Mitsuhiko Ishikawa1*
Shoji Itakura2- 1Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Japan
- 2Research Organization of Open Innovation and Collaboration, Ritsumeikan University, Osaka, Japan
Learning new information from others, called social learning, is one of the most fundamental types of learning from infancy. Developmental studies show that infants likely engage in social learning situations selectively and that social learning facilitates infant information processing. In this paper, we summarize how social learning functions support human learning from infancy focusing on two aspects of social learning; pedagogical learning and selective learning. We also provide an overview of the developmental process of social learning based on the findings of developmental research. This review suggests that the learning facilitation effects of pedagogical learning decrease with development, while the facilitation effects of selective learning are observed even in older ages. The differences in these learning facilitation effects are considered to be due to the differences in the utility of learning in uncertain environments. The findings of the studies imply the unique nature of human social learning and the critical role of social interactions in cognitive development. Understanding the development of social learning provides valuable insights into how infants learn and adapt in complex social environments.
Introduction
Learning in the real world presents infants with complex challenges. As they develop, infants encounter a multitude of stimuli and potential learning opportunities, often without clear indications of what is important or relevant to learn. This ambiguity is particularly evident in word learning situations, where multiple potential referents exist for any heard word, making it difficult for infants to determine the meaning of an unknown word (Blythe et al., 2016). To navigate this complex learning environment and identify relevant information, infants engage in active exploration and information-seeking behaviors (Gottlieb et al., 2013). Since early studies of infant learning, literature has shown that infants tend to seek information from social sources and obtain new information mainly by interacting with and observing others (Baldwin and Moses, 1996). This type of learning in social situations is called social learning, which is the fundamental type of learning used across the animal kingdom to understand social life (Leadbeater, 2015). In contrast with other animals, because of social learning, human infants can acquire cultural knowledge from their social group during development (Tomasello and Carpenter, 2007). Thus, the literature has suggested that social learning leads to humans’ unique form of cumulative cultural evolution (Tennie et al., 2009). Social learning from infancy is crucial for knowledge transmission, which is unique in humans. In this paper, we provide an overview of how the social learning function supports human learning from infancy, focusing on the aspects of pedagogical learning and selective learning. Additionally, we summarize the developmental process of social learning based on the findings of previous developmental research.
Pedagogical learning
Human communication is a fundamental way to transmit knowledge. Natural pedagogy theory proposes that communication enables fast, efficient social learning from early infancy (Csibra and Gergely, 2009). This theory argues that infants are sensitive to ostensive signals that indicate communicative intention. Empirical studies have shown that infants engage in social interaction and learning under situations with ostensive signals. For example, another’s direct gaze (eye contact) has been used as an ostensive signal in experimental settings. Newborns are sensitive to direct gazes toward them (Farroni et al., 2002). Other’s gaze information is a clue to learning about the environment. The literature has shown that pre-verbal infants use gaze information to refer to associations between words and objects (Baldwin, 1993). When a social partner says a word, infants refer to another’s gaze direction to identify the object associated with the word. Thus, gaze-following behavior is important for learning from early infancy. Furthermore, it has been reported that infants’ preference for and cognitive processing of a target are enhanced by following another’s gaze (Reid and Striano, 2005; Ishikawa and Itakura, 2018). This suggests that tracking others’ gaze is important for learning about the surrounding environment. The literature has demonstrated that eye contact facilitates gaze-following behavior in infants, suggesting that infants engage in more social interaction in situations with the ostensive signal than without it (Senju and Csibra, 2008; Ishikawa and Itakura, 2019; Ishikawa et al., 2022). Looking at the same object with another person has facilitative effects on infant information processing of the object after following another’s gaze direction (Okumura et al., 2013). Moreover, gaze following situation enhances infants’ preference for the face (Ishikawa et al., 2019). Gaze-following behavior in the early infancy predicts language development in later life (Brooks and Meltzoff, 2005, 2008; Okumura et al., 2017). Thus, facilitative effects of eye contact on infant gaze-following may provide learning opportunities for infants and have short-and long-term facilitative effects.
On the other hand, several studies suggest that the learning facilitation effect of ostensive cues may not be related to communicative intent, but rather may be a bottom-up effect caused by the attraction of attention. Szufnarowska et al. (2014) reported that infant gaze-following behavior was promoted by drawing their attention through facial movements, similarly to ostensive cues. Additionally, in the context of other action learning, it has been shown that motionese (child-directed action) can facilitate learning (Brand et al., 2002). Motionese refers to the use of exaggerated and repetitive hand gestures toward infants (Brand and Shallcross, 2008). Through these exaggerated movements, motionese captures infants’ attention to the action. These studies suggest that during infancy, bottom-up learning facilitation may occur more easily.
Another well-known ostensive signal is infant-directed speech (IDS). IDS is characterized by a higher and more variable pitch, shorter utterances and more vowel alterations than the speech style used to talk to adults (adult-directed speech: ADS) (Golinkoff et al., 2015). Along with eye contact, IDS facilitates infant gaze-following (Senju and Csibra, 2008; Okumura et al., 2020), and this facilitative effect was observed in people in Vanuatu regardless of culture and language (Hernik and Broesch, 2019). Moreover, IDS facilitates information processing after following another’s gaze direction (Yoon et al., 2008; Okumura et al., 2020). IDS has been investigated in word learning studies because of its benefits for speech processing (e.g., Háden et al., 2020; Zangl and Mills, 2007). Longitudinal studies have shown that frequent exposure to IDS increases vocabulary in later development (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2014; Weisleder and Fernald, 2013). In experimental settings, IDS facilitates infants’ word segmentation (Schreiner and Mani, 2017; Thiessen et al., 2005) and their acquisition of word-object associations (Graf Estes and Hurley, 2013) more than ADS does. Studies have shown that IDS also facilitates infants’ learning.
Imitation has been observed in behavioral studies as an outcome of social learning (Over and Carpenter, 2013). Tomasello (1990) emphasises that imitation “involves the recognition and reproduction of the goal of the observed behavior, as well as the specific actions that brought about that goal.” In contrast, mimicry, another similar term, is defined by Tomasello et al. (1993) as “the replication of a model’s actions in the absence of any insight into why those actions are effective, or even what goal they served.” This distinction highlights the key difference: imitation involves understanding and reproducing both the action and its intended goal, while mimicry is merely a surface-level replication of observed actions without comprehension of their purpose. The importance of imitation in social learning is underscored by its crucial role in cultural transmission (Legare and Nielsen, 2015). Imitation enables the learning of complex behaviors that are difficult to explain verbally (Meltzoff, 1988), making it a powerful mechanism for transferring cultural knowledge and skills across generations. This goal-oriented nature of imitation not only facilitates more efficient and adaptive learning but also potentially contributes to the development of social cognition and understanding of others’ intentions.
Ostensive signals also facilitate imitations. Real interaction studies have shown that calling a child’s name and grabbing her attention before the action enhanced the child’s imitations after the observation (Király et al., 2013; Southgate et al., 2009). Moreover, eye contact facilitates mimicry of intransitive hand movements (Wang et al., 2011) and facial mimicry (de Klerk et al., 2018). The facilitative effects of ostensive signals on imitation have been shown in various age groups. For example, 8-to 13-month-old infants are more likely to use a tool successfully when they observe other’s tool use with ostensive communication (Sage and Baldwin, 2011). Moreover, 15-to 18-month-old infants are more likely to imitate the actions of an actor who ostensibly demonstrates action than an actor who addresses no one (Brugger et al., 2007; Matheson et al., 2013). Recent research on imitation has shown that ostensive signals not only convey communicative intentions but also alert infants to when they should focus their attention for learning. Kliesch et al. (2022) found that using ostensive signals as segmentation cues in action sequence learning enhanced imitation in 18-month-olds. Children may use ostensive signals not only to expect communication but also to segment incoming events or action sequences. Thus, ostensive signals serve as cues for when to engage in social learning.
