Running head: INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN 1. Stageverslag: Ingroup-Outgroup Effects on Mimicry. in 4-to-6-Year Old Children

Running head: INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN

Stageverslag: Ingroup-Outgroup Effects on Mimicry in 4-to-6-Year Old Children Nina van den Broek (s4120361) Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen Honours Programma Docent: Marijke Kok

1

INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN

2

Voorwoord Het afgelopen half jaar heb ik samen met mijn stagebegeleidster Johanna van Schaik, PhD student verbonden aan het Donders Center for Cognition en het Baby Research Center, een onderzoek opgezet en uitgevoerd. Ik heb gekozen voor een stage bij een onderzoeksinstelling, omdat mijn interesse al de gehele opleiding uitging naar onderzoek, maar ik niet wist of ik dit in de praktijk net zo leuk zou vinden als dat het in theorie leek. Johanna deed en doet onderzoek naar mimicry bij kinderen en dit trok direct mijn aandacht, aangezien ik erg geïnteresseerd ben in de sociaal-cognitieve ontwikkeling van kinderen. Het afgelopen half jaar heb ik samen met haar een onderzoek opgezet en uitgevoerd om te ontdekken of jonge kinderen mimicry laten zien, en of dit beïnvloed wordt door sociale dynamieken. Nadat we dit onderzoek hadden uitgevoerd, heb ik er een onderzoeksverslag over geschreven. Ik heb ervoor gekozen om dit verslag in het Engels te schrijven, aangezien dat me veel oplevert met het oog op het schrijven van de bachelor scriptie in het buitenland en de Engelstalige Research Master die ik graag na volgend jaar zou willen volgen. Het onderzoeksverslag wil ik nu graag aan u presenteren, aangevuld met een logboek, de vooraf gestelde doelen, een nawoord en het beoordelingsformulier van Johanna van Schaik. Ik hoop dat u net zoveel plezier beleeft tijdens het lezen als dat ik heb beleefd tijdens het gehele onderzoeksproces!

INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN Abstract Unlike the adult mimicry literature, few studies have investigated mimicry during development. The current study was twofold: the first part investigated whether young children demonstrate mimicry and the second part investigated whether young children’s mimicry is sensitive to social dynamics. Forty 4-to-6 year old children observed four types of behaviors (i.e. yawning, head-wiggling, mouthrubbing, and cheek-scratching) performed by models in videos. Based on the minimal group paradigm ‘color’, the observed model was either an ingroup model (same color) or outgroup model (different color). Results indicate that children carried out the behaviors more often while watching the behavior videos than during the baseline (Z(39) = -2.29, p = .01). Moreover, results indicate that ingroup models are mimicked more than outgroup models (Z(39) = -1.81, p = 0.037). Future research should investigate live-interaction social manipulation paradigms affecting children’s mimicry. More research is necessary, but the current study is an important step in investigating the development of mimicry’s sensitivity to social dynamics.

3


4

Ingroup-Outgroup Effects on Mimicry in 4-to-6-Year Old Children Human mimicry has been the focus of research in different disciplines such as communication, neuroscience, and social, clinical, and developmental psychology. Its impact is vast, as mimicry has been suggested to be a critical part of human social interactions (Chartrand & van Baaren, 2009). However, research in children’s mimicry is often neglected, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the formation mechanisms of mimicry. Therefore, research should focus on the development of mimicry. Mimicry can be defined as unintentionally adopting an interaction partner’s behavior (van Baaren, Janssen, Chartrand, & Dijksterhuis, 2009). Research suggests that mimicry occurs unconsciously; mimicry occurs without the mimicker’s or mimickee’s awareness (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Moody & McIntosh, 2011). Additionally, mimicry can be manifested in different forms, such as verbal, facial, emotional, and behavioral (van Baaren et al., 2009). The focus in the present report will be on mimicry of behaviors. For example, an individual might unconsciously scratch his or her cheek after observing their interaction partner performing this behavior. Literature overview Adult behavior mimicry has been investigated many times. For example, Chartrand and Bargh (1999) showed that participants who interacted with either foot-shaking or facerubbing confederates were more likely to carry out the modeled behaviors than the nonmodeled behaviors. None of the participants were aware of the behaviors carried out by the confederates nor their own replication of these behaviors, demonstrating the unconscious occurrence of mimicry (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Furthermore, Bavelas, Black, Chovil, Lemery, and Mullett (1988) investigated adult behavior mimicry. In their experiment, participants were told a story about attending a crowded Christmas party, and described


