Joint Action Observation Essay
The Study of Joint Action Objects with Infants
Paige Althaus
Terra State Community College
REFERENCE CITATION
Fawcett, C. and Liszkowski, U. 2012. Observation and Initiation of Joint Action in Infants. Child Development, 83 (2), pp. 434-441.
Feldman, R.S. (2011). Cognitive Growth: Piaget and Vygotsky. Life span development: a topical approach (pp. 153-155). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson.
TITLE
Observation and Initiation of Joint Action in Infants
INTRODUCTION
Observation is one way of showing how infants can interact and learn through play. There is very little evidence proving that infants can imitate through joint action observation. Many children observe while with certain objects and behaviors by others. Thus, the objective in this research is to examine “what infants learn when they observe interactions” and “whether infants, when observing others’ joint activity, encode the participants’ goals …show more content…
to act together” (Fawcett, 2012).
METHOD
Participants
The research was available to parents of the infants who were interested in participating in the study; the parents also had to join in on the study as well. The outcome resulted in forty-eight 18-month-old infants, who generally live in the European city and were white and lived middle class. There were indeed additional participants, however one of the infants was and error and the other 3 had refused to engage in the research (Fawcett, 2012).
Materials
This research required objects to be used in the study. There were 6 different objects which included: “(a) two bicycle bells attached to a wooden base, (b) two wooden levers on a wooden base, (c) a wooden drum with two drumsticks attached to it with cords, (d) a large plastic wheel on a wooden base, (e) a large plastic switch on a top of a plastic box, and (f) a trampoline with which a small ball could be bounced on a large plate.” (Fawcett, 2012). These objects were used in 6 different phases of the study.
Procedure
There were three conditions in which the infants observed the actions being performed. Those conditions included solitary condition which is where one individual was acting alone with an object. When two individuals were acting separately that was individual action condition. The last condition was joint action which means two individuals are acting together (Fawcett, 2012). The procedure began by assigning the infants with either the joint or solitary condition. The parents held the infants on their laps during the study. There were 6 trials being performed and the procedure involved a demonstration phase as well as a testing phase (Fawcett, 2012).
Demonstration Phase
This phase consisted of the first model displaying and object and saying “Oh, look at this” to get the attention of the infant (Fawcett, 2012).
This action was also demonstrated with a second model and this is called joint action condition. The two models reacted to the object simultaneously up to six times in a row to get the attention of the infant. After the demonstration of the joint action condition the first model says “This is fun” and made eye contact with the second model and the infant while using the objects together (Fawcett, 2012). The other conditions used the same action but with different objects. In the individual action condition, one model would say comments and act on the object and only make eye contact with the infant and never with the other model involved. The solitary condition was “performed by herself using her left and right hands as in the individual action condition” (Fawcett, 2012). The actions were very fast and only lasted approximately 40 seconds; the test phase began with only one model (Fawcett,
2012).
Test Phase
This phase lasted up to 90 seconds long. The first model would push the object towards the infant but would have their head down with their hand lying near the toy. “If an infant addressed the model, she looked at the infant, leaned slightly forward, nodded and said “Mm hmm,” and then sat back and looked down again” (Fawcett, 2012). The parents were however able to interact with the child but they were not able to initiate the interactions of the child during the test phase. Once this condition was over the other model would take over from the place of the first model (Fawcett, 2012).
RESULTS
The initial analyses have indicated that infants chose to invite their parent to join in the activity with them. This is called the joint action condition. “The results showed that infants made more invitations in the joint action condition than either the individual or solitary condition” (Fawcett, 2012). There was also a research to determine if any of the infants would invite both the parent and model equally and it turns out that the infants were more likely to invite the model than their parent (Fawcett, 2012). The main reason for this research was to determine if the infants were encouraged to reciprocate what they had observed from the object-directed actions. “All infants performed the demonstration actions at least once, with no significant difference across the conditions in the proportion of trials with imitation (joint M= 0.93, individual M=0.97, solitary M=0.94), F (2, 45) =0.71, p=.50” (Fawcett, 2012 ). As a result, these infants replicated the actions that were presented and performed on those objects; the invitations of the actions were also the same results from the conditions. (Fawcett, 2012).
DISCUSSION
The study that was performed was shown that infants were able to reproduce object-directed actions by observing a model performing the activity. This leads to infants inviting and adult to help them with the action. However, the individual action condition has given support of a different idea. “Seeing two people act on the toy is not sufficient to motivate infants to engage another in joint play” (Fawcett, 2012).
CONCLUSION
This study has an important way to show how children are able to observe through play and perform an activity and imitate a model that will eventually lead to joint action play. “The current findings are the first to demonstrate that infants also learn about others’ joint activities through observation” (Fawcett, 2012).