Selective learning
Deciding who to learn from is important for social learning in uncertain situations. Studies on selective learning have shown that infants can select informants who are accurate (Koenig and Sabbagh, 2013). The reliability of informants is essential to deciding who to learn from. In this context, the reliability of informants refers to individuals who provide statistically reliable information and/or who do not offer information irrelevant to the task or action goal. Reliable informants deliver accurate and pertinent information that aligns with the objectives of the task or action at hand. The reliability of informants has been examined in experimental tasks through the manipulation of observational consistency and behavioral predictability. The literature has shown that approximately 8-month-olds infants can track the reliability of informants (Tummeltshammer et al., 2014). Tummeltshammer et al. (2014) presented faces cueing the locations of animations with different levels of reliability (i.e., reliable: always directed her gaze toward the box where the animal would appear; unreliable: Directed her gaze toward the box where the animal would appear on only one out of every four trials); they found that 8-month-old infants looked longer at the locations cued by the reliable faces than at those cued by the unreliable faces. In this study, reliability was manipulated based on the probability that gaze direction predicted an event (animal appearing), but it is possible that children built expectations about others’ gaze information from their experiences. In this interpretation, reliability can be viewed as the informativeness or goal-directedness of others’ gaze. By repeatedly observing the gaze cueing situation, children may learn the goal-directedness of others’ gaze toward where the event occurs, creating an expectation for the informativeness of other’s gaze. Other studies have also shown that children engage in selective social learning more with reliable informants than with unreliable ones (Koenig and Harris, 2005; Koenig and Sabbagh, 2013; Mills, 2013; Nurmsoo et al., 2010). For example, Chow et al. (2008) compared gaze-following behavior between reliable and unreliable conditions in infants aged 14–16 months. Under the reliable condition, infants observed an actor that showed positive expressions while looking inside a container with a toy inside. Under the unreliable condition, infants observed an actor that showed positive expressions while looking inside an empty container. After observing these situations, the infants conducted gaze-following tasks with the actors. The infants showed more frequent gaze-following in the reliable condition than in the unreliable condition, suggesting they selectively engaged in social learning with the reliable informant. The same manipulation of informants’ reliability was used in a study on selective imitation. In the imitation study, infants watched as an actor turned on a touch-light using her forehead (Poulin-Dubois et al., 2011). After this observation, the infants were given time to attempt to turn on the light. The results showed that infants in the unreliable condition were more likely to use their hands than their foreheads to turn on the light and that infants in the reliable group were more likely to imitate the actor’s action by using their foreheads. Thus, as shown in the studies of gaze-following and imitation, the reliability of informants modulates selective social learning in infants. In the context of cultural learning, children’s ability to assess the accuracy of information sources appears to be a crucial cognitive mechanism. This capacity extends beyond the familiar-unfamiliar dichotomy, suggesting that children evaluate the reliability of information independently of their relationship with the informant. Research indicates that when presented with conflicting sources, children prioritize demonstrated accuracy over long-standing familiarity (Corriveau and Harris, 2009). This finding underscores the sophisticated nature of children’s information-gathering strategies in cultural learning contexts, highlighting their ability to discern and prioritize reliable sources of knowledge regardless of pre-existing relationships.
Social group membership has also been manipulated in infant selective learning studies. For example, linguistic membership is a clue to distinguishing the in-group and out-group for infants. Infants from 5 to 6 months old showed a looking preference for a person who previously spoke their native language (Kinzler et al., 2007), and 7-month-olds listened longer to a tune that was introduced by a native speaker than by a foreign speaker (Soley and Sebastián-Gallés, 2015). These studies suggest that infants aged approximately 6 months have visual and auditory preferences for their native speakers (in-group), and such preferences may contribute to selective learning. In addition, infants aged approximately 18 months have been shown to imitate the in-group actor more than the out-group actor (Howard et al., 2015; Altınok et al., 2022). Buttelmann et al. (2013) found that 14-month-old infants imitated the in-group actor more than the out-group model, suggesting that at this age, cultural learning has already begun.