5

ducking to avoid being run into by another person. As the experimenter was telling the story, she ducked to her right, demonstrating the exact movement she used. A videotape revealed that the listeners tended to duck to their left, mimicking the movement of the storyteller. Both findings showed adult behavior mimicry. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) labeled this phenomenon the chameleon effect, as individuals match their behavior to their interaction partner to blend in with their social environment. Moreover, this behavior mimicry in adults has a social function. In another study of Chartrand and Bargh (1999), confederates mimicked the participants’ behaviors or carried out neutral mannerisms. Afterwards, the participants were asked to rate their liking of the confederate and the smoothness of the interaction. The results indicate that participants who were mimicked liked their interaction partner better than participants who were not mimicked (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Once again, none of the participants noticed that the confederate had been replicating their behaviors. Moreover, results of a study of McIntosh (2006) indicate that both preexisting and manipulated liking led to more mimicry. Both findings show that mimicry ‘binds and bonds’ people together, serving as a social glue (Lakin, Jefferis, Cheng, & Chartrand, 2003). Finally, the social function of mimicry is demonstrated in a study where videotaped female participants viewed videotapes of female confederates who rubbed their faces while describing a picture (Yabar, Johnston, Miles, & Peace, 2006). Participants showed more mimicry of a member of the ingroup (same religion) than of a member of the outgroup (different religion). These results indicate that mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects. Unlike the adult mimicry literature, few studies have investigated mimicry during development. Yet, mimicry is found in young children. In a study using a video-based paradigm, 3-year-old children observed behaviors (e.g. yawning and laughing) performed by a model (van Schaik, van Baaren, Bekkering, & Hunnius, in press). Results indicate that


6

children carried out the behaviors more often while watching the behavior videos than during the baseline. It is likely that young children adopt an interaction partner’s behavior, just like adults, but more research is necessary due to a dearth of research. Finally, social functions of mimicry are not found in young children. Van Schaik and colleagues (in press) did not find differences in mimicry with a helper-hinder paradigm. The helper and hinderer manipulations were intended to elicit feelings of liking and disliking, respectively, but no significant differences between the conditions were found (van Schaik et al., in press). However, the lack of a social manipulation effect might have been caused by the type of paradigm. The paradigm could have been ineffective, as the children might not have generalized the models’ helping or hindering behaviors to the extent that they perceive the models as nice or mean. Another paradigm might have caused a social manipulation effect on mimicry. One such paradigm is the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel, 1970) eliciting an ingroupoutgroup effect. In this paradigm, children are assigned to ‘minimal’ groups, such as color, which leads to intergroup bias. Dunham, Baron, and Carey (2011) randomly assigned 5-yearold children to colors and made them engage in tasks involving judgments of unfamiliar ingroup (same color) and outgroup (different color) children. Results indicated ingroup preferences on explicit and implicit measures, such as resource allocation and attitude. Adult studies have already found that mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects (e.g. Yabar et al., 2006) and this paradigm is therefore likely to cause more ingroup mimicry than outgroup mimicry in children. Research aims and hypotheses In the present study, young children’s mimicry and young children’s sensitivity to ingroup-outgroup effects are investigated. In order to do so, we devised a video-based experiment including a baseline, behavior stimuli and a preference measure session. Because


