edinburgh research explorer · 2020. 2. 10. · branigan, pickering, & cleland, 2000;...

Edinburgh Research Explorer

Children show selectively increased language imitation afterexperiencing ostracism

Citation for published version:Hopkins, ZL & Branigan, HP 2020, 'Children show selectively increased language imitation afterexperiencing ostracism', Developmental Psychology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 897-911.https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000915

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1037/dev0000915

Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer

Document Version:Peer reviewed version

Published In:Developmental Psychology

Publisher Rights Statement:©American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicatethe authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission.The final article is available, upon publication, at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000915

General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.

Download date: 15. Aug. 2021

https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000915

https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000915

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/b1dbce06-b7d8-4726-a5ce-6b73b499943e

RUNNINGHEAD:OSTRACISMSELECTIVELYHEIGHTENSLANGUAGEIMITATION

Childrenshowselectivelyincreasedlanguageimitationafterexperiencingostracism

ZoeHopkins,HollyP.Branigan

OSTRACISM SELECTIVELY HEIGHTENS LANGUAGE IMITATION

2

Researchhighlights

• Wetestedwhetherostracismmodulatesspontaneouslanguageimitationintwo

samplesofschool-agedchildren.

• Childrenspontaneouslyimitatedapartner’slexicalchoicesandgrammaticalchoicesin

apicture-matchinggame.

• Childrenwhoexperiencedostracismweremorelikelytoimitateapartner’sword

choices,butnottheirgrammaticalchoices,thanchildrenwhodidnot.

• Children’slinguisticimitationisselectivelyinfluencedbysocialmotivationinsimilar

waystotheirnon-linguisticimitation.


3

Abstract

Whenthreatenedwithostracism,childrenattempttostrengthensocialrelationshipsby

engaginginaffiliativebehaviorssuchasimitation.Weinvestigatedwhetheranexperience

ofostracisminfluencedtheextenttowhichchildrenimitatedapartner’slanguageuse.In

twoexperiments,7-12year-oldchildreneitherexperiencedostracismordidnot

experienceostracisminavirtualball-throwinggamebeforeplayingapicture-matching

gamewithapartner.Wemeasuredchildren’stendencytoimitate,oralignwith,their

partner’slanguagechoicesduringthepicture-matchinggame.Childrenshowedastrong

tendencytospontaneouslyalignwiththeirpartner’slexicalandgrammaticalchoices.

Crucially,theirlikelihoodoflexicalalignmentwasmodulatedbywhethertheyhad

experiencedostracism.Wefoundnoeffectofostracismonsyntacticalignment.These

findingsofferthefirstdemonstrationthatostracismselectivelyinfluenceschildren’s

languageuse.Theyhighlighttheroleofsocial-affectivefactorsinchildren’scommunicative

development,andshowthatthelinkbetweenostracismandimitationisbroadlybased,

andextendsbeyondmotorbehaviorstothedomainoflanguage.

Keywords:ostracism;affiliation;languageimitation;alignment;conversation


4

Ashumans,wehaveafundamentalneedtobelong(Baumeister&Leary,1995),andwe

arecorrespondinglysensitivetothreatstoourinclusioninagroup(Spoor&Williams,2007;

Wesselmann,Bagg,&Williams,2009).Forinstance,whenweexperienceostracism–theact

ofbeingignoredorexcluded–wecanbecomemotivatedtoaffiliate,anddisplayincreased

conformity,compliance,andobedience(Carter-Sowell,Chen,&Williams,2008;Riva,

Williams,Torstrick,&Montali,2014).Suchresponsesconveyoursimilaritytoothersandso

facilitateourreinclusion(Williams,2007).Inparticular,thereisastrongrelationship

betweenostracismandbehavioralimitation:Afterexperiencingostracism,adultsaremore

likelytoimitateasocialpartner’sphysicalmannerisms(e.g.,Lakin,Chartrand,&Arkin,2008),

andthisimitationinturneffectivelypromoteslikingandrapport(Chartrand&Bargh,1999).

Recentresearchhasshownthatchildrenarealsohighlysensitivetoostracismfromayoung

age(Crick,Casas,&Ku,1999).Moreover,theyshowthesamerelationshipbetweenostracism

andimitationasadults:Afterexperiencingostracism,theyimitateapartner’sphysicalactions

moreaccurately(Over&Carpenter,2009b).Butdoesthislinkbetweenostracismand

imitationextendtotheirlanguageuse?Inotherwords,dochildrenimitateothers’languageas

aresponsetoostracismandasameanstoachieveaffiliativegoals?Inthispaper,weaddress

thisquestionbyinvestigatingwhether7-12-year-oldchildrenshowanincreasedtendencyto

imitateapartner’schoicesofwordsandgrammaticalstructuresafterexperiencingostracism.

Previousresearchhashighlightedtheriskfactorsandlong-termrepercussionsof

ostracisminchildhood(e.g.,Crick,Casas,&Mosher,1997;VonKlitzingetal.,2014),andthe

immediateimpactsofostracismonbothchildren’spsychologicalwellbeingandtheirphysical

andcognitivefunctioning(e.g.,Abramsetal.,2011;Barkley,Salvy,&Roemmich,2012;

Hawesetal.,2012;Zadro,Williams,&Richardson,2004).However,fewinvestigationshave

consideredtheimmediateimpactofostracismonchildren’ssocialbehaviors,despitestrong

evidencethatchildrenshowabidirectionalrelationshipbetweensocialperceptionandsocial

behaviorfromearlyindevelopment.Forexample,ateighteenmonthschildrenhelpanadult


5

moreoftenandmorespontaneouslyafterviewingphotographsevokingaffiliationthanafter

photographsevokingindividuality(Over&Carpenter,2009a),andshowincreasedhelping

whentheiractionshavebeenimitatedbyanexperimenterthanwhentheyhavenot,even

beyondtheimmediate(mimicking)interaction(Carpenter,Uebel,&Tomasello,2013).

Nevertheless,agrowingbodyofresearchsuggeststhat,likeadults,childrenwhohave

experiencedostracismdisplayanincreaseinaffiliativebehaviors,comparedwithchildren

whohaveexperiencedinclusion(thecontrolcondition).Somerecentstudiesofpre-schoolers

haveexperimentallymanipulatedostracismandcomparedthebehaviorsofchildrenexposed

toostracismwiththoseofchildrennotexposedtoostracism.Afterobservingavideo

depictingthird-partyostracism,5-year-oldsshowedincreasedimitationofanexperimenter’s

actions(Over&Carpenter,2009b),and3-6-year-oldsdisplayedhigherimitativefidelitywhen

copyingconventional(i.e.,sociallymotivated)ratherthaninstrumentalactions(Watson-

Jones,Legare,Whitehouse,&Clegg,2014).Inanotherstudy,4-5-year-oldswhoobserved

third-partyostracismsubsequentlydrewmoreaffiliativepicturesofthemselvesandafriend

thanthosewhodidnot(Song,Over,&Carpenter,2015).

Childrenalsoshowconsistentbehavioraleffectsafterexperiencingdirect(first-hand)

ostracism:5-6-year-oldswhoplayedavirtualball-throwinggameinwhichtheywere

ostracisedbyotherplayerssubsequentlyimitatedaconventionalactionsequencemore

closelythanthosewhowerenotostracised,andthiseffectwasstrongerwhentheywere

ostracisedbyin-groupratherthanout-groupmembers(Watson-Jones,Whitehouse,&Legare,

2016).Moreover,5-year-oldswhoexperiencedarbitrary(ratherthanaccidental)first-hand

ostracismsubsequentlytoldstoriesthatweremorementalistic,suggestingthatbeing

ostracisedledchildrentodeeperconsiderationofothers’perspectivesandmentalstates

(Whiteetal.,2016).

Thedominantexplanationproposedforthesefindingsisbasedongoalactivation

theory(Aarts&Dijksterhuis,2000).Underthisaccount,socialexperiences–suchasan


6

episodeofexperimentally-inducedostracism–directlyactivateaffiliationgoals,whichinturn

activateaffiliativebehaviorstoaccomplishthosegoals(Over&Carpenter,2009b;althoughcf.

Gardner,Pickett,&Brewer,2000).Sochildrenwhohaveexperiencedostracismare

confrontedbyaffiliativegoals,whichthenactivateaffiliativebehaviorssuchasimitationthat

willinducerapportandliking.Accordingly,childrenwhohavebeenostracisedduringaball-

throwinggamewillshowanincreasedtendencytosubsequentlyimitateapartner’sactions,

comparedtochildrenwhohavenotbeenostracised.

Buttowhatotherdomainsbeyondmotoractionsmightsuchaffiliativebehaviors

extend?Inparticular,mightchildrenwhohaveexperiencedostracismalsomodifytheir

languagebehaviorsforaffiliativereasons,forexamplebytendingtoimitateapartner’s

languageinthesamewaythattheyimitatetheirmotorbehaviors?Ifimitativebehaviorsplay

ageneralroleinpromotingsocialrelations,thenachildwhohasbeenthreatenedby

ostracismmightimitateapartner’slanguageuseasawayofachievinghergoalofingratiating

herselfandreintegratingwiththegroup.Critically,suchapatternwouldestablishthebroad

basisofimitativebehaviorsasameansofencouragingsocialcohesionduringdevelopment.

Equally,itwouldsupportaroleforsocial-affectiveinfluencesonchildren’slinguistic

behaviourandcommunication,demonstratingthatlanguageservesacohesiveaswellas

communicativefunctionduringdevelopment(seeBannard,Klinger,&Tomasello,2013).In

turn,anysuchpatternwouldhaveimplicationsforourunderstandingofthesocialand

communicativechallengesfacedbychildrenwithimpairedsocial-affectivecognition,who

mightbeunabletoengageinapotentiallyvaluableformofbehavioraladaptation.

Surprisingly,however,itisnotknownwhetherchildren(orindeedadults)manifest

sensitivitytoostracismvialinguisticimitation,despitethekeyrolethatlanguageplaysin

establishingandmaintainingsocialrelationships(e.g.,Asher&Renshaw,1981).Language

imitation,orlinguisticalignment,isacommonfeatureofsocialinteractionsgenerally

(Pickering&Garrod,2004),andappearstoplayanimportantroleinachievingbotheffective


7

communicationandsatisfyinginteractions(Fusarolietal.,2012;Putman&Street,1984).Such

alignmentoccursformanyaspectsoflanguageduringconversation.Forexample,ifanadult

referstoabunnythenherpartnerismorelikelytosubsequentlyrefertoabunny,evenif

rabbitwouldbehisusualchoice(Branigan,Pickering,Pearson,McLean,&Brown,2011;

Brennan&Clark,1996;Garrod&Anderson,1987).Adultinterlocutorsalsoimitateeach

others’choiceofsyntacticstructure,forinstanceusingapassivestructure(e.g.,aqueenis

beingkissedbyasheep)moreoftenafterhearingtheirpartneruseapassivestructure(e.g.,a

robberisbeingchasedbyadog)thananactivestructure(e.g.,adogischasingarobber;

Branigan,Pickering,&Cleland,2000;Messenger,Branigan,McLean,&Sorace,2012).

Alignmenteffectsarealsorobustlyfoundinchildren’slanguageuse.Typically-

developingpre-school-andschool-agedchildrenspontaneouslyalignonthelabelthattheir

partnerhaspreviouslyusedtorefertoanobjectandonapartner’schoiceofsyntactic

structure,evenwhenthoselabelsandstructuresareusuallydisfavored(Branigan,Tosi,&

Gillespie-Smith,2016;Garrod&Clark,1993;Hopkins,Yuill,&Branigan,2017;Huttenlocher,

Vasilyeva,&Shimpi,2004;Messenger,Branigan,McLean,&Sorace,2012).

Explanationsforlinguisticalignmenttendtoappealtooneofthreetypesof

mechanisms.Withinthepsycholinguisticliterature,mostresearchhasfocusedon

communicativeconsiderationsofaconversationalpartner’sknowledgeandbeliefs(audience

design;Brennan&Clark,1996)orautomaticprimingoflinguisticrepresentations(Pickering

&Garrod,2004).Audiencedesignmechanismsmakereferencetobeliefