Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Procedures of Experiments 1 and 2.

Note that the information meeting with the parent (uppermost row) always took place sometime before the data collection (the remaining rows).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Stimuli in the demonstration phase.

Still frames from the stimuli used in the demonstration phase. In Experiment 1, the stimuli for the two conditions (smartphone vs. wristwatch) were closely matched but differed in whether they showed smartphone disruption (B) or wristwatch disruption (C). After producing the goal-outcome (I), the model removed the three props from the table, put another identical set on and performed the sequence shown in still frames D-I once more. In Experiment 2, stimuli used in the demonstration phase of the no-disruption condition were closely matched to those in Experiment 1 but consisted only of steps A and D-I, with the sequence D-I also performed twice.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Coding scheme for the four action steps and the final goal-outcome with specified sub-goals, operational definitions, and additional coding instructions.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 3.

Faithful imitation scores in Experiments 1 and 2.

Distribution of faithful imitation scores in the smartphone and wristwatch conditions of Experiment 1, and no-demonstration baseline and no-disruption conditions of Experiment 2. Each boxplot indicates condition median, midspread, and 1.5 interquartile range. Data points with values above 1.5 interquartile range not shown. * p <. 05 and ** p < .001 by exact two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test. † p < .05, by exact two-tailed test Mann-Whitney test.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Goal-outcome imitation in Experiments 1 and 2.

Number of children producing the final goal-outcome in the smartphone (n = 24) and wristwatch (n = 24) conditions of Experiment 1 (between subject design), and no-demonstration baseline (n = 21) and no-disruption baseline (n = 21) conditions of Experiment 2 (within-subject design). Note that in Experiment 2 only children who produced valid data in both conditions were included in this analysis. White bars indicate toddlers who did not produce the goal-outcome. Black bars indicate toddlers who produced the goal-outcome. Stripped bar indicates children who produced the goal-outcome only in no-disruption condition, but not in baseline. * p <. 05 by exact two-sided McNemar’s test.

More »

Fig 4 Expand