7

videos are used successfully in adult mimicry studies (e.g. Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Moody & McIntosh, 2011), we presented the behavior stimuli through videos to ensure that all children saw the same behaviors. The current experiment addressed two research questions. The first research question was: do young children show mimicry? Due to a dearth of research, it is necessary to examine whether a range of young children unconsciously replicate observed behaviors, just like adults (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). We selected 4-to-6-yearold children, as previous research already indicated that 3-year-old children show mimicry (van Schaik et al., in press). By doing so, we are able to track the development of mimicry in young children after the age of 3. We included a baseline measure to compare natural behavior rates with rates elicited by observed behaviors (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). It is likely that young children adopt an interaction partner’s behavior, just like adults. Therefore, we expected that children would demonstrate higher behavior rates after having observed the behaviors than during the baseline. The second research question was: is children’s mimicry sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects? Investigation of social dynamics in children gains insight in the origin of social dynamics in adults and the necessary social skills needed to perform mimicry. To investigate social dynamics in children’s mimicry, ingroup-outgroup effects are created based on a priori preference of color. This paradigm is likely to make children like ingroup (same color) members more than outgroup (different color) members. This effect makes it suitable as a social manipulation paradigm (Dunham et al., 2011), as adult studies have already found that mimicry is sensitive to liking (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) and ingroup-outgroup effects (Yabar et al., 2006). Therefore, we expected that children mimic ingroup members more than outgroup members. Moreover, we expected that children have an explicit preference for ingroup members over outgroup members during an explicit preference measure, due to an ingroup-outgroup effect.


8

Methods Participants Forty-three children participated in this study (25 boys, aged 49 to 80 months (M = 64.8, SD = 8.1)). They were recruited from a kindergarten in the south of the Netherlands. Signed consent forms were obtained for participation from the parents. Three children were excluded, due to not wanting to watch the videos (n = 1) and not meeting the inclusion criterion of having attended to at least 50% of the behavior videos (n = 2). The final sample consisted of 40 children (23 boys, aged 49.0 to 80.0 months (M = 65.1, SD = 8.0)). Stimuli Four behavior stimulus videos (average duration 7 seconds), performed by two models wearing blue and yellow clothes, from the experiment of van Schaik and colleagues (in press) were used. The first two, non-manual, behaviors were yawning (Figure 1a.) and moving the head from side to side (head-wiggling, Figure 1b.). The second two, manual, behaviors were rubbing the fingertips back and forth across sealed lips (mouth-rubbing; Figure 1c.) and using the fingertips to scratch the cheek (cheek-scratching; Figure 1d.). The behavior movies were presented in a pseudo-randomized order; the same behavior was never shown two times in a row and the same model was never shown three times in a row.

Figure 1. Still frames of the four behavior clips, depicted with both models. The four behavior types: yawning (a.), head-wiggling (b.), mouth-rubbing (c.), and cheek-scratching (d.)


9

Procedure The children were seated in front of a computer screen with a webcam (Microsoft Lifecam, version 3.22.270.0) on top of it. The children were asked to choose their favorite color out of the colors blue and yellow, and pieces of paper in these colors were present to visualize the colors and to ease the decision. After the selection of the color, the piece of paper in the chosen color stayed on the table and the other piece of paper was put away. Subsequently, they got to wear a vest in the color they chose and were able to watch themselves in a mirror, to heighten their feelings of belonging to their ingroup. The only instructions given then were to listen to the recording of the voice that was coming from the computer. Upon conclusion, the kindergarten was given a storybook and a play game for participating in the experiment. Design The experiment consisted of four parts: the selection of the participants’ favorite color, the baseline, the behavior videos, and the preference measure. The experiment was performed using Presentation® software (Version 0.70, www.neurobs.com). First, the participants were seated in front of the computer and webcam. Subsequently, they chose their favorite color out of the colors blue and yellow and got to wear a vest in this color (Figure 2.1 and 2.2). The only instructions given then were to listen to the recording of the voice that was coming from the computer. Second, before the baseline, a recording of a voice in Dutch said: “You belong to the blue/yellow [dependent on their ingroup color] team, great! Now, you can collect a lot of points for your team!”. The children were instructed by a recording of the same voice in Dutch that different kinds of fruits would be presented on the screen, and that they had to say ‘strawberry’ if they saw a strawberry. The game functioned as the baseline (Figure 2.3, 120 seconds) and the participants’ natural rate of the four behaviors were later measured.


10

Third, pictures of the two models were presented in a randomized order by the same voice. The model wearing a shirt in the same color was referred to as a member of the same team (the ingroup) and the model wearing a shirt in a different color was referred to as being a member of a different team (the outgroup). Subsequently, the behavior videos (Figure 2.4) were presented. Each participant was randomly assigned to two ingroup behaviors: one manual and one non-manual behavior. The remaining two behaviors were outgroup behaviors. Ingroup behaviors were performed by the same-colored model and outgroup behaviors were performed by the different-colored model. Each of the four behaviors was presented six times, resulting in 24 behavior videos in total. Finally, a preference measure (Figure 2.5) was used to measure participants’ explicit attitude towards the ingroup and outgroup model. Participants were told by the voice they would see the two pictures of the two models again. They were asked the following questions in a randomized order by the voice: ‘Who do you like more?’, ‘Who would you like to play with?’, and ‘Who would you like as a teacher?’. The voice instructed the participants to point at one of the two models. Together, the selection of the color, the baseline, the behavior videos and the preference measure lasted approximately nine minutes.

Figure 2. The order of events during the experiment.


11

Coding The children’s behavior was coded using ELAN Linguistic Annotator (4.3.3, http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Lausberg & Sloetjes, 2009). The coding scheme, with a few adjustments, of van Schaik et al. (in press) (Appendix A) was used to code the children’s behavior. The coder was blind to condition and the order of stimulus presentation. Behavioral Measures The baseline and behavior videos period were separated; the baseline consisted of the duration of fruitgame and the behavior videos period was defined as starting when the first behavior video started and ending after the last behavior video. Behaviors that occurred during the behavior videos period, but before the first attended behavior video of that type were excluded. Per participant, it was counted how often each behavior was carried out and rates were calculated separately for the baseline, the videos period, the ingroup behaviors, and the outgroup behaviors. The rates were calculated using the specific behavior count divided by the specific duration in minutes that the screen was attended. Planned Analyses First, two control comparisons were run. It was checked whether attention towards the ingroup videos and outgroup videos differed. If this would be the cause, the ingroup-outgroup effect could result from more input of the ingroup videos than the outgroup videos. However, participants attended the ingroup and outgroup videos equally during the videos period. Additionally, it was checked whether the behavior rates were normally distributed. However, behavior rates were not normally distributed. Therefore, non-parametric tests were used to address the research questions. First, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test compared the baseline rates with the videos rates, addressing the first research question ‘do young children show mimicry?’. Second, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test compared the ingroup rates with the


12

outgroup rates, addressing the second research question ‘is children’s mimicry sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects?’. Finally, Chi Square Tests were used to reveal whether children explicitly chose their ingroup model over their outgroup model during the preference measures. As all hypotheses were directional, all tests report a p-value based on a one-tailed alpha level of .05. Results Mimicry effect First, the hypothesized difference between the baseline rate and videos period rate was tested to investigate whether young children show mimicry. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test revealed a significant difference between the baseline rate and the videos period rate. Children carried out the behaviors significantly more often during the behavior videos period (M = 0.39 behaviors per minute, SE = 0.11) than during the baseline (M = 0.17 behaviors per minute, SE = 0.06; Z(39) = -2.29, p = .01; Figure 3). 0,6

*

Behaviors / Minute

0,5

0,4

Baseline

0,3

Videos period 0,2

0,1

0

Baseline

Videos period

Figure 3. Mean total behavior rates, differentiated for the baseline and videos period. Error bars indicate one standard error above and below the mean; *p < 0.05.


