Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:46:01.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological validity, embodiment, and killjoy explanations in developmental psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

Shane Zappettini
Shane Zappettini*
Affiliation:
Program in Cognitive Science, and Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. szappett@indiana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Keven & Akins (K&A) present a compelling alternative to the case for neonatal orofacial imitation, offered by Meltzoff and Moore. However, they provide little concerning what lessons their proposal has to offer developmental psychology more generally. I suggest three candidates and elaborate on how they raise outstanding methodological and philosophical questions for the approach taken in the target article.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e402
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chemero, A. (2011) Radical embodied cognitive science. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1983) Intentional systems in cognitive ethology: The “Panglossian Paradigm” defended. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6(3):343–90.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1997) Special sciences: Still autonomous after all these years. Noûs 31(s11):149–63.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1974) Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese 28(2):97–115.Google Scholar
Kiverstein, J. & Clark, A. (2009) Introduction: Mind embodied, embedded, enacted: One church or many? Topoi 28(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (2007) ‘Like Me’: A foundation for social cognition. Developmental Science 10(1):126–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00574.x.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1977) Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198(4312):75–78. Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/198/4312/75.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1995) A theory of the role of imitation in the emergence of self. In: The self in infancy: Theory and research, vol. 112, ed. Rochat, P., pp. 73–93. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. & Moore, M. K. (1997) Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting 6(3–4):179–92.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L. (2010) Embodied cognition. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shettleworth, S. J. (2010) Clever animals and killjoy explanations in comparative psychology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(11):477–81.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20(4):410–33.Google Scholar
Varela, F. & Thompson, E. E. & Rosch, E. (1991) The embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. MIT.Google Scholar