title: The ghosts in the computer: the role of agency and animacy attributions in "ghost controls".
abstract: Three studies evaluated the role of 4-year-old children's agency- and animacy-attributions when learning from a computerized ghost control (GC). In GCs, participants observe events occurring without an apparent agent, as if executed by a "ghost" or unobserved causal forces. Using a touch-screen, children in Experiment 1 responded to three pictures in a specific order under three learning conditions: (i) trial-and-error (Baseline), (ii) imitation and (iii) Ghost Control. Before testing in the GC, children were read one of three scripts that determined agency attributions. Post-test assessments confirmed that all children attributed agency to the computer and learned in all GCs. In Experiment 2, children were not trained on the computer prior to testing, and no scripts were used. Three different GCs, varying in number of agency cues, were used. Children failed to learn in these GCs, yet attributed agency and animacy to the computer. Experiment 3 evaluated whether children could learn from a human model in the absence of training under conditions where the information presented by the model and the computer was either consistent or inconsistent. Children evidenced learning in both of these conditions. Overall, learning in social conditions (Exp. 3) was significantly better than learning in GCs (Exp. 2). These results, together with other published research, suggest that children privilege social over non-social sources of information and are generally more adept at learning novel tasks from a human than from a computer or GC.
authors.affiliation: Department of Speech and Hearing Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States of America. Subiaul@gwu.edu
authors.forename: Francys
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Subiaul
authors.forename: Jennifer
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Vonk
authors.forename: M D
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Rutherford
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D003201:Computers; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2007 Oct;10(4):369-75
references.pmid: 17287996
references.citation: Cogn Dev. 2007 Jun 1;22(2):230
references.pmid: 20148122
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Feb;95(1):1-30
references.pmid: 15629472
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Aug;8(8):371-7
references.pmid: 15335464
references.citation: Cognition. 1995 Aug;56(2):165-93
references.pmid: 7554793
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Sep;35(5):1359-65
references.pmid: 19686029
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2002 Sep;38(5):840-55
references.pmid: 12220059
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2004 Sep;40(5):882-9
references.pmid: 15355173
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2004 Mar;40(2):162-76
references.pmid: 14979758
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 May;10(3):379-98
references.pmid: 17444978
references.citation: Cognition. 1999 Oct 26;72(3):237-67
references.pmid: 10519924
references.citation: Cognition. 1990 Jul;36(1):1-16
references.pmid: 2383967
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):275-85
references.pmid: 18194026
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Nov;69(1):1-34
references.pmid: 9871370
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 May;10(3):322-32
references.pmid: 17444973
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2405-15
references.pmid: 19620111
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Apr;13(4):148-53
references.pmid: 19285912
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1995 Sep;31(5):838-850
references.pmid: 25147406
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Sep;16(9):678-83
references.pmid: 16137252
references.citation: Q Rev Biol. 1992 Jun;67(2):151-74
references.pmid: 1635977
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2006 Jul;42(4):723-31
references.pmid: 16802904
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):51-7
references.pmid: 17362378
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 May;96(1):B1-11
references.pmid: 15833301
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Dec;16(12):995-1001
references.pmid: 16313665
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2006 Oct;9(4):335-53
references.pmid: 17024510
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2009 Mar;45(2):511-24
references.pmid: 19271835
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Jan;111(1):3-32
references.pmid: 14756583
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2009 Mar;12(2):267-86
references.pmid: 18766390
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 May 12;5(5):e10544
references.pmid: 20485684
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Aug 27;364(1528):2417-28
references.pmid: 19620112
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Nov;85(4):685-701
references.pmid: 20128784
references.citation: Learn Behav. 2004 Feb;32(1):4-14
references.pmid: 15161136
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 Jan;10(1):126-34
references.pmid: 17181710
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 22;106(38):16051-6
references.pmid: 19717433
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Jul;60(1):1-11
references.pmid: 10924198
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2010 Feb;83(2):222-34
references.pmid: 19969050
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2010 May;106(1):82-97
references.pmid: 20064644
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Aug;4(8):299-309
references.pmid: 10904254
references.citation: Child Dev. 2000 Sep-Oct;71(5):1205-22
references.pmid: 11108092
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2003 Oct;110(4):713-27
references.pmid: 14599239
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2005 Nov;92(3):276-302
references.pmid: 16081091
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Apr 7;275(1636):835-40
references.pmid: 18182368
references.citation: Science. 2004 Jul 16;305(5682):407-10
references.pmid: 15256673
references.citation: Prog Brain Res. 2007;164:303-22
references.pmid: 17920439