13

Ingroup-outgroup effect Second, the hypothesized difference between the ingroup rates and the outgroup rates was tested to investigate whether young children’s mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test revealed a significant difference between the ingroup rate and the outgroup rate during the videos period. Children carried out the ingroup behaviors significantly more often during the videos period (M = 0.31 behaviors per minute, SE=0.10) than outgroup behaviors (M = 0.14 behaviors per minute, SE = 0.05; Z(39) = -1.81, p = 0.037; Figure 4). 0,5

*

Behaviors / Minute

0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3

Outgroup

0,25

Ingroup

0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0

Outgroup

Ingroup

Figure 4. Mean ingroup and outgroup behavior rates during the videos period. Error bars indicate one standard error above and below the mean; *p < .05. Preference measure Third, it was tested whether children explicitly chose their ingroup model over their outgroup model during the preference measures. A Chi Square Test revealed that children did not choose their ingroup model over their outgroup model for the third question (‘Who would you like as a teacher?’;

(1) = 0.002, p = .61). However, Chi Square Tests revealed a

marginally significant association between condition and answer for the first question (‘Who

INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN do you like more?’;

14

(1) = 3.01, p = .08; Figure 5). Moreover, a significant association

between condition and answer was found for the second question (‘Who would you like to play with?’;

(1) = 7.82, p = .006; Figure 5); the children whose ingroup color was yellow

more often reported wanting the play with the yellow model than the children whose ingroup color was blue, and vice versa for the children with blue as their ingroup color. 45 40

†

*

Frequency

35 30

Outgroup answer

25 20

Ingroup answer

15 10 5 0

Like

Play

Teacher

Figure 5. Explicit ingroup and outgroup preferences, differentiated for the three preference measure questions; *p < .05, †p < .10 Discussion First, this study aimed to identify mimicry in 4-to-6-year old children. In correspondence with the expectations, the results of the current study indicate that 4-to-6-year old children show mimicry. The children carried out the behaviors (i.e. yawning, headwiggling, mouth-rubbing, and cheek-scratching) more often during the behavior videos period than during the baseline. This finding is in line with previous adult studies (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Moreover, the results of the current study are corresponding with a study indicating that 3-year-old children show mimicry (van Schaik et al., in press). It is likely that young children show a chameleon effect when observing behaviors performed by models to blend in with their social environment, just like adults.


15

Second, this study investigated whether young children’s mimicry is sensitive to social dynamics. In accordance with the expectations, the results of the current study indicate that 4to-6-year old children’s mimicry is sensitive to social dynamics. Ingroup-outgroup effects based on a priori preference of color were created to influence the social dynamics and children carried out the ingroup behaviors significantly more often during the videos period than outgroup behaviors. This finding is corresponding with previous adult studies that indicate that adults’ mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects (Yabar et al., 2006) and liking (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; McIntosh, 2006). A previous study indicated that 3-year-old children’s mimicry is not sensitive to social dynamics. The results of the current study, however, indicate that 4-to-6-year old children’s mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects. A possible explanation for this discrepancy is that mimicry’s is the social identity development theory (Nesdale, 2004). This theory postulates that 4-to-6-year-olds get motivated by identity development and positive differentiation to be primarily oriented toward the in-group and attempts to positively differentiate it from out-groups. Therefore, it might be that the sensitivity of mimicry to social factors develops during childhood as an effect of identity development and positive differentiation. Furthermore, the results of the preference measure indicate that children have an explicit preference towards their ingroup. They significantly wanted to play more with the ingroup model than the outgroup model, and they marginally liked the ingroup model more than the outgroup model. This is in correspondence with the experiments of Dunham et al. (2011) indicating that 5-year-old children marginally to significantly prefer their ingroup over their outgroup on both implicit and explicit measures. The children of the current experiment did not prefer their ingroup model over their outgroup, however, when they were asked who they would like as a teacher. It is possible, though, that children do not see their teacher as an


16

ingroup, as most teacher are strict and try to maintain order in class. In conclusion, it is likely that 4-to-6-year old children have the tendency to implicitly and explicitly bind and bond with individuals that belong to their ingroup. The findings of this study highlight directions for future research. Children’s mimicry is sensitive to ingroup-outgroup effects, but it is unclear whether other social manipulations have a similar effect on mimicry. Moreover, it is unclear whether children younger than the age of 4 are sensitive to social dynamics based on any social manipulation paradigm. Finally, live interactions are necessary to allow real-life affiliation; a possible limitation of the current study is that the video presentation of the models prevented participants from interacting with the models, possibly preventing a real-life affiliation towards them. Therefore, future research should investigate live-interaction social manipulation paradigms affecting children’s mimicry, as they gain insight in the development of children’s real-life sensitivity to social dynamics in mimicry. In conclusion, this study identified mimicry in 4-to-6-year old children. Moreover, this study is the first to identify a social effect on young children’s mimicry based on ingroupoutgroup effects. More research is necessary, but the current study is an important step in investigating the development of mimicry’s sensitivity to social dynamics.


17

References Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., Lemery. C. R., & Mullett, J. (1988). Form and function in motor mimicry: Topographic evidence that the primary function is communication. Human Communication Research, 14, 275-299 Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893-910. Chartrand, T. L. & van Baaren, R. B. (2009). Human mimicry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 219-273. Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (2011). Consequences of ‘minimal’ group affiliations in children. Child development, 82, 293-811. Lakin J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14, 334-339. Lakin, J. L., Jefferis, V. E., Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). The chameleon effect as social glue: Evidence for the evolutionary significance of nonconscious mimicry. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 145–162. Lausberg, H., & Sloetjes, H. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 41, 841-849. McIntosh, D. N. (2006). Spontaneous facial mimicry, liking and emotional contagion. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 37, 31–42. Moody, E. J., & McIntosh, D. N. (2011). Mimicry of dynamic emotional and motor-only stimuli. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 679-686. Nesdale, D. (2004). Social identity processes and children’s ethnic prejudice. In M. Bennett & F. Sani (Eds.), The development of the social self (pp. 219–246). London: Psychology Press. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102


18

Van Baaren, R., Janssen, L., Chartrand, T. L., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2009). Where is the love? The social aspects of mimicry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 2381-2389. Van Schaik, J.E., van Baaren, R., Bekkering, H., & Hunnius, S. (in press). Evidence for nonconscious behavior-copying in young children. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry: Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 97–113


19

Appendix A Yawn:

Cheek Scratch

Mouth Rub

Head Wiggle

Target Region

Mouth

Cheek and/or forehead and/or neck

Mouth and chin

Head-axis

Requirements Target Region

Lips are parted, breath in is visible

Mouth must be closed when action is started

Head moves (earshoulder), must move head from full left/right to center at least once

Actor Region

Front or back of fingers

Front or back of fingers or hand

Requirements Actor

Fingers are bent and making scratching movements

Flattened fingers are moving across target

Optional Additions

Eyes closed, cover mouth with hand (also code as Mouth Rub)

Hand can be near or touching face already

Hand can be near or touching face already

Shoulders move

Exclusion Criteria

Stick out tongue; finger or hand in mouth = end of action

Finger or hand in mouth = end of action

Finger or hand in mouth = end of action

Movement cannot originate from hips or back

Measured from till

First frame in which (ff) lips part - ff lips are closed

ff hand touches face - ff hand lifted from face (if it stays lifted for >1sec)

ff hand touches face ff hand lifted from face (if it stays lifted for >1sec)

ff head axis tilted - ff head axis straight (if straight for >1 sec)


