scholarly journals Imitation Primer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
cecilia heyes

In this Primer, Cecilia Heyes explains why imitation is thought to be a mark of cognitive complexity and an inheritance mechanism for cumulative culture. Recent research involving birds, ‘enculturated’ chimpanzees, and humans suggests that the cognitive mechanisms that make imitation possible are constructed during development through social interaction.

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon K. Schweinfurth ◽  
Josep Call

Abstract Reciprocity is probably one of the most debated theories in evolutionary research. After more than 40 years of research, some scientists conclude that reciprocity is an almost uniquely human trait mainly because it is cognitively demanding. Others, however, conclude that reciprocity is widespread and of great importance to many species. Yet, it is unclear how these species reciprocate, given its apparent cognitive complexity. Therefore, our aim was to unravel the psychological processes underlying reciprocity. By bringing together findings from studies investigating different aspects of reciprocity, we show that reciprocity is a rich concept with different behavioural strategies and cognitive mechanisms that require very different psychological processes. We reviewed evidence from three textbook examples, i.e. the Norway rat, common vampire bat and brown capuchin monkey, and show that the species use different strategies and mechanisms to reciprocate. We continue by examining the psychological processes of reciprocity. We show that the cognitive load varies between different forms of reciprocity. Several factors can lower the memory demands of reciprocity such as distinctiveness of encounters, memory of details and network size. Furthermore, there are different information operation systems in place, which also vary in their cognitive load due to assessing the number of encounters and the quality and quantity of help. We conclude that many species possess the psychological processes to show some form of reciprocity. Hence, reciprocity might be a widespread phenomenon that varies in terms of strategies and mechanisms.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 20160121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Mikhalevich ◽  
Russell Powell ◽  
Corina Logan

Behavioural flexibility is often treated as the gold standard of evidence for more sophisticated or complex forms of animal cognition, such as planning, metacognition and mindreading. However, the evidential link between behavioural flexibility and complex cognition has not been explicitly or systematically defended. Such a defence is particularly pressing because observed flexible behaviours can frequently be explained by putatively simpler cognitive mechanisms. This leaves complex cognition hypotheses open to ‘deflationary’ challenges that are accorded greater evidential weight precisely because they offer putatively simpler explanations of equal explanatory power. This paper challenges the blanket preference for simpler explanations, and shows that once this preference is dispensed with, and the full spectrum of evidence—including evolutionary, ecological and phylogenetic data—is accorded its proper weight, an argument in support of the prevailing assumption that behavioural flexibility can serve as evidence for complex cognitive mechanisms may begin to take shape. An adaptive model of cognitive-behavioural evolution is proposed, according to which the existence of convergent trait–environment clusters in phylogenetically disparate lineages may serve as evidence for the same trait–environment clusters in other lineages. This, in turn, could permit inferences of cognitive complexity in cases of experimental underdetermination, thereby placing the common view that behavioural flexibility can serve as evidence for complex cognition on firmer grounds.


This chapter presents and discusses different cognitive and socio-cognitive mechanisms that appear in the interaction between subject-avatars, and between subject-avatars and the 3D Digital Virtual World, constructed in the Metaverses, based on the results from the Digital Education Research Group GPe-dU UNISINOS/CNPq. In these contexts, the authors analyze how perception and representation occurs, the acts of doing, understanding, and raising awareness, and finally, enabling collaboration and cooperation in individual and social interaction with Metaverses. As the main conclusion, the experience built in the subjects' living and collaborating, represented by their avatars, and with MDV3D, favors learning processes, regarding the technical and didactic-pedagogic ownership of metaverse technology, as well as the execution of awareness processes about how learning occurs in these contexts.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Heather J. Ferguson

This chapter sets the scene of the book by providing key definitions of the concepts that underlie social interaction, and highlighting the importance of a lifespan approach. Traditionally, research on social interaction has focused on a very narrow age-range between 2 and 7 years old, when these skills are known to develop in typically developing children. However, over the last few years new paradigms and methodological advances have facilitated an exciting new body of research that has examined social interaction in infancy and beyond childhood. This chapter presents key theoretical models of social interaction, and considers the predictions that each makes about development across the lifespan, noting a particular role for cognitive mechanisms. It also introduces a range of methodological approaches that have been used to study social interaction, emphasizing the challenges that researchers face in applying these methods across the lifespan, and the opportunities that lie ahead thanks to new paradigms and technologies that enable more implicit and ecologically-valid research on this topic.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Migliano ◽  
Lucio Vinicius

Various studies have investigated cognitive mechanisms underlying culture in humans and other great apes. However, the adaptive reasons for the evolution of uniquely sophisticated cumulative culture in our species remain unclear. We propose that the cultural capabilities of humans are the evolutionary result of a stepwise transition from the ape-like lifestyle of earlier hominins to the foraging niche still observed in extant hunter-gatherers. Recent ethnographic, archaeological and genetic studies have provided compelling evidence that the components of the foraging niche (social egalitarianism, sexual and social division of labour, extensive co-residence and cooperation with unrelated individuals, bilocality, fluid sociality and high between-camp mobility) engendered a unique multilevel social structure where the cognitive mechanisms underlying cultural evolution (high-fidelity transmission, innovation, teaching, recombination and ratcheting) evolved as adaptations. As a result, multilevel sociality is behind a ‘social ratchet’ or irreversible task specialisation that splits the burden of cultural knowledge across individuals, which may explain why human collective intelligence is uniquely able to produce cumulative culture. The foraging niche perspective accounts for why a complex gene-culture dual inheritance system evolved uniquely in humans, and interprets the cultural, morphological and genetic origins of Homo sapiens as a process of recombination of innovations appearing in differentiated but interconnected populations.


Author(s):  
Andrea Bamberg Migliano ◽  
Lucio Vinicius

Various studies have investigated cognitive mechanisms underlying culture in humans and other great apes. However, the adaptive reasons for the evolution of uniquely sophisticated cumulative culture in our species remain unclear. We propose that the cultural capabilities of humans are the evolutionary result of a stepwise transition from the ape-like lifestyle of earlier hominins to the foraging niche still observed in extant hunter–gatherers. Recent ethnographic, archaeological and genetic studies have provided compelling evidence that the components of the foraging niche (social egalitarianism, sexual and social division of labour, extensive co-residence and cooperation with unrelated individuals, multilocality, fluid sociality and high between-camp mobility) engendered a unique multilevel social structure where the cognitive mechanisms underlying cultural evolution (high-fidelity transmission, innovation, teaching, recombination, ratcheting) evolved as adaptations. Therefore, multilevel sociality underlies a ‘social ratchet’ or irreversible task specialization splitting the burden of cultural knowledge across individuals, which may explain why human collective intelligence is uniquely able to produce sophisticated cumulative culture. The foraging niche perspective may explain why a complex gene-culture dual inheritance system evolved uniquely in humans and interprets the cultural, morphological and genetic origins of Homo sapiens as a process of recombination of innovations appearing in differentiated but interconnected populations. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The emergence of collective knowledge and cumulative culture in animals, humans and machines’.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John-Paul Ferguson

This article draws upon the changes in voting patterns for American laborunions in recent decades to extend organizational theory about howcategorization systems are reproduced and break down. Recent categorizationresearch emphasizes cognitive mechanisms for the reproduction of categoryschemes: actors explicitly evaluate organizations against an ideal set ofcategories. This article argues that category schemes can also bereproduced as the epiphenomena of stable social interactions. Such“relational” mechanisms are particularly useful for understanding whyspecialized organizations sometimes manage to diversify, despite havingsimilar audiences. When stable patterns of social interaction aredisrupted, category schemes that were reproduced by such interactionsquickly fall apart. Predictions based on this theory are tested on theattempts by American labor unions to diversify their memberships between1961 and 1999. Consistent with the theory, workers after the early 1980scame to vote for unions that diversified their organizing acrossindustries, but only if those unions had adopted organizational reformsconsistent with those described in recent literature on labor-unionrevitalization. The interaction between such revitalization attempts byindividual unions and the strength of union jurisdiction is explored usinga combination of interviews with current and former union staff andorganizers, and quantitative analysis of four decades’ organizing drives.


1974 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 299-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse G. Delia ◽  
Ruth Anne Clark ◽  
David E. Switzer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Rocca

The vast majority of everyday social practices involves a form of joint interaction with the environment which relies on establishing a shared attentional focus (Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). Languages mediate humans’ ability to coordinate attention via a specific class of words: spatial demonstratives. Words like the pronouns “this” or “that”, or the adverbs “here” and “there” are among the few undisputed language universals (Diessel, 1999, 2014). They are developmental (Capirci, Iverson, Pizzuto, & Volterra, 1996) and evolutionary (Diessel, 2006; 2013) cornerstones of language, and they are among the most frequent words in the lexicon (Leech & Rayson, 2014). Demonstratives are deictic expressions (from Ancient Greek deixis, “demonstration, indication”). They can in principle be used to indicate any object, and their meaning depends on the context of utterance (H. H. Clark & Bangerter, 2004; Diessel, 1999; S. C. Levinson, 1983a, 2004). Identifying their referent thus hinges on the availability of information on the perceptual context (which objects are perceptually available), multimodal cues (pointing gestures, gaze; Clark & Bangerter, 2004; Cooperrider, 2016; García, Ehlers, & Tylén, 2017; Stevens & Zhang, 2013), expectations (which objects are relevant for the present interaction; what the speaker may intend to refer to; Clark, 1996; Levinson, 1983) and cues provided by the use of specific demonstrative forms (e.g. a proximal “this” vs. a distal “that”). Yet, in spite of their semantically underspecified nature, these expressions function as powerful and effective coordination devices for social interaction. But what are the neural and cognitive mechanisms that enable the integration of linguistic, perceptual and pragmatic information required for the comprehension of demonstratives? Which cues on the intended referent does the use of proximal versus distal demonstrative forms actually provide? And finally, how can demonstratives function as effective tools for social interaction, in spite of their semantic vagueness? In the present thesis, I report three studies where these questions were addressed using novel experimental paradigms. The results of the three studies provide novel insights on the neural and cognitive underpinnings of demonstratives, as well as their key function in social interaction. However, their scope goes beyond an understanding of demonstratives per se. First, knowledge on the neural substrates of spatial demonstratives is informative with respect to the bigger question of how the brain extracts meaning from linguistic input. Secondly, our findings provide general insights on the relationship between language processing and extralinguistic cognition, highlighting its tight link to perception and attention (Article 1), to functional, action-oriented representations of the physical world (Article 2), and the role of partner-oriented adaptations of language use in successful social coordination (Article 3). Finally, this dissertation contributes to the development of new experimental methods for further research using demonstratives as a searchlight into core aspects of human cognition, and it outlines concrete suggestions in this direction.


2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnon Lotem ◽  
Oren Kolodny ◽  
Joseph Y. Halpern ◽  
Luca Onnis ◽  
Shimon Edelman

AbstractAs a highly consequential biological trait, a memory “bottleneck” cannot escape selection pressures. It must therefore co-evolve with other cognitive mechanisms rather than act as an independent constraint. Recent theory and an implemented model of language acquisition suggest that a limit on working memory may evolve to help learning. Furthermore, it need not hamper the use of language for communication.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document