Development of social learning
From the neonatal period, babies have high sensitivities to social stimuli, such as attentional bias to another’s direct gaze (Farroni et al., 2002). Fetuses were shown to have an attentional bias to a top-heavy, face-like stimulus (Reid et al., 2017). This primitive attentional preference may be operated by configuration-sensitive mechanisms. Farroni and colleagues (Farroni et al., 2005) demonstrated that newborns’ preference for faces with a direct gaze is observed only within the context of an upright face and a straight head, suggesting that the driver of primitive preferences for faces may be the configuration of upright faces. Initial perceptual bias towards faces may provide opportunities to engage in social stimuli and learn about the environment in development (Johnson et al., 2015). Thus, infants possibly engage in social learning from the early stage of life.
Studies have shown that social learning within the context of pedagogical and selective learning is facilitated in infants before they turn 18 months old. However, these facilitative effects may be decreased or vanish in later development. For example, 20-month-old infants equally follow another’s gaze direction in situations with or without eye contact (de Bordes et al., 2013), suggesting that the effects of ostensive signals are decreased at this age. Matheson and colleagues (Matheson et al., 2013) compared imitation between 18-and 24-month-old infants in social learning situations with or without interaction. They found that 18-month-old infants showed more imitations in the interactive situations than the 24-month-old infants, and the 18-and 24-month-old infants equally imitated the actor’s action between interactive and noninteractive situations. These studies suggest that the facilitation effects of pedagogical learning may decrease during development. Computational modeling of the learning process of infant gaze-following behavior suggests that the facilitative effects of ostensive signals on gaze-following decrease during development because infants learn the action value of gaze-following regardless of the presence of ostensive signals (Ishikawa et al., 2020). A longitudinal study revealed that infants’ gaze following develops with the linear increasing pattern of age-related growth between 9 and 18 months (Mundy et al., 2007). The learning of action utilities may progress in socially engaging actions. As a result, paying attention to and engaging with another person is rewarding regardless of the communicative intent of others (Ishikawa and Itakura, 2022). Ishikawa and colleagues (Ishikawa et al., 2021) showed that direct gaze did not affect attentional shifts to another’s gaze direction, suggesting that eye contact did not affect gaze-following in adults. In early development, because what should be paid attention to and learned is uncertain, ostensive signals guide learning behavior, enhancing infants’ social engagement such as gaze following. However, if the value or utility of social actions is learned in the development, humans may be motivated to engage in social situations regardless of ostensive signals. Also, the development of attention during social interaction undergoes significant changes in infancy. It’s important to consider the top-down influences on social interaction in development. For example, Rohlfing and Nomikou (2014) observed that at three months, infants predominantly focus their attention on their mothers during interactions. By six months, however, infants’ attention becomes more distributed, indicating a shift from a singular focus on the mother to a broader attentional scope. This developmental shift suggests that infants are acquiring the ability to anticipate social sequences, an indication of emerging top-down cognitive processes, whereby infants begin to expect certain action sequences based on prior experiences. As these top-down influences strengthen, they may progressively diminish the salience of ostensive signals—bottom-up cues that initially play a critical role in signaling learning opportunities within social contexts.
By contrast, selective learning is beneficial in older ages. Burdett and colleagues (Burdett et al., 2016) compared the selective learning of instrumental tool use in situations with a competent or incompetent actor. The result showed that children aged between 4 and 7 years prefer to copy the competent actor, suggesting that children selectively learn from experts. Sobel and Finiasz (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of children’s selective word learning, reviewing 63 papers on 6,525 participants. Although the children’s task performances depend on age and task types, selective learning of words can be observed in children aged between 2 and 5 years. Oláh and Király (2019) compared the selective learning of instrumental tool use in 3-year-olds after they watched videos depicting two models: one who performed conventional tool-using actions, and one whose tool-using actions deviated from social conventions. Moreover, they used two demonstration situations with or without ostensive signals. In this study, children were more likely to copy the actions of the conventional actor, regardless of the ostensive signals. Thus, the effects of ostensive signals on social learning may decrease during development, and children continue to engage in selective learning. Selective learning retains its benefit in later development because it is supported by the knowledge or experience of others for efficient learning, top-down modulations on learning. Although social interaction can be rewarding during development, learning from an unreliable or out-group informant can cause non-rewarding or threatening situations. For example, out-group faces are recognized as threatening or fearful stimuli, signaling untrustworthy information (Mallan et al., 2013). An argument is that learning from out-group members could be less efficient or counterproductive and that selective learning could have evolved because it minimized the risk of deception (Montrey and Shultz, 2022). Gaze-following studies in adults have also suggested that top-down social information modulates social engagement. Top-down modulations, such as effects of group membership (Ciardo et al., 2014) and social status (Dalmaso et al., 2012), have been demonstrated to affect adults’ gaze-following. Thus, knowledge-based top-down modulations may have advantages in social engagement and learning in later development.