20

Logboek Periode

Omschrijving Activiteit

Tijd

December

Kennismaking met Johanna, kennismaking met het onderwerp,

20 uur

en januari

literatuurstudie

Februari

Bedenken en concretiseren van het onderzoeksdesign,

30 uur

literatuurstudie, presentaties voorbereiden en geven over het onderzoeksdesign aan de onderzoeksgroep Begin

Het onderzoek voorbereiden, het maken van een audioscript en

maart

praktische zaken regelen zoals vestjes kopen, beltraining volgen,

25 uur

ouders bellen en mailen Eind maart Pilots voorbereiden en uitvoeren April

Het eerste deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek voorbereiden en uitvoeren

20 uur 20 uur

op de basisschool Mei

De filmpjes van het eerste deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek coderen

30 uur

met ELAN en de eerste analyses uitvoeren Begin juni

Het tweede deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek voorbereiden en uitvoeren 20 uur op de basisschool

Eind juni

De filmpjes van het tweede deel van het ‘echte’ onderzoek coderen

40 uur

met ELAN en analyses bedenken en uitvoeren Juli

Het onderzoeksverslag schrijven

40 uur

Alle

Stagebegeleiding vanuit het Honours Programma: stagebegeleiding

20 uur

perioden

met Marijke, stageverslag schrijven, presentaties voorbereiden, geven en bijwonen

Totaal

265 uur


21

Doelen De doelen die ik in het begin van de stage heb opgesteld, zullen schuingedrukt vermeld worden. Daarbij zal ik aangeven in hoeverre ik deze doelen bereikt heb.

1. Het belangrijkste doel dat ik voor mezelf wil opstellen, is het voor mezelf duidelijk krijgen of ik onderzoek doen leuk vind. Ik wil namelijk graag de Research Master Behavioral Science gaan volgen na mijn bachelor PWO, en het volgen van deze stage lijkt me perfect om erachter te komen of ik onderzoek doen leuk vind. Dit doel is zeker volbracht. Ik ben erachter gekomen dat onderzoek doen echt iets voor mij is en dat ik het echt als mijn ambitie zie om de Research Master te gaan volgen en om later binnen een onderzoeksinstelling te gaan werken. Ik vind het heerlijk om na te denken over verklaringen en het beloop van fenomenen, en door onderzoek te doen kun je dit te weten komen. Ook vind ik het prettig dat alles in detail perfect moet zijn, wat goed past bij mij omdat ik erg perfectionistisch ben. Al met al ben ik erg blij dat ik deze stage heb gelopen omdat ik nu zeker weet dat ik de Research Master wil doen.

2. Een tweede doel is het zonder angst durven afstappen op mensen die ik nog niet ken op het einde van de stage. Ik had voor ik naar de universiteit kwam moeite met het op mensen afstappen die ik nog niet kende. Ik ben hier sinds het begin van de universiteit al flink in gegroeid, maar ik hoop dat ik dat door middel van het lopen van stage helemaal kwijtraak, aangezien je wordt gedwongen contact op te nemen met mensen die je niet kent. Ik heb veel geleerd wat betreft het met minder angst op iemand die ik net ken durven afstappen. Ik heb contact opgenomen met de directrice van het Baby Research Center (BRC) om te vragen of ik bij het BRC stage mocht komen lopen, ik heb veel scholen gemaild om te vragen of we ons onderzoek daar mochten uitvoeren en ik heb veel ouders gebeld om te


22

vragen of we hun kinderen mochten testen voor de pilots. Echter, ik denk dat dit doel nog steeds niet compleet volbracht is. Zo heb ik nog steeds wel een beetje zenuwen en kijk ik er nog steeds wel een beetje tegenop als ik contact op moet nemen met iemand die ik nog niet ken, maar gelukkig ben ik er al wel in gegroeid. Ik hoop dat ik door de positieve ervaringen die ik met deze stage heb opgedaan, in de toekomst nog meer kan groeien wat betreft het in contact komen met mensen die ik nog niet ken.

