patterns of imitation in mentally retarded children

Scand. J . Psychol., 1976,17, 1 0 4 - 1 14

Patterns of imitation in mentally retarded children

ROBERT F. QUILTY RITVA SOLOWSKI SINIKKA MALINIEMI

‘ I

Absfacf.-In this report, the interchange theory of imitation was extended to mentally retarded children. Re- tardates were expected to observe and copy adults, using external cues and internal controls as aids. In Experiment I external cues were studied. Twenty-four speaking and 24 non-speaking retardates were paired with adults who gave half the children instructions to copy and the other half additional verbal and gestural cues. Non-speaking retardates receiving frequent cues attended and copied better than those getting initial instructions, gestural cues being equally or more effective than verbal ones. Speaking retardates getting repeated cues finished copying sooner than those getting only instructions, verbal and gestural cues being equally effective. In Experiment I1 internal controls over appropriate imitation were studied. Twenty-two retardates were trained to sit, observe and copy their teachers in a two-month program. Training was evaluated in situations where copying or playing was signalled. Overall, children attended and copied more in the appropriate situation. However, sitting, attention, and copying increased non-specifically in both situations, and initial situational differences in copying were not observed after treatment. The interchange theory was revised, and implications for attention-deficit and verbal self-control theories were discussed. Notions of “generalized imitation” were criticized.

Imitation is an important learning process in both socialization and education. How the child learns to copy specific behaviors and to abstract principles for action through observation is central to several theories of development (Bandura, 1969 & 1972; Langer, 1969; Piaget, 1953; Slobin, 1968). Imita- tional skills, however, are severely limited in mentally retarded children (Bufford, 1971; Ross & Ross, 1972). The matter is complicated by a lack of information: a recent comprehensive text about mental retardation by Clarke and Clarke (1974~) contained little over a single page specifically about imitation (p. 746). We undertook a series of experiments to extend recent developments in imitation by normal children (Quilty, in press, Steinman, 1973) t o imitation by mental retardates. We viewed imitation as a

Rinnekoti Central Institute, Finlana

pattern of attentional and copying behavior which is cued by adults in certain settings. In a n initial experiment we studied how adult cues affect imitational behaviors; in the second we examfned situational determinants of imitation.

Mentally retarded children have been found to have poor attentional and copying skills. Several researchers have noted that retardates attend infre- quently in classrooms (Fisher, 1970; Ross & Ross, 1972) and attend to irrelevant stimuli (Zeaman & House, 1963). Damage to the central nervous system has often been used t o explain these deficits (Galbraith, Gliddon, & Busk, 1970; Moskowitz & Lohmann, 1970). Similarly, mentally retarded and autistic children have been found to copy adults poorly (Lovaas, Freitas, Nelson, & Whalen, 1967; Risley & Wolf, 1967) or only for short intervals (Bufford, 1971). The short attention and working span of retardates can also be interpreted in terms of Luria’s (1961 & 1969) proposals that the internalized verbal self-control of mentally retarded children is weak and that retardates have difficulty in verbally guiding their own activity, whether it is imitational or simply motoric.

In the present work, we proposed that imitation is one type of patterned behavior. Normal children ordinarily observe and copy adults in two-person settings when adults provide cues for either behavior (Quilty, in press). We hypothesized that retarded children pattern their behavior through internal signals and self-instructions, as well as through external supports, cues, and prods for the appropriate behavior. We felt that retarded children inefficiently use internal controls or available external signals which are ordinarily provided by adults for imitation. This formulation leads to several questions about imitation by mental retardates. First, how d o external signals affect attention and copying responses in mental retardates? A related

Sc.und. J . Psycho/ . 17

Patterns of imitation in mentally retarded children 105

question is how the abilities of the subjects interact with the effect of external cues. The first experiment studied two types of social cues-verbal and gestural-on the imitation of speaking and non- speaking mentally retarded children during brief adult-child encounters. The second study concerned internal self-control and situationally appropriate imitation by retardates in their classrooms. Together, the experiments provided a test of the interchange hypothesis and the role of external and internal determinants of imitation by mentally retarded children.

EXPERIMENT I

Initially we addressed the questions-how do social cues affect the retarded child‘s attention and copying behavior? What cues are effective; do they depend on the skills of the child?

The interchange theory of imitation (Quilty, in press) suggests that the adult helps the child to attend to relevant stimuli and to copy the adult’s behavior. Indeed, this expectation has been supported by previous research. Lovaas (Lovaas et al., 1967) and Risley & Wolf (1967) have used direct physical prods and aids to make mentally retarded or autistic children attend to the adult. These researchers used candy rewards to reinforce the children’s attention to sounds before the prods and supports were eliminated. In a similar vein, other researchers (Lovaas et al., 1966) have helped the child to form the desired copy responses. Copying responses were then reinforced and established in many autistic children, although the transfer of the learning to other situations was questionable. Reinforcement, together with proper elicitation of the correct copying resonses, seems to increase the frequency of imitation; it may even lead to “generalized’ imitation, where the child copies both rewarded and unrewarded responses (Metz. 1965; Steinman, 1973). Explicit verbal instructions also elicit copying by retardates, but the effect is short-lived (Bufford, 1971). This result parallels findings by Luria (1961). where explicit instructions reliably elicited button-pressing, but only for a short time. In general, mentally retarded and autistic children have been helped to watch and copy adults if their actions are physically elicited or guided by explicit instructions. However, the relative effec- tiveness of physical supports, as compared to verbal cues, has not been investigated.

The effect of adult cues for imitation may partly depend on the initial abilities of the child. Previous findings show that the verbal ability of the child may be one important skill that could influence the effect of the adult’s signals for action. Milgram & Furth (1963) and Milgram (1966) have shown that deaf children who had no active speech performed grouping tasks more poorly than normals if the task was related to language experience. However, the deaf children performed about as well as normal children if the task was not biased in favor of those with normal language skills. Furth (1961 & 1973) has proposed that children without speech may not perform well on verbal tasks, but that these children may respond well on tasks not requiring verbal skills. Furth’s comments concerned deaf‘ children but may apply to mentally retarded children. Verbal directions and cues may be more effective for retarded children having speech than those without speech. Conversely, gestural, non-verbal cues may be more effective than verbal cues for mental retardates without active speech ability.

The initial study was designed to test hypotheses developed from the interchange position. Forty- eight mentally retarded children with minimal skills were paired with adults. Half the children were reported to speak normally or to use short sentences; the other half were reported to say only isolated words or none at all. The adults either instructed the children to observe and copy motor activities or frequently provided additional cues for those activities. The types of cues were also varied: short, explicit commands and suggestive gestural cues were used. We expected that both groups of retarded children would attend and copy more often, and pattern their behavior better if they received frequent cues rather than initial instructions. Alternative behaviors-joint and isolate play, as well as distraction-were expected to decrease in those conditions getting frequent cues. Further, we proposed that gestural cues would be more effective than verbal cues for non-speaking retardates and the verbal cues would be more effective than gestural cues for the speaking subjects.

Method Subjects. Forty-eight mentally retarded children from Rinnekoti Central Institute, Espoo, Finland, acted as subjects. All subjects had normal or corrected vision. All bul two aubjects had normal hearing; the subjects with poor hearing, however, indicated that they could hear the experimenters. The subjects had normal coordination, or

Frond I P<\~rhol 1 ;

106 R . F . Quilty et al.

Table 1. Ages, retardation levels, and medical diagnoses of all subjects

Degree of retardation of subjects Other diagnoses of subjects Mean age Mod- Pro- Unde- Epi- Psy- Down’s

Group n (years) Light erate Severe found termined lepsy chosis syndrome

Experiment 1 Non-speakers 24 12.5 1 6 11 5 1 4 6 5 Speakers 24 15.5 3 14 6 0 1 7 1 5

Experiment I1 Kindergarten I 1 10.8 3 6 1 0 2 1 2 6 School 1 1 13.1 2 8 0 0 1 1 1 0

enough motor skill to eat without help. The age range was restricted to between five and 20 years; IQ was not above an estimated 54. The composition of the groups i s found in Table 1. The speech ability of the subjects was determined from the children’s records. Children in the speaking condition were reported to use sentences of four or more words. Non-speaking children were reported by medical doctors or speech therapists to say only isolated words or to have no speech at all. Subjects were divided on speech ability and not on IQ or MA, in view of Clarke & Clarke’s (1974b, p. 263) comments on the matter.

Experimenters. The experimenters were three female students at the University of Helsinki. All had prior experience in administering psychological tests. However, one experimenter had no previous experience with mentally retarded populations.

Equipment. The encounters were videotaped by a Sony AC-3620 recorder. The television camera was hidden in the far comer of the room, about 2.5 meters from the child‘s seat. A microphone was attached to an overhang- ing desk lamp and did not attract attention. Finally, the audio input was mixed with a ‘beep’ that sounded every 5 sec, providing an index of elapsed time and limits for the behavioral ratings of the interchanges.

Materials. The materials were a set of brightly colored wooden building blocks of four different lengths. The standard design resembled a square with pieces protruding toward the inside.

Procedure. The speech ability of the subjects, their experimental condition, and the three experimenters were considered fixed factors, which were completely crossed with each other. The children in each group were randomly assigned to both conditions and experimenters. Each experimenter met the children at the door and led them individually to a modestly decorated experimental room. Thembject sat at the end of a table, while the experimenter sat at the corner of the table, facing the subject at a right angle. The experimenter then presented one of the two conditions to the subject.

In the instructions condition, the experimenter told the subject (translated from Finnish), ‘‘I am now going to make a design. Watch closely and then make the same design”. A tray of building blocks was put on the table, and the experimenter immediately began making a square design from eight blocks, adding blocks about every 10 sec. If the subjects did not use the blocks before the

Srund. J . Psschol. 17

experimenter had finished the design, they were then told, “Now it’s your turn”.

In the repeated cues condition, the experimenter gave the same instructions as above. In addition, the adult gave various cues for attention in random order, about every 15 sec if the child was not attending to the adult’s ongoing activity: (a) verbal: “Watch now”; (6) gestural: the experimenter patted the subject’s arm and then pointed to the design; ( c ) verbal-gestural: the experimenter said, “Watch now”, and pointed to the design. Likewise the experimenter gave three types of cues for copying in random order if the child was not copying the adult after the adult’s design was completed: ( a ) verbal: “Now you make this”; ( b ) gestural: The experimenter patted the subject’s arm, pointed to the design, and then pushed blocks in front of the subject; (c) verbal-gestural: the experimenter said, “Now you make this”, while pointing to the completed design.

The encounter continued until the children completed copying the design, stopped working on their own design, did not do anything for 2 minutes after the adult finished, or after a total of 5 min, whichever came soonest. The adult attempted to be friendly and to talk only about irrelevant topics-the wards, weather, and caretakers. In addition, the experimenter did not change her facial ex- pression, even if the child looked curiously at her, and did not answer questions about what the child should do. Finally, the adult was required to keep the child from destroying the completed design, or to rebuild it if necessary.

Measures. The videotapes provided three types of measures about the interactions. A performance measure was developed by counting the number of blocks and joints that were identical to those used by the adult. How- ever, the child‘s object had to be in part similar to the standard, which had right pieces and seven joints. The highest possible score was 15.

The child‘s behaviors were coded for the first three minutes of each encounter. An ‘attentional’ response was marked each time within each 5-sec period that a subject looked at or turned to the adult’s activity or completed object. A ‘distraction’ response was marked each time within a 5-sec period that a child looked about the room or away from the table and experimenter. Attention and distraction responses were not marked for their duration. A ‘copy’ response was coded each time a child had finished


Table 2. Mean scores of all groups in Experiment I

Measures

Copying Copying Atten- Distrac- Isolate Joint Group score response tion tion Play Play

Speaking subjects Instructions Repeated cues

Instructions Repeated cues

Non-speaking subjects

5.91 9.75 15.33 1.67 .83 .17 6.25 3.33 14.17 1.67 3.17 5.17

1.25 - 8.92 12.25 2.42 5.50 2.33 1.83 13.00 9.75 3.67 1.67

Standard Deviation of measures 1.01 1.40 1.07 1.85 1.13 1.31

The standard deviations are those estimated by the Scheffk technique for pairwise comparisons.

placing a block onto a design that was similar to the adult’s. An ‘isolate play’ response was coded each time a child had finished putting a block onto a design that was not similar to the adult’s. A ‘joint play’ response was marked when a child had finished placing a block onto the same blocks that the adult was working on or had worked with. All three play and copying categories were marked in the 5-sec time period in which the response was completed.

The videotapes also allowed the sequence of adult-child responses to be measured. The proportion of each of the adult’s verbal or gestural cues that was followed by attentional or copying responses by the child was calculated for each subject. These measures allowed the sequential dependence of the subjects’ responses upon the adults’ responses to be determined.

The videotapes were scored by one rater, and a random subsample of 12 subjects were later scored by an inde- pendent rater. The inter-rater agreement on find copying scores was r=0.98 (df=22; p<O.OI). The raters also agreed on an average of 76 % of the behaviors coded, and an average of 90% for the placement of behaviors on which there was agreement within a particular 5-sec period. The category agreement was estimated by counting the number of errors (omissions and disagreements) and dividing the number of errors by the number of responses scored by either or both of the raters. The time- period agreement was calculated by counting the number of misplaced responses on which there was agreement and dividing the number of disagreements by the total number of responses scored by both raters.

Unless specified otherwise, all t-tests in Experiment I are Scheffe comparisons with df=6.

Results For each of the behavioral measures, an analysis of variance was performed; Scheffe comparisons were used to test the hypotheses if the analyses showed a signiscant Conditionx Speech Ability interaction. Fisher & Yates’ probability tables (1948) were used on the sequential measures because of the small

number of subjects involved. Although differences between speaking and non-speaking subjects are open to various interpretations, several main effects were found. Overall, subjects with speech ability made more copy responses ( F = 11.18), received higher copying scores ( F = 13.04);made more attentional responses (F=9.09) , and fewer distraction responses (F=18.24; all d f = l , 36; p<O.OI) than subjects with no speech ability. The remaining analyses are concerned with differences within the speaking and non-speaking groups.

Table 2 shows the mean frequencies of behaviors and mean copying scores for all groups of subjects. The two lowest rows indicate that additional cues increased attention and decreased ‘one off -task behavior in the non-speaking retarded children. Non- speaking subjects in the repeated cues condition had a lower mean frequency of joint-play responses than non-speakers in the instructions condition, as expected ( t=2.92; p<0.02). Also as predicted, non-speakers receiving repeated cues made more attentional responses than those in the instructions condition (t=3.76; p<0.02) , but there were n o significant differences on the distraction measure. Although no differences were observed on the other measures, repeated cues may have altered the pat- fern of non-speakers’ activities: significantly more children in the repeated cues condition made both attentional and copy responses than those in the instructions condition (four vs. no subjects; Fisher’s exact probability test; p<O.OS, one tail). The results suggest that the repeated cues reduced an alternative motor activity, increased attentional responses and helped some children to pattern attention hnd copy responses, partly as expected.

The effect of repeated cues on the speaking sub-

Fr.nnd I Pcvrhol l i

108 R . F . Quiity e f a / .

Table 3 . Comparison of subjects who received both verbal and gestural cues in the repeated cues condition

Number of subjects ~

Non- Comparisons speakers Speakers

A ftentional cues Gestural >Verbal Gestural =Verbal Gestural <Verbal

2 0 2 3 1 1

Total number of subjects 5 4

Gestural cues Gestural >Verbal 3 0 Gestural =Verbal 6 1 Gestural <Verbal 0 0 Total number of subjects 9 1

jects was not pronounced. In addition, the measures of copying responses and final copying scores in Table 2 appear to be discrepant: speaking subjects in the repeated cues condition received the same final copying score, but made significantly fewer copy responses (t=4.65; p<O.Ol), compared to speakers in the instructions condition, in partial contradiction to the hypotheses. A further analysis of the data, however, revealed that subjects in the repeated cues condition finished their work sooner, and may have perseverated less than subjects getting only instructions. Seven of the ten subjects who copied in the instructions condition took 2 min, 55 sec or longer to make their final “copy” response. Only one of the 11 who copied in the repeated cues condition took as long (p<0.05; Fisher’s exact probability test). Subjects in the repeated cues condition unexpectedly made more joint-play responses than speakers in the instructions condition (t=3.82; p<O.Ol), but this result is hard to interpret because of unprogrammed expen- menter differences. One adult elicited more joint- play responses than the other two combined ( t (4)=3.66; p<0.05). There were no significant differences between the conditions on the other measures or in the number of speakers who watched and copied the adults.

The second set of hypotheses concerned the signals presented in the repeated cues condition. Table 3 compares the proportions of effective verbal and gestural cues for all subjects receiving both types of cues. The results must be interpreted

cautiously because of the small number of subjects and possible self-selection factors. For a significant proportion of non-speaking children (4 of 5) gestural cues were as effective, or more effective than verbal cues (p<0.05; Fisher & Yates’ (1948, p. 48) confidence intervals for proportions). In addition, gestural cues were more effective than verbal cues in eliciting copying within 30 sec for a significant proportion ( 3 of 9) non-speaking retardates (p<0.05; Fisher & Yates’ intervals), partly supporting the hypotheses. Unexpectedly, no differences between the cues were found for the speaking subjects.

Discussion The results partly supported the hypotheses concerning the effect of repeated cues for attention and copying by mental retardates. If cues for attention and copying were given when non-speaking retardates were not behaving appropriately, the children made more attentional responses, and a greater proportion of children both attended to, and copied the adults, than if no additional cues were given, as expected. Furthermore, the non-speaking retardates made fewer joint-play responses if additional cues were given than if they were not presented. However, the mean frequencies of distraction and isolate-play responses, and of the copying measures were not significantly affected by the repetition of the cues used in the study. For speaking children the effect of repeated cues for behavior was limited. Children who got additional cues spent less time copying and consequently made significantly fewer ‘copy responses’ than speakers receiving only instructions. However, the repeated cues did not significantly affect either attentional, distraction, or isolate-play measures. Finally, the effect of the repeated cues on the speakers’ joint-play responses appeared to greatly depend on the adult presenting the cues. The results suggest that repeated external cues may facilitate attention and copying for some non-speaking retardates, and that the cues used in this study may reduce persevera- tive motor behavior, or perhaps elicit alternative activities, if given to speaking mentally retarded children.

As expected, the effect of the cues partly de- pended on the speaking ability of the subjects. Gestural cues were equally or more effective than verbal cues in eliciting attention and copying for most non-speaking children, partly supporting our

Scund. J . Psvchol. 17


expectations. There were no significant differences between the proportions of effective verbal and gestural cues for attention or copying for the speaking subjects. The results suggest that, in the absence of active speech, some retarded children may respond better to non-verbal than to verbal cues for imitation. If cues are needed by speaking retardates, verbal and gestural cues are equally effective. However, these latter results should be viewed cautiously.

Although the hypotheses received some support, the results raised other concerns. Few retardates in the experiment imitated the adults well. In addition, the cues had statistically significant, but somewhat limited effect. In all, the results show that unfamil- iar adults using preselected cues during a short encounter may have measurable but small effects on imitation by mentally retarded children. There were two alternatives for further experimentation. The first was to continue studying external cues-signal salience, sex of the adult, adult familiarity, as well as various types of cues. The second alternative was to examine the role of internal controls on imitation. We chose the second course, and investigated how attention and copying could be increased in appropriate settings through systematic training and practice.

EXPERIMENT I1

The generally poor imitation of mental retardates was evident from the preceeding study. In addition, the limited effects of external cues used in strange settings suggested that a different approach may be fruitful. In this second study, we investigated how internal control over appropriate imitational behavior could be increased through practice, reinforcement, and response-elicitation procedures.

The interchange position is that imitation is a pattern of behavior elicited in appropriate settings. Previous work shows that training may not reliably increase imitation, or may not reliably increase imitation in appropriate situations. On one hand, the effects of programs (e.g., Risley & Wolf, 1967; Lovaas, Berberich, Perloff, & Schaeffer, 1966; Sloane, Johnson, & Harris, 1968) have not extended much beyond the laboratory or controlled settings. On the other hand, the effect of training hav been extensive-hildren trained to attend increased their achievement in school (Ross & Ross,

1972). Other children, reinforced for copying adult responses, even copied some responses that were not rewarded (so-called ’generalized imitation’, Metz, 1965). The results of training have varied along with the training procedures: lightly and pro- foundly retarded subjects, individual and group treatments, verbal praise and physical rewards have all been used, making comparisons among studies difficult and tenuous. Previous research has not been addressed to the appropriateness of imitation and offers different results concerning the effect of programs designed to increase imitation. We felt that internal control over appropriate imitation could be increased, especially in the light of work increasing verbal control over motor behavior in impulsive children (Meichenbaum, 1971) and the role reinforcement may play in defining situational requirements (Walters, 1968). We attempted to increase normative control over imitation by training several teachers to frequently instruct their mentally retarded pupils to attend and copy in the pres- ence of verbal and physical feedback. Internal controls over imitation were expected to develop when using physical and verbal rewards simultaneously. If necessary, attention and copying were verbally instructed and/or physically guided during imitation training periods. The children were trained in their classrooms, aiding transfer of training and observa- tional learning of appropriate imitation. Finally, the subjects were evaluated before and after treatment in situations where imitation was explicitly instructed (‘copy situation’) and where alternative play activities were sought (control, ‘play’ situation). We hypothesized that the retarded children would attend and copy more in the copy than in the play situation, and that attentional and copying responses would increase more in the copy than in the play situation after the training program.

Method Subjects. Thirteen children in two elementary school classes and 14 children in three kindergarten classes at Rinnekoti Central Institution, Espoo, Finland acted as subjects. However, only 11 children in each group were measured after treatment. One school child was released from the institution; the other was working outside of school at the final measurement. Two kindergarten children were sick during final measurements, and the data of one child was discarded after random selection to facilitate statistical analyses. Table 1 shows the final composition of the groups.

Experimenters. The experimenters were the three teachers of the subjects-all were female. One teacher was responsible for the three kindergarten classes, meet-

Scand. J . Psychol. 17

110 R . F . Quilty et al.

ing with them for 1-2 hours a day, 3 days a week. The two school teachers each met with one class 3-5 hours a day, 4 days a week. The teachers received an 8-hour course on reinforcement theory and techniques, as well as practice with the treatment program. All the teachers were required to complete daily records on the performance of the children. Each teacher was observed weekly during the treatment phase, and was retrained once, when the senior author demonstrated the treatment program in the classroom. About 20 hours of professional time were required during the program.

Procedure. The evaluation procedure can be outlined in terms of the statistical analyses. The copy and play situations were completely crossed with the time of measurement, before and after treatment; both were repeated measures. Before treatment, two observers entered into each classroom and sat together at the side or the rear of the room. Soon after the observers entered, the teachers asked the children to sit at their desks, where paper and pencils were provided. The teachers then gave instructions for the copy or play situation, the order being randomly determined. The second situation was ordinarily observed one-half hour after the first was completed.

In the copy situation, the children were told (translated from Finnish), “I am going to draw some designs on the blackboard. You should try to draw the same designs on the paper in front of you”. The instructions were repeated, and then the teacher drew four set of figures on the board: three short words, three letters, three geometric figures, and three numbers, in that order. One item was drawn about every I5 seconds. “When finished, the teachers sat at their desks and worked while waiting for the observations to be completed. Observations were stopped when half the children completed the task, after 3 min of inattention to the board by all the children, or after 7 min, whichever was soonest. After the observation period, the teachers collected the children’s papers, and the raters left the room.

In the play situorion, the children were told, “I am going to draw some designs on the blackboard. You can do anything you want, as long as you don’t bother anyone else.” The instructions were repeated, and the situation proceeded as above.

Both situations were observed in each class on two different days, and measures were averaged over the two observers and the two occasions of measurement. The two occasions of measurement avoided confounding the measurements with the situations, as cautioned by Camp- bell & Stanley (1966). The same situations were each observed two times in each classroom after treatment.

Treatment program- The schoolchildren were normally given 15-30 min of group treatment on 25-30 days during a 2-month period. At the same time the children in kindergarten received the same training, but individually, 5-10 min a day for about 20 days. The schoolchildren were receiving reward for copying, while the kindergarten children were getting rewards for observing or copying at the time the program ended.

Sitting, attention, and copying were trained in steps and adjusted to the initial abilities of the children. The children were first trained to sit if necessary, then to observe the teachers’ demonstrations for longer and longer periods.

Finally, the children were reinforced for more and more closely copying the teachers. Each component behavior was divided into five concrete levels; after ten consecutive successes at a level, a child was advanced to the next level. The initial level of the children was set at one slightly below his performance during the initial observations.

Both physical guidance and successive approximation procedures were used by the teachers. On the basis of the first experiment, physical aids were preferred to shaping, and all aids included some verbal instructions and/or cor- rections. After correct performances the teachers gave physical reward (raisins) with verbal praise and feedback (e.g.; “Good, you’re sitting now.’’). Short verbal instructions, codes, and praise were used to facilitate internalized self-reward and self-control in the subjects.

The treatment was also intended to develop awareness of situational and normative demands for imitation. The teachers announced the beginning of a training session, making physical rewards visible and available. The teachers’ demands were made explicit through observation of other children and direct instructions, explanations, and rewards. In the kindergarten, the children were trained individu-

ally, but the school children were trained in groups. The school teachers paid attention to a different child every 15-30 sec in a randomly determined order. During a child’s ‘turn’, he received reward or appropriate correc- tion of his behavior, followed by reward. If a child dis- turbed the class, his behavior was corrected out of turn without reward. The group procedure provided variable reinforcement for imitation, as well as modeling of correct behavior. No specific teaching materials were defined by the program, but the schoolteachers preferred verbal tasks, and the kindergarten teacher often used motor and matching tasks.

Measures. Two observers coded the behavior of each class during the control and experimental situations. ‘Out-of-desk‘ responses were marked during each 20-sec period for those children who stood up or walked away from their desks. ‘Attention’ responses were coded during the initial 20-sec period, and during every other period thereafter for each child who turned to or looked at the teachers’ demonstration for at least 10 sec without performing self-distracting activities. ‘Copy’ responses were marked during the second coding period, and during every other period thereafter. This response was marked for each child who appeared to copy the teacher’s demonstrations. The frequencies of the behaviors in each category were averaged over the two observers for each child, and were then divided by the number of periods in which the behavior was observed. Finally, the proportions of occurrence of each behavior was averaged over the two occasions of observation of the situations, both before and after treatment.

Samples of the children’s written work during the situations provided another copying measure. The number of different figures that were copied were counted and divided by 18, the number of different figures used by the teachers. Again, the scores were averaged over the two observers and the two occasions of measurement for each situation, before and after treatment.

Scand. .I. Psychol. 17

Patterns of imitation in mentally retarded children 11 1

Table 4 . Mean scores of kindergarten and school groups in play and copy situations, before and after treatment

Measures for both groups separately

~ ~

Before program After program Standard

Play Deviation COPY Play COPY

Kindergarten group Out-of-desk Attention Copying response Percent copied

School group Out-of-desk Attention Copying response Percent copied

17.91 35.45 19.82 6.45

10.63 5.91 6.09 -

6.82 1 1.45 45.73 26.00 22.91 13.73 27.82 20.09

12.91 23.36 4.36

10.73

3.00 62.64 39.55 36.55

9.36 4.82 12.18 2.89 4.55 3.68

11.73 3.32

3.91 4.82 37.18 2.89 30.82 3.68 36.00 3.32

The figures represent the proportion of times a behavior occurred when it was to be observed or the proportion of 18 figures copied. The Standard Deviations are those estimated by the Tukey method for comparisons between pairs of means (a=2, q=2.95).

Missing data for four children were estimated by a rank- ing technique. The children’s groups were ordered from largest to smallest on each of the measures for the occasions in which the children were present. The four children were assigned the rank appropriate to their scores within their groups for the copy and play situations separately. The children were then assigned the scores cor- responding to their ranks on the measures for the occasions that the children missed. We feared a simpler technique would ignore important fluctuations in the respon- siveness of the children’s groups.

Inter-rater reliability was calculated by comparing the frequencies marked for each child by the two observers. The smallest number of responses marked by either rater was divided by the largest number marked by either rater for a given behavior by a given child, providing an esti- mate of coding agreement. On a rondom sample of 25 children, the inter-rater agreement was 84%, 57%, 57%, and 87% for the out-of-desk, attention, copying responses, and proportion copied measures, respectively.

RESULTS The measures were subjected to analyses of variance. The hypotheses were tested for each group separately if the Groupx Situation or Groupx Situa- tionx Time interactions were significant. Before the hypotheses are analysed, significant overall Group and Time differences must be mentioned. The school and kindergarten children differed from each other on all of the measures; all F-tests ( 1 , 20) were greater than 6.00, p<0.05. In addition, there were main-effects due to the time of measurement on the out-of-desk, attention and copying response measures: all F-tests (1, 20) greater than 5.17, ~ ~ 0 . 0 5 .

Situationally appropriate behavior. Table 4 shows the average scores in the copy and play situations, before and after treatment for both groups of subjects. No significant situational main-effect was found on the out-of-desk measure (F(1, 20)=3.39), but children attended more frequently in the copy than in the play situation, overall, as expected ( F ( I , 20)=54.10, p<O.Ol). A significant Groupx Situa- tion interaction on the attention measure (F( 1, 20)=6.39, p<0.05) indicated that the situational difference was larger for the school children than for the kindergarten children. In addition, the retarded children made more copy responses, overall (Ffl, 20)=5.69, p<0 .05) and copied a greater proportion of the items ( F ( 1 , 20)=4.51, p<0.05) in the copy than in the play situations, as expected. The results strongly support the hypothesis that attention and copying are situationally appropriate activities.

Situation-specific gains. The second hypothesis was that mental retardates would increase the frequency of attention and copying more in the copy than in the play situation. Significant Situation x Time or Situationx TimeXGroup interactions in the proper direction would provide support for the hypothesis, but none was found. No significant interaction was found on the out-of-desk measure; a Tukey t-test shows a situational difference before treatment for kindergarten children (t(20)=3.64, p<0.05), but none afterwards, in contradiction to the hypothesis. No significant differences were found for the schoolchildren on the out-of-desk measure. On the attentional and copying response

Scand. J . Psvchol. 17

112 R . F . Quilty e t a / .

measures, no specific gains in the copy situation were found: both groups of children attended and copied more often after treatment in both situations. However, the ‘proportion copied measure showed a Situationx Time interaction, but in the unexpected direction (F( 1, 20)=5.64, <0.05). Av- eraging over both groups, the retardates copied more models in the appropriate situation before treatment, but not after treatment, in contradiction to the hypothesis.

Summary The hypotheses about situationally appropriate imitation by mental retardates were partially supported. There was indeed a strong, overall situational effect: both groups of subjects attended to the teacher, and copied more often when they were instructed to copy than when directed to do as they chose, both before and after treatment. However, there were significant non-specific increases in attention and copying in both groups during both the copy and play situations. Additionally, and con- trary to our predictions, the kindergarten children increased sitting more in the play than in the copy situation, and both groups increased the amount of copying more in the play than in the copy situation. The results show that imitation is indeed situation- specific, but the training program had non-specific effects on some behaviors. The general effects of the program may be desirable, but they must be understood in order to be used effectively. It is theoretically and practically important to discover how strong situational influences on behavior a r t reduced by training designed to have the opposite effect.

DISCUSSION

The present research provides a starting point for understanding the occurrence of imitation in mentally retarded children. We proposed that mental retardates observe and copy adult responses when adults direct the children to imitate. We hypothesized that mentally retarded children use external social cues and/or internal controls to guide their attention and copying behavior in appropriate settings. The first experiment showed that verbal and gestural cues may help non-speaking retardates to pattern attention and copying and may increase the speed of copying by speaking retardates. In additon, the verbal skill of the children was related

to the effect of the cues: gestural, non-verbal cues for attention and copying were more effective than verbal cues for significant proportions of non- speaking retardates. During the second experiment, kindergarten and schoolchildren observed and copied their teachers more in appropriate situations than during a play period. However, after the children had systematically received reward for imitation, practice, and opportunities to develop self- controls, there were nonspecific increases in attention and copying, and specific increases in sitting and copying in the inappropriate situation. In all, the results lend some support for the interchange theory of imitation (Quilty, in press) and suggest some refinements for the theory.

Initially, however, the limitations of the findings must be outlined. The mental retardates in both studies may have been unusual: institutionalized, fairly sociable children who were amenable to the classroom or to light duties. The institution was large, well-staffed, and well-equipped; it offered alternative treatments for children not suited for school, so self-selection in the second study cannot be overlooked. Self-selection may also have occurred in the first experiment: children were given additional cues only if the children were not observing or copying the adult-perhaps limiting the results to the most difficult mental retardates. Finally, the use of different social cues or controls over passive vocabulary in the first study, and the use of different training techniques or negative practice in the second experiment could lead to other conclu- sions in future works.

Attention-deficit theories Zeaman & House (1963) have proposed that retarded children do not focus on task-relevant stimuli, especially during operant conditioning experiments. OConnor & Hermelin (1974) have, in turn, hypothesized that coding processes may be the more basic psychological mechanisms, and that coding deficits may lead to attentional deficits. From the present data, it is apparent that attentional responses may instead be interrupted by a compet- ing activity: distraction. In the first study, additional cues did not reduce the frequency of ‘distraction’ responses for either group of subjects. Mental retardates may not only passively ignore test stimuli but also actively and curiously inspect objects outside of the test materials. Considering that the children in the first study also played alone when

Scand. J . Psvc hol. 17

Patterns of imitation in mentally retarded children 1 13

given additional cues, the children’s behavior may be ‘hyperactive’ (Tizard, 1968) and may interfere with adaptive behavior. If mentally retarded children are actively involved in play or in ‘distraction’, they may be unable to focus their attention or code incoming information.

Self-control and verbal control If imitation is indeed a pattern of attentional and copying behavior (Quilty, in press), one must explain how children organize their behavior in social situations. Luria (1961 & 1969) has proposed that mental retardates do not organize their behavior with the aid of internal verbal instructions, because retardates do not react to words’ meanings well and/or do not use words to guide their motor behavior. In the present work, however, many mentally retarded children seemed to use verbal cues. In the first study, most speaking children receiving only initial instructions copied the adults after about a minute delay. In the second experiment, children in both groups observed and copied more when instructed to imitate than when told to play. Although the retardates may have used verbal information to guide their behavior, other social signals were available to organize their activity. The ‘setting effect’ of earlier actions, the expectant look of the adult, a submissive posture in the encounters may all have helped the children to pattern their imitational behavior. In short, mental retardates may generate other signals besides verbal ones to organize their behavior. Although verbal self- instructions may be important in normal development, other self-signals and external cues may help mentally retarded children to behave appropriately.

Generalized imitation Both normal and retarded children copy adult responses that are unrewarded (Bandura, 1969; Metz, 1965; Steinman, 1973). The laboratory phenome- non, called ‘generalized imitation’, presents a prob- lem for reinforcement theories of imitation (e.g., Bandura 1969 & 1972) because rewards are said to motivate the child to copy adults. For reinforcement theories, generalized imitation occurs because children sometimes do not discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded responses. Steinman (1973), however, showed that most normal children couid tell the experimenter which responses were reinforced, although the children copied even the unreinforced responses. The second study showed

as well that retarded children discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate settings. The discrimination hypothesis cannot deal with the current evidence-children can verbally and behaviorally discriminate between reinforced and non-reinforced (or inappropriate) responses; however, children may copy adults when imitation appears inappropriate from the adult’s point-ofview. From the child’s point-of-view, it may be easier or less costly to copy all demonstrations than to discriminate behaviorally and/or risk the loss of positive reinforcement. In other words, children may ordinarily attend to and copy adults in a pattern, unless unusual demands are made of them. Future work on ‘generalized imitation’ may use negative reinforce- ments for inappropriate copying, or manipulate the children’s motivation to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded responses.

Interchange theory of imitation The interchange hypotheses have been presented earlier in this paper and elsewhere (Quilty, in press). The current results partly supported the theory, but also suggested that some revisions are needed. Retarded children may use external cues to guide their behavior, blit the children’s skills must be taken into account. In the first study, verbal skills were important: most children who did not actively use speech, used gestural cues as well or better than simple verbal directions to guide their behavior.

The second experiment showed that imitation by mentally retarded children is situationally appropriate, but non-specific changes in behavior can occur. This finding suggests that there may be situational specific as well as general cues for imitation. In appropriate situations, explicit cues and rituals for attention and copying may be available to guide children’s behavior. Additionally, non- specific external cues may be available; they may include the children’s ‘cognitive map’ of the adult’s intentions (Bowlby, 1969), the setting effect of the children’s initial actions or of the group’s activities, adult positions, and neutral stimuli that have been associated with imitation. Both specific and general cues for imitation may be present in appropriate situations, but some non-specific cues for imitation may be present even in situations where imitation is not sought by the adult. The children in the second study may have learned to use non-specific external cues, or even general cognitive changes or signals,

Scund. J . Psythol. 17 8-761943

I14 R . F . Quilty et al .

to guide their copying during the play situation. The evaluation procedure may have cued attention to the teachers’ activities, but only after treatment did it also elicit copying, as it often does for normal children (Quilty, in press).

During the study the senior author was supported by a Fulbright-Hays grant. We express our appreciation to the United States Educational Foundation in Finland, and Sven Sjogren, its secretary, for their assistance. Parts of this report are based on Master’s theses prepared by the second and third authors for the University of Helsinki.

REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modijication.

New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston. Bandura, A. (1972). Psychological Modeling. Chicago:

Aldine, Atherton. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Vol. I: Attach-

ment. New York: Basic Books.‘ Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimen-

tal and Quasiexperimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Clarke, A. M. & Clarke, A. D. B. (1974~). Mental Defi- ciency, the Changing Outlook. London: Methuen & c o .

Clarke, A. M. & Clarke, A. D. B. (19746). Experimental studies: an overview. In A. M. Clarke & A. D. B. Clarke (Eds.), Mental Deficiency, the Changing Out- look. London: Methuen & Co.

Fisher, L. (1970). Attention deficit in brain damaged children. Amer. J. ment. Defic. 74, 502-508.

Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1948). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. London: Oliver &Boyd, p. 48.

Furth, H. G. (1961). The influence of languange in the development of concept formation in deaf children. J. abn. SOC. Psychol. 63, 386-389.

Furth, H. G. (1973). Further thoughts on thinking and language. Psychol. Bull. 79, 215-216.

Galbraith, G. C., Gliddon, J. B. & Busk, J. (1970). Visual evoked responses in mentally retarded and non- retarded subjects. Amer. J . ment. Defic. 75, 341-348.

Lovaas, O., Berberich, J. P., Perloff, B. F. & Schaeffer, B. (1966). Acquisition of imitative speech by schizophrenic children. Science 151, 705-706.

Lovaas, O., Freitas, L., Nelson, K. & Whalen, C. (1967). The establishment of imitation and its use for the development of complex behavior in schizophrenic children. Behav. Res. Therapy 5 , 171-181.

Luria, A. R. (1961). The Role of Speech in the Regula- tion of Normal and Abnormal Behavior. London:

Liveright. Luria, A. R. (1969). Speech development and the forma-

tion of mental processes. In M. Cole & I. Maltzman (Eds.), Contemporary Soviet Psychology. New York: Basic Books.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1971). Cognitive factors in behavior modification: modifying what clients say to

themselves. JSAS Catalogue of Selected DocumentJ in Psychology 1 , 14.

Moskowitz, H. & Lohmann, W. (1970). Auditory threshold for evoking an auditory reflex in mongoloid patients. Percept. mot. Skills 31, 879-882.

Metz, J. R. (1965). Conditioning generalized imitation in autistic children. J. exp. child Psychol. 2, 389-399.

O’Connor, N. & Hermelin, B. (1974). Specific deficits and coding strategies. In A. M. Clarke & A. D. B. Clarke (Eds.), Mental Deficiency, the Changing Outlook, pp. 330-349. London: Methuen & Co.

Piaget, J. (1953). The Child’s Conception of Number. Henley-on-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Quilty, R. F. (1975). Imitation as a dyadic interchange pattern. Scand J. Psychol 16, 233-239.

Risley, T. & Wolf, M. (1%7). Establishing functional speech in echolalic children. Behav. Res. Therapy 5 , 73-88.

Ross, D. M. &Ross, S. A. (1972). The efficacy of listening training for educable mentally retarded children. Amer. J . ment. Defic., 77, 137-142.

Slobin, D. L. (1968). Imitation and grammatical development in children. In N. S. Endler, L. R. Boulter, and H. Osser (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in De- velopmental Psychology, pp. 437443. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sloane, H. N., Johnson, M. K., & Harris, F. R. (1968). Remedial procedures for teaching verbal behavior to speech deficient or defective young children. In H. N. Sloane & MacAuley, B. D. (Eds.), Operant Proce- dures in Remedial Speech and Language Training, pp. 77-101. New York: Houghton, Mimin Co.

Steinman, W. M., (1973). Implicit instructions and social influence in “generalized imitation” and other “go- no-go” situations. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child De- velopment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Tizard, B. (1968). Observations of over-active imbecile children in controlled and uncontrolled environments: I1 Experimental studies. Amer. J . ment. Defic. 72, 548-553.

Walters, R. H. (1968). Some conditions facilitating the occurence of imitative behavior. Unpubl. manuscript. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.

Zeaman, D. & House, B. J. (1963). The role of attention in retardate discrimination learning. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.: Handbook of Mental Deficiency, 159-223.

Postal address:

Robert F. Quilty Urheilukatu 16 C 55 SF-00250 Helsinki 25 Finland

patterns of imitation in mentally retarded children

Documents