Stick to the script: The effect of witnessing multiple actors on children’s imitation
Abstract
What kinds of cues increase imitative fidelity in early childhood? The effects of multiple models and verbal framing were examined in preschool children (N = 259, 3-6-year-olds). Each participant was presented with one of eight possible combinations of type of modeling and verbal frame. The type of modeling involved: (i) a single model offering two demonstrations, (ii) two successive models each offering a single demonstration, (iii) two synchronous models each offering two demonstrations, or (iv) two synchronous models each offering a single demonstration. The verbal frame preceding the demonstrations emphasized either the instrumental outcome of the actions or their conventionality. Imitative fidelity was highest for the synchronous models (types iii and iv) and lowest for the single model (type i). Imitative fidelity was also higher for the convention-oriented than the outcome-oriented frame and higher for older than younger children. Children also provided more conventional explanations for their actions after viewing the synchronous models and after the convention-oriented framing. The results indicate that children's imitative fidelity depends on the number of actors and the way the actions are framed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Children imitated actions most faithfully if the actions were performed synchronously and framed as a matter of convention as opposed to outcome based, indicating greater learning for more ritualistic actions.
“In one study, children imitated actions most faithfully if the actions were performed synchronously and framed as a matter of convention as opposed to outcome based, indicating greater learning for more ritualistic actions (i.e., synchronous and symbolic acts; Herrmann et al., 2013).”
From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Herrmann et al., 2013
Cites
Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000018 · Cited by 4,126 · see citing works
It's All in the Timing: Interpersonal Synchrony Increases Affiliation
Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.949 · Cited by 1,334 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Given that rituals and synchrony serve to bind groups together (Durkheim, 1915; Hove & Risen, 2009; Reddish, Bulbulia, & Fischer, 2013; Whitehouse, in press), if children show greater imitative fidelity after witnessing two synchronous actors than after two non-synchronous actors, this would…”
BackgroundGoal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants
Csibra, G. (2008) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.08.001 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development
Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., & Harris, P. L. (2012) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x · Cited by 332 · see citing works
Self-citationThe essential role of ritual in the transmission and reinforcement of social norms.
Rossano, M. J. (2012) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0027038 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Imitation in young children: When who gets copied is more important than what gets copied.
Nielsen, M., & Blank, C. (2011) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0023866 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Does synchrony promote generalized prosociality?
Reddish, P., Bulbulia, J., & Fischer, R. (2014) · Religion, Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1080/2153599x.2013.764545 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Searching for Control: Priming Randomness Increases the Evaluation of Ritual Efficacy
Legare, C. H., & Souza, A. L. (2014) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12077 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., Mathew, S., Newton, E. K., Naar, N., Newson, L., et al. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1400106x · Cited by 639 · see citing works
The Ties That Bind Us: Ritual, Fusion, and Identification
Whitehouse, H., & Lanman, J. A. (2014) · Current Anthropology · doi:10.1086/678698 · Cited by 509 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework
Hobson, N. M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868317734944 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
“And, compared with causally relevant behaviors, which involve knowable sequences of action–outcome goals that can be tweaked to be more effective (Claidière & Sperber, 2010), noninstrumental ritual behaviors are done each time in the exact way as intended for ostensibly important, social-based reasons (Herrmann et al.…”
BackgroundMcKay, R., & Whitehouse, H. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0038455 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Self-citationAcerbi, A., & Mesoudi, A. (2015) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s10539-015-9490-2 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
“Similarly, Herrmann et al. (2013) showed that verbally framing a demonstration stressing the conventionality of the actions involved (as opposed to their instrumentality) is sufficient to increase imitative fidelity in preschool children.”
Cumulative cultural learning: Development and diversity
Legare, C. H. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1620743114 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Self-citationPursuing Darwin’s curious parallel: Prospects for a science of cultural evolution
Mesoudi, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1620741114 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Norenzayan, A., Shariff, A. F., Gervais, W. M., Willard, A. K., McNamara, R. A., Slingerland, E., & Henrich, J. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x15000655 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Motor simulation beyond the dyad: Automatic imitation of multiple actors.
Cracco, E., De Coster, L., Andres, M., & Brass, M. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/a0039737 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Gendron, M., Mesquita, B., & Barrett, L. F. (2020) · Culture, Mind, and Brain · doi:10.1017/9781108695374.010 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Herrmann, P. A., Legare, C. H., Harris, P. L., & Whitehouse, H.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Legare, Cristine H.
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 536-543
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2121362798
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 45.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/I005455/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- imitation, multiple models, synchronous modeling, conventionality, preschool children, social learning, explanation of action, age differences
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Models, Psychological, Random Allocation, Social Perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