3. Een ander doel is het binnen een maand goed kunnen plannen van de stage met de andere vakken. Omdat er best wat druk ons als Honoursstudenten komt te staan, wordt iedereen gedwongen om goed te kunnen plannen. Zo moet de stage op een juiste manier worden ingepland tussen de Bachelor vakken zodat beiden niet onder elkaar lijden. Dit is erg nuttig voor mijn master en werk later, aangezien je binnen een onderzoek ook goed moet kunnen plannen. Gelukkig ben ik binnen een zeer korte tijd erg goed geworden in het plannen van de uit te voeren taken. Het lijkt erop dat hoe hoger de druk is die op mij staat, hoe effectieve en efficiënter ik werk. Het was natuurlijk niet altijd gemakkelijk om alles op tijd af te krijgen, maar ik heb nog steeds al mijn vakken met een bovengemiddeld cijfer kunnen afronden en ik heb ook mijn stage naar wens kunnen uitvoeren.

4. Daarnaast zou ik graag aan het eind van de stage beter willen zijn in analysetechnieken. Dit is belangrijk tijdens het doen van een onderzoek en daarom zal ik deze technieken nu, maar ook zeker in de toekomst tijdens de RM, nodig hebben. Ik kan ook zeggen dat ik dit doel volbracht heb. Ik heb vooral veel geleerd over nonparametrische testen, aangezien onze data erg scheef verdeeld was. Ik vond het prettig om hier meer over te leren, aangezien we hier in de opleiding weinig tot niets over leren. Dit is nu


23

net wat ik zo leuk vind aan het Honours Programma; je gaat net even een stapje verder dan het reguliere curriculum en je leert dat niet alles in de praktijk werkt zoals het in de boeken beschreven staat. Gelukkig had ik bij Academische Vaardigheden 2 al veel geleerd over parametrische testen, dus het reguliere curriculum en het Honours Programma vulden elkaar mooi aan.

5. Ten slotte zou ik graag aan het eind van de stage met minder zenuwen in het Engels willen presenteren. Ik zal mijn stage op een goede manier kunnen presenteren, met minder zenuwen naar het buitenland gaan en de sollicitatie van de RM zelfverzekerder doorlopen. Aangezien ik succesvol in het Engels mijn onderzoeksdesign heb mogen presenteren aan de onderzoeksgroep van het BRC, heb ik meer vertrouwen gekregen in het presenteren in het Engels. Ik vond het ondanks de zenuwen erg leuk om te doen en gelukkig kreeg ik positieve reacties van de onderzoekers. De zenuwen zullen de volgende keer dat ik in het Engels moet presenteren natuurlijk nog niet helemaal verdwenen zijn, aangezien ik ze zelfs nog heb als ik in het Nederlands moet presenteren, maar ik zal zeker zelfverzekerder voor het publiek staan dan zonder deze stage ervaring.


24

Nawoord Al met al was dit een van de meest leerzame processen uit mijn academische carrière. Ik voel me bevoorrecht dat ik deel mocht nemen aan het eerste jaar van het Honours Programma en de ervaringen van de stage stage zullen me een grote voorsprong gaan geven tijdens de uitvoering van de bachelor scriptie in het buitenland en de sollicitatieprocedure van de Research Master. Daarbij gaat dan ook mijn dank uit naar iedereen die het Honours Programma mede mogelijk maakt. Ten slotte wil ik in het bijzonder Johanna van Schaik bedanken voor haar opvallend open houding, constructieve feedback, positieve mentaliteit, vertrouwen en kennis. Johanna was een van de eerste personen die het gelukt is om mijn prestaties echt tot een hoger niveau te tillen en hier ben ik haar erg dankbaar voor.

INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN Beoordelingsformulier stagebegeleidster

25

Running head: INGROUP-OUTGROUP EFFECTS ON MIMICRY IN CHILDREN 1. Stageverslag: Ingroup-Outgroup Effects on Mimicry. in 4-to-6-Year Old Children

Recommend Documents