CRITIQUE
Characteristics
This article displays characteristics in psychology because it is a perfect example of Piaget’s Six Sub stages of the Sensorimotor Stage. The main stages that are used are sub stage 4 through sub stage 6. These sub stages are related to object permanence, and the representation of objects and how they are being observed by infants (Feldman, 155-156).
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study showed that the 18-month-old infants observed through 3 phases of conditions the actions that developed were imitated by the invitation of others from the infants. This proved that the infants are able to learn from action observation and use the conditions from joint action to play with others around them (Fawcett, 439). However, the limitations of this study showed that the communication barrier of the infants and the unresponsiveness of the infants put a delay of the study back. More trials had to be performed in this study because there seemed to be a lot of errors in the research, due to the infants not being able to cooperation
Description of Research
In this study models were used to displays 6 different toys to show the different conditions that can be displayed to the infants. Using so many objects in a study with forty-eight 18-month-olds can be rather confusing to the infants. The variation of the models doing different actions in a 90 second time frame seems like it would be confusing to the infants (Fawcett, 439)
Casual Inferences of Results
The study has shown that when two models were demonstrating an object to an infant together that the motivation of the infant would greatly increase to engage in the activity. However, it seems to be an issue if there is only one model presenting the object, it can further delay future experiments (Fawcett, 440).
Practical Significance
The forty-eight infants that were examined during this research have showed more tendencies of using joint-action condition with the objects used during the phases. The significance proves that this research is valuable for two models being used in the experiment (Fawcett, 439)
Validity of Conclusions
The results were proven to show that most infants and react on a joint action condition much rather than the other conditions. What makes this study difficult is that the infants being trialed in the research is that some did not want to participate in the activity making several errors in the study and thus making a delay in the study (Fawcett, 440)
PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT
This study was used to determine if infants can learn based on the joint action condition and if they are able to initiate and imitate actions that are presented to them by models or adults. Based on the results of this study the 18-month-old infants proved that joint action condition is a way of learning through observation (Fawcett, 2012).
Infants are able to invite models rather than parents to engage in this action. Thus, further studies that take place in the future can make it difficult if there if only one model presenting the study. This study has shown that learning through observation is possible through 18-month-old infants (Fawcett, 2012).
Paige Althaus
Terra State Community College
REFERENCE CITATION
Fawcett, C. and Liszkowski, U. 2012. Observation and Initiation of Joint Action in Infants. Child Development, 83 (2), pp. 434-441.
Feldman, R.S. (2011). Cognitive Growth: Piaget and Vygotsky. Life span development: a topical approach (pp. 153-155). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson.
TITLE
Observation and Initiation of Joint Action in Infants
INTRODUCTION
Observation is one way of showing how infants can interact and learn through play. There is very little evidence proving that infants can imitate through joint action observation. Many children observe while with certain objects and behaviors by others. Thus, the objective in this research is to examine “what infants learn when they observe interactions” and “whether infants, when observing others’ joint activity, encode the participants’ goals …show more content…
to act together” (Fawcett, 2012).
METHOD
Participants
The research was available to parents of the infants who were interested in participating in the study; the parents also had to join in on the study as well. The outcome resulted in forty-eight 18-month-old infants, who generally live in the European city and were white and lived middle class. There were indeed additional participants, however one of the infants was and error and the other 3 had refused to engage in the research (Fawcett, 2012).
Materials
This research required objects to be used in the study. There were 6 different objects which included: “(a) two bicycle bells attached to a wooden base, (b) two wooden levers on a wooden base, (c) a wooden drum with two drumsticks attached to it with cords, (d) a large plastic wheel on a wooden base, (e) a large plastic switch on a top of a plastic box, and (f) a trampoline with which a small ball could be bounced on a large plate.” (Fawcett, 2012). These objects were used in 6 different phases of the study.
Procedure
There were three conditions in which the infants observed the actions being performed. Those conditions included solitary condition which is where one individual was acting alone with an object. When two individuals were acting separately that was individual action condition. The last condition was joint action which means two individuals are acting together (Fawcett, 2012). The procedure began by assigning the infants with either the joint or solitary condition. The parents held the infants on their laps during the study. There were 6 trials being performed and the procedure involved a demonstration phase as well as a testing phase (Fawcett, 2012).
Demonstration Phase
This phase consisted of the first model displaying and object and saying “Oh, look at this” to get the attention of the infant (Fawcett, 2012).
This action was also demonstrated with a second model and this is called joint action condition. The two models reacted to the object simultaneously up to six times in a row to get the attention of the infant. After the demonstration of the joint action condition the first model says “This is fun” and made eye contact with the second model and the infant while using the objects together (Fawcett, 2012). The other conditions used the same action but with different objects. In the individual action condition, one model would say comments and act on the object and only make eye contact with the infant and never with the other model involved. The solitary condition was “performed by herself using her left and right hands as in the individual action condition” (Fawcett, 2012). The actions were very fast and only lasted approximately 40 seconds; the test phase began with only one model (Fawcett,
2012).
Test Phase
This phase lasted up to 90 seconds long. The first model would push the object towards the infant but would have their head down with their hand lying near the toy. “If an infant addressed the model, she looked at the infant, leaned slightly forward, nodded and said “Mm hmm,” and then sat back and looked down again” (Fawcett, 2012). The parents were however able to interact with the child but they were not able to initiate the interactions of the child during the test phase. Once this condition was over the other model would take over from the place of the first model (Fawcett, 2012).
RESULTS
The initial analyses have indicated that infants chose to invite their parent to join in the activity with them. This is called the joint action condition. “The results showed that infants made more invitations in the joint action condition than either the individual or solitary condition” (Fawcett, 2012). There was also a research to determine if any of the infants would invite both the parent and model equally and it turns out that the infants were more likely to invite the model than their parent (Fawcett, 2012). The main reason for this research was to determine if the infants were encouraged to reciprocate what they had observed from the object-directed actions. “All infants performed the demonstration actions at least once, with no significant difference across the conditions in the proportion of trials with imitation (joint M= 0.93, individual M=0.97, solitary M=0.94), F (2, 45) =0.71, p=.50” (Fawcett, 2012 ). As a result, these infants replicated the actions that were presented and performed on those objects; the invitations of the actions were also the same results from the conditions. (Fawcett, 2012).
DISCUSSION
The study that was performed was shown that infants were able to reproduce object-directed actions by observing a model performing the activity. This leads to infants inviting and adult to help them with the action. However, the individual action condition has given support of a different idea. “Seeing two people act on the toy is not sufficient to motivate infants to engage another in joint play” (Fawcett, 2012).
CONCLUSION
This study has an important way to show how children are able to observe through play and perform an activity and imitate a model that will eventually lead to joint action play. “The current findings are the first to demonstrate that infants also learn about others’ joint activities through observation” (Fawcett, 2012).
CRITIQUE
Characteristics
This article displays characteristics in psychology because it is a perfect example of Piaget’s Six Sub stages of the Sensorimotor Stage. The main stages that are used are sub stage 4 through sub stage 6. These sub stages are related to object permanence, and the representation of objects and how they are being observed by infants (Feldman, 155-156).
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study showed that the 18-month-old infants observed through 3 phases of conditions the actions that developed were imitated by the invitation of others from the infants. This proved that the infants are able to learn from action observation and use the conditions from joint action to play with others around them (Fawcett, 439). However, the limitations of this study showed that the communication barrier of the infants and the unresponsiveness of the infants put a delay of the study back. More trials had to be performed in this study because there seemed to be a lot of errors in the research, due to the infants not being able to cooperation
Description of Research
In this study models were used to displays 6 different toys to show the different conditions that can be displayed to the infants. Using so many objects in a study with forty-eight 18-month-olds can be rather confusing to the infants. The variation of the models doing different actions in a 90 second time frame seems like it would be confusing to the infants (Fawcett, 439)
Casual Inferences of Results
The study has shown that when two models were demonstrating an object to an infant together that the motivation of the infant would greatly increase to engage in the activity. However, it seems to be an issue if there is only one model presenting the object, it can further delay future experiments (Fawcett, 440).
Practical Significance
The forty-eight infants that were examined during this research have showed more tendencies of using joint-action condition with the objects used during the phases. The significance proves that this research is valuable for two models being used in the experiment (Fawcett, 439)
Validity of Conclusions
The results were proven to show that most infants and react on a joint action condition much rather than the other conditions. What makes this study difficult is that the infants being trialed in the research is that some did not want to participate in the activity making several errors in the study and thus making a delay in the study (Fawcett, 440)
PRESENTATION ASSESSMENT
This study was used to determine if infants can learn based on the joint action condition and if they are able to initiate and imitate actions that are presented to them by models or adults. Based on the results of this study the 18-month-old infants proved that joint action condition is a way of learning through observation (Fawcett, 2012).
Infants are able to invite models rather than parents to engage in this action. Thus, further studies that take place in the future can make it difficult if there if only one model presenting the study. This study has shown that learning through observation is possible through 18-month-old infants (Fawcett, 2012).