Development of Joint Action: Planning
[email protected]
challenge
Explain the emergence of sophisticated human activities including referential communication
and mindreading.
conjecture
Joint action plays a role in explaining how sophisticated human activities emerge.
objection
Joint action presupposes mindreading at the limits of human abilities.
So I think Carpenter is saying: the objection is correct, and we should reject
the conjecture.
Paulus et al, 2016 figure 1
Task: give the tool to another person, who needs to put the spherical end
into the box. (Tip: you need to grasp it by the spherical end and pass it
so that the other takes the cube-end; they can then insert it optimally.)
Paulus et al, 2016 figure 2B
challenge
Explain the emergence of sophisticated human activities including referential communication
and mindreading.
conjecture
Joint action plays a role in explaining how sophisticated human activities emerge.
objection
Joint action presupposes mindreading at the limits of human abilities.
So with respect to our overall line of enquiry,
it may still be possible to hold on to the conjecture if we can
overcome the objection.
Warneken et al, 2014 figure 1A
‘One child had to insert the turn-tool on the right of the apparatus and
then turn so that the metal rod stretching across moved the panel out of
the way of the ball. The other person could then insert the push tool on
the left, pushing the silver ball into the hole similar to a billiard cue.’
(Warneken, Steinwender, Hamann, & Tomasello, 2014)
Warneken et al, 2014 figure 2
Unidirectional : child A has to select the tool that B doesn’t have.
Bidirectional : child A can select either tool.
‘(a) Unidirectional: The left box will be opened first. Only the left
child has a choice. For success, this child has to choose the push tool
(lower left: thick handle, long thin top). The partner child has to
retrieve the only available turn tool (upper right: thick handle, short
thin top).’
(Warneken et al., 2014)
Warneken et al, 2014 figure 3
BU - first bidirectional then unidirectional.
The three year olds are hopeless in all conditions except the bidirectional
condition when they have first had the unimanual condition.
So there is no forward planning, but there is some evidence that three-year-olds
can take into account what another has done.
‘by age 3 children are able to learn, under certain circumstances, to take
account of what a partner is doing in a collaborative problem-solving
context. By age 5 they are already quite skillful at attending to and even
anticipating a partner’s actions’ (Warneken et al., 2014, p. 57).
Meyer et al, 2016 figure 1A
Child pass cups to adult who has one had occupied. Adult and child separated by
glass window, so have to reach around.
‘Example of a 3-year-old child engaged in the joint-action task with an
adult experimenter. (Top) The start of a trial in which the child has a cup
and sees the experimenter holding the cup tower in her left hand. The lower
two images illustrate the different possible response choices of the child.
The child chooses in one trial to pass the cup on the side that is
accommodating the other’s actions (middle); and in another trial, on the
side that is not accommodating the execution of the partner’s actions
(bottom).’ (Meyer, Wel, & Hunnius, 2016)
‘To build one tower, children had to pass five cups. Then the experimenter
introduced the next hand puppet with the same procedure. With each
change of hand puppet, she switched sides by putting the puppet on her
previously free hand ... in total four towers were built, two on each
side.’ (Meyer et al., 2016)
Meyer et al, 2016 figure 1B
Meyer et al, 2016 figure 1C
Meyer et al, 2016 figure 2
‘two measures of interest: the initial response choice (i.e. the first
trial only) and the continuous response choice (i.e. all trials except the
first)’ (Meyer et al., 2016)
‘In their initial response choice, children had to plan ahead without
having experienced how their own action would affect their joint- action
partner. Thus, the initial response choice reflects whether children
proactively planned to accommodate their joint-action partner.’ (Meyer et al., 2016)
Meyer et al, 2016 figure 3
3-year-olds and younger: not good at changing the side they pass the object on
to take into account where the other will reach it.
‘children proactively plan their actions in a way that accommodates the actions of
their partner early in childhood. By contrast, the flexible adjustment of
their action plans to their partner only begins to develop in the fourth and
fifth year of life. Notably, even at the age of 5 children only adjusted their
action plans to a surprisingly small degree’ (Meyer et al., 2016, p. 8).
I think: the good results on the initial response choice at all ages suggest that some
ability to take into account another’s immediate future actions may already be present
at 2-and-a-half years of age (although this is not strong evidence).
Note that the success concerns anticipating ACTIONS not antcipating PLANS.
Gerson et al, 2016 figure 1B
Subjects: three-year-olds.
Four balls, four egg cups.
Yellow balls must go in yellow egg cups, brown balls likewise.
One ball is brown and yellow and can go in either colour egg cup.
But you only have four egg cups, so you have to put it in whatever egg cup
will enable you to place the other three balls correctly.
Experiment: compare performance in an individual condition (child does all)
with performance in a joint condition (child alternates with puppet) and
a control condition with a machine (not joint action, but similar turn-taking
required.)
‘The joint play session consisted of nine trials. In the first, fourth, and
seventh trial, Kip let the child place the first (and third) ball and Kip
placed the second (multi-colored) and fourth ball. Kip always placed the
multi-colored ball in the cup that allowed all forthcoming balls to be
placed correctly. In the other six trials, Kip placed the first and third
balls and the child placed the second and fourth balls. This ensured that
the number of trials for which the child had to plan (by placing the
multi-colored ball correctly) was matched across the individual and joint
conditions.’ (Gerson, Bekkering, & Hunnius, 2016)
Gerson et al, 2016 figure 3
Results: When acting alone or alternating with a machine,
three-year-olds were above chance at selecting the correct egg cup for the
two-coloured ball. But in joint action they were not above chance,
and their performance was significantly worse than when acting alone.
The results indicate that
‘proactive planning for two individuals, even
when they share a common goal, is more difficult than planning ahead solely
for oneself’ (Gerson et al., 2016, p. 128).