books and articles on these subjects.
Well, clearly we're on completely different planets here. You're trying to get me to become an experimental psychologist -- sorry, we're in different disciplines. You chose yours for good reasons, as did I.
Your role is to produce research, my role is to translate it into something pragmatic and workable for the families I see every day.
You can continue to argue your points in this way, but it doesn't eliminate the reality that you're trying to defend one side of the argument ("non-nativism") in this schism that exists in the field. I find such esoteric arguments to be painfully boring. Go ahead and criticize me for not being as immersed in this argument as you are. Tell me I haven't read all the studies you have. We clinicians are used to that kind of criticism by academicians.
I just find it incredibly tiresome, and not helpful to parents. That's why i went into clinical practice -- not academia.
I, for one, don't have time to spend my career in such an argument. You do: Go for it.
I just want you to see that the academic types are so completely out of touch with clinical realities. You need to find a way to bridge that gap if you want to produce something useful for the clinical field -- or perhaps that's not on your agenda?
Which is OK, I guess -- even though we might be theoretically in the same field, we are on different planets.