Another reason why selective learning continues to have a strong influence later in development could be due to infants gradually becoming members of a social group as they develop. As known in the phenomenon of perceptual narrowing (Werker and Tees, 1984), infants possess the ability to adapt to various environments early in development, but as they grow up, they begin to engage in cognitive processing that is tailored to their specific environment. For example, it has been shown that racial membership strengthens with development (Pauker et al., 2016). As infants develop in becoming members of a social group, the importance of learning from others within the same social group may also increase. Thus, it can be considered that selective learning is prioritized through adaptation to the developmental environment.
Future direction
As outlined above, social learning guides infants on when and what to learn in the early stages of development. The question of what aspects make social learning a unique learning style remains unresolved. For example, studies of correlations between domain-general learning abilities and infants’ selective social learning have shown no links, suggesting that social learning cannot be based on domain-general learning (Crivello et al., 2018; Crivello and Poulin-Dubois, 2019; Luchkina et al., 2018). A recent study also found no correlation between selective social learning and associative learning skills (Crivello et al., 2021). These studies insist that social learning is not a mere extension of associative learning in social situations. A recent study demonstrated that 18-month-old infants are more inclined to learn from an informant under uncertain situations despite the informant being unreliable, suggesting that the uncertainty of the environment modulates social learning (Kuzyk et al., 2020). Thus, the information-seeking tendency under uncertainty is correlated with social learning abilities. Further research is needed to examine how social learning differs from other forms of learning.
Also, future research should further investigate the mechanisms underlying the decrease in the effects of ostensive signals as infants grow older. Longitudinal studies could provide insights into how infants’ learning strategies evolve and how the facilitative effects of pedagogical and selective learning change over time.
Author contributions
MI: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. SI: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by the Bilateral Programs to SI and MI from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan (JSPS).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Altınok, N., Király, I., and Gergely, G. (2022). The propensity to learn shared cultural knowledge from social group members: selective imitation in 18-month-olds. J. Cogn. Dev. 23, 273–288. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2021.1966013
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Early referential understanding: Infants' ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Dev. Psychol. 29, 832–843. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.29.5.832
Baldwin, D. A., and Moses, L. J. (1996). The ontogeny of social information gathering. Child Dev. 67, 1915–1939. doi: 10.2307/1131601
Blythe, R. A., Smith, A. D., and Smith, K. (2016). Word learning under infinite uncertainty. Cognition 151, 18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.017
Brand, R. J., Baldwin, D. A., and Ashburn, L. A. (2002). Evidence for ‘motionese’: modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action. Dev. Sci. 5, 72–83. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00211
Brand, R. J., and Shallcross, W. L. (2008). Infants prefer motionese to adult-directed action. Dev. Sci. 11, 853–861. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00734.x
Brooks, R., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). The development of gaze following and its relation to language. Dev. Sci. 8, 535–543. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00445.x
Brooks, R., and Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Infant gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth through two years of age: a longitudinal, growth curve modeling study. J. Child Lang. 35, 207–220. doi: 10.1017/S030500090700829X
Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., and Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the right thing: Infants' selection of actions to imitate from observed event sequences. Child Dev. 78, 806–824. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01034.x
Burdett, E. R., Lucas, A. J., Buchsbaum, D., McGuigan, N., Wood, L. A., and Whiten, A. (2016). Do children copy an expert or a majority? Examining selective learning in instrumental and normative contexts. PLoS One 11:e0164698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164698
Buttelmann, D., Zmyj, N., Daum, M., and Carpenter, M. (2013). Selective imitation of in‐group over out‐group members in 14‐month‐old infants. Child Dev. 84, 422–428. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01860.x
Chow, V., Poulin-Dubois, D., and Lewis, J. (2008). To see or not to see: infants prefer to follow the gaze of a reliable looker. Dev. Sci. 11, 761–770. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00726.x
Ciardo, F., Marino, B. F., Actis-Grosso, R., Rossetti, A., and Ricciardelli, P. (2014). Face age modulates gaze following in young adults. Sci. Rep. 4, 1–7. doi: 10.1038/srep04746
Corriveau, K., and Harris, P. L. (2009). Choosing your informant: weighing familiarity and recent accuracy. Dev. Sci. 12, 426–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00792.x
Crivello, C., Grossman, S., and Poulin-Dubois, D. (2021). Specifying links between infants' theory of mind, associative learning, and selective trust. Infancy 26, 664–685. doi: 10.1111/infa.12407
Crivello, C., Phillips, S., and Poulin-Dubois, D. (2018). Selective social learning in infancy: looking for mechanisms. Dev. Sci. 21:e12592. doi: 10.1111/desc.12592
Crivello, C., and Poulin-Dubois, D. (2019). Infants’ ability to detect emotional Incongruency: deep or shallow? Infancy 24, 480–500. doi: 10.1111/infa.12277
Csibra, G., and Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 148–153. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
Dalmaso, M., Pavan, G., Castelli, L., and Galfano, G. (2012). Social status gates social attention in humans. Biol. Lett. 8, 450–452. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0881
de Bordes, P. F., Cox, R. F., Hasselman, F., and Cillessen, A. H. (2013). Toddlers’ gaze following through attention modulation: intention is in the eye of the beholder. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 116, 443–452. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.008
de Klerk, C. C., Hamilton, A. F. D. C., and Southgate, V. (2018). Eye contact modulates facial mimicry in 4-month-old infants: an EMG and fNIRS study. Cortex 106, 93–103. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.05.002
Farroni, T., Csibra, G., Simion, F., and Johnson, M. H. (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 9602–9605. doi: 10.1073/pnas.152159999
Farroni, T., Johnson, M. H., Menon, E., Zulian, L., Faraguna, D., and Csibra, G. (2005). Newborns' preference for face-relevant stimuli: effects of contrast polarity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 17245–17250. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0502205102
Golinkoff, R. M., Can, D. D., Soderstrom, M., and Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2015). (Baby) talk to me: the social context of infant-directed speech and its effects on early language acquisition. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 339–344. doi: 10.1177/0963721415595345
Gottlieb, J., Oudeyer, P. Y., Lopes, M., and Baranes, A. (2013). Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 585–593. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.001
Graf Estes, K., and Hurley, K. (2013). Infant-directed prosody helps infants map sounds to meanings. Infancy 18, 797–824. doi: 10.1111/infa.12006
Háden, G. P., Mády, K., Török, M., and Winkler, I. (2020). Newborn infants differently process adult directed and infant directed speech. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 147, 107–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.10.011
Hernik, M., and Broesch, T. (2019). Infant gaze following depends on communicative signals: an eye-tracking study of 5-to 7-month-olds in Vanuatu. Dev. Sci. 22:e12779. doi: 10.1111/desc.12779
Howard, L. H., Henderson, A. M., Carrazza, C., and Woodward, A. L. (2015). Infants’ and young children's imitation of linguistic in-group and out-group informants. Child Dev. 86, 259–275. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12299
Ishikawa, M., Haensel, J. X., Smith, T. J., Senju, A., and Itakura, S. (2021). Affective priming enhances gaze cueing effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 47, 189–199. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000880
Ishikawa, M., and Itakura, S. (2018). Observing others’ gaze direction affects infants’ preference for looking at gazing-or gazed-at faces. Front. Psychol. 9:363182. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01503
Ishikawa, M., and Itakura, S. (2019). Physiological arousal predicts gaze following in infants. Proc. R. Soc. B 286:20182746. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2746
Ishikawa, M., and Itakura, S. (2022). Social reward anticipation in infants as revealed by event-related potentials. Soc. Neurosci. 17, 480–489. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2022.2138535
Ishikawa, M., Senju, A., and Itakura, S. (2020). Learning process of gaze following: computational modeling based on reinforcement learning. Front. Psychol. 11:213. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00213
Ishikawa, M., Senju, A., Kato, M., and Itakura, S. (2022). Physiological arousal explains infant gaze following in various social contexts. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9:220592. doi: 10.1098/rsos.220592
Ishikawa, M., Yoshimura, M., Sato, H., and Itakura, S. (2019). Effects of attentional behaviours on infant visual preferences and object choice. Cogn. Process. 20, 317–324. doi: 10.1007/s10339-019-00918-x
Johnson, M. H., Senju, A., and Tomalski, P. (2015). The two-process theory of face processing: modifications based on two decades of data from infants and adults. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 50, 169–179. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.10.009
Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., and Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 12577–12580. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0705345104
Király, I., Csibra, G., and Gergely, G. (2013). Beyond rational imitation: learning arbitrary means actions from communicative demonstrations. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 116, 471–486. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.003
Kliesch, C., Parise, E., Reid, V., and Hoehl, S. (2022). The role of social signals in segmenting observed actions in 18-month-old children. Dev. Sci. 25:e13198. doi: 10.1111/desc.13198
Koenig, M. A., and Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Dev. 76, 1261–1277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849.x
Koenig, M. A., and Sabbagh, M. A. (2013). Selective social learning: new perspectives on learning from others. Dev. Psychol. 49, 399–403. doi: 10.1037/a0031619
Kuzyk, O., Grossman, S., and Poulin-Dubois, D. (2020). Knowing who knows: metacognitive and causal learning abilities guide infants’ selective social learning. Dev. Sci. 23:e12904. doi: 10.1111/desc.12904
Leadbeater, E. (2015). What evolves in the evolution of social learning? J. Zool. 295, 4–11. doi: 10.1111/jzo.12197
Legare, C. H., and Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innovation: the dual engines of cultural learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 688–699. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.005
Luchkina, E., Sobel, D. M., and Morgan, J. L. (2018). Eighteen-month-olds selectively generalize words from accurate speakers to novel contexts. Dev. Sci. 21:e12663. doi: 10.1111/desc.12663
Mallan, K. M., Lipp, O. V., and Cochrane, B. (2013). Slithering snakes, angry men and out-group members: what and whom are we evolved to fear? Cognit. Emot. 27, 1168–1180. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.778195
Matheson, H., Moore, C., and Akhtar, N. (2013). The development of social learning in interactive and observational contexts. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 114, 161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.003
Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Imitation, objects, tools, and the rudiments of language in human ontogeny. Hum. Evol. 3, 45–64. doi: 10.1007/BF02436590
Mills, C. M. (2013). Knowing when to doubt: developing a critical stance when learning from others. Dev. Psychol. 49, 404–418. doi: 10.1037/a0029500
Montrey, M., and Shultz, T. R. (2022). Copy the in-group: group membership trumps perceived reliability, warmth, and competence in a social-learning task. Psychol. Sci. 33, 165–174. doi: 10.1177/09567976211032224
Mundy, P., Block, J., Delgado, C., Pomares, Y., Van Hecke, A. V., and Parlade, M. V. (2007). Individual differences and the development of joint attention in infancy. Child Dev. 78, 938–954. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01042.x
Nurmsoo, E., Robinson, E. J., and Butterfill, S. A. (2010). Children’s selective learning from others. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 1, 551–561. doi: 10.1007/s13164-010-0043-y
Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., and Itakura, S. (2013). The power of human gaze on infant learning. Cognition 128, 127–133. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.011
Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kobayashi, T., and Itakura, S. (2017). Individual differences in object-processing explain the relationship between early gaze-following and later language development. Cognition 166, 418–424. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.005
Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kobayashi, T., and Itakura, S. (2020). Ostension affects infant learning more than attention. Cognition 195:104082. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104082
Oláh, K., and Király, I. (2019). Young children selectively imitate models conforming to social norms. Front. Psychol. 10:1399. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01399
Over, H., and Carpenter, M. (2013). The social side of imitation. Child Dev. Perspect. 7, 6–11. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12006
Pauker, K., Williams, A., and Steele, J. R. (2016). Children's racial categorization in context. Child Dev. Perspect. 10, 33–38. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12155
Poulin-Dubois, D., Brooker, I., and Polonia, A. (2011). Infants prefer to imitate a reliable person. Infant Behav. Dev. 34, 303–309. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.01.006
Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., and Kuhl, P. K. (2014). Look who's talking: speech style and social context in language input to infants are linked to concurrent and future speech development. Dev. Sci. 17, 880–891. doi: 10.1111/desc.12172
Reid, V. M., Dunn, K., Young, R. J., Amu, J., Donovan, T., and Reissland, N. (2017). The human fetus preferentially engages with face-like visual stimuli. Curr. Biol. 27, 1825–1828.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.044
Reid, V. M., and Striano, T. (2005). Adult gaze influences infant attention and object processing: implications for cognitive neuroscience. Eur. J. Neurosci. 21, 1763–1766. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03986.x
Rohlfing, K. J., and Nomikou, I. (2014). Intermodal synchrony as a form of maternal responsiveness: association with language development. Lang. Interact. Acquisit. 5, 117–136. doi: 10.1075/lia.5.1.06roh
Sage, K. D., and Baldwin, D. (2011). Disentangling the social and the pedagogical in infants' learning about tool-use. Soc. Dev. 20, 825–844. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00624.x
Schreiner, M. S., and Mani, N. (2017). Listen up! Developmental differences in the impact of IDS on speech segmentation. Cognition 160, 98–102. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.003
Senju, A., and Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Curr. Biol. 18, 668–671. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059
Sobel, D. M., and Finiasz, Z. (2020). How children learn from others: an analysis of selective word learning. Child Dev. 91, e1134–e1161. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13415
Soley, G., and Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2015). Infants prefer tunes previously introduced by speakers of their native language. Child Dev. 86, 1685–1692. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12408
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., and Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Dev. Sci. 12, 1013–1019. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00861.x
Szufnarowska, J., Rohlfing, K. J., Fawcett, C., and Gredebäck, G. (2014). Is ostension any more than attention? Sci. Rep. 4:5304. doi: 10.1038/srep05304
Tennie, C., Call, J., and Tomasello, M. (2009). Ratcheting up the ratchet: on the evolution of cumulative culture. Phil. Transact. Royal Soci. B 364, 2405–2415. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0052
Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. A., and Saffran, J. R. (2005). Infant-directed speech facilitates word segmentationn. Infancy 7, 53–71. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in0701_5
Tomasello, M. (1990). “Cultural transmission in the tool use and communicatory signalling of chimpanzees?” in Cultural transmission in the tool use and communicatory signalling of chimpanzees? eds. S. T. Parker and K. R. Gibson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 247–273.
Tomasello, M., and Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Dev. Sci. 10, 121–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00573.x
Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., and Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning. Behav. Brain Sci. 16, 495–511. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0003123X
Tummeltshammer, K. S., Wu, R., Sobel, D. M., and Kirkham, N. Z. (2014). Infants track the reliability of potential informants. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1730–1738. doi: 10.1177/0956797614540178
Wang, Y., Newport, R., and Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2011). Eye contact enhances mimicry of intransitive hand movements. Biol. Lett. 7, 7–10. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0279
Weisleder, A., and Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychol. Sci. 24, 2143–2152. doi: 10.1177/0956797613488145
Werker, J. F., and Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behav. Dev. 7, 49–63. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3
Yoon, J. M., Johnson, M. H., and Csibra, G. (2008). Communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 13690–13695. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804388105
Keywords: social learning, development, pedagogical learning, selective learning, infants, children
Citation: Ishikawa M and Itakura S (2024) The development of social learning: from pedagogical cues to selective learning. Front. Psychol. 15:1466618. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1466618
Edited by:
Anna Gui, University of Essex, United KingdomReviewed by:
Katharina J. Rohlfing, University of Paderborn, GermanyCopyright © 2024 Ishikawa and Itakura. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mitsuhiko Ishikawa, mitsu.ishikawa@r.hit-u.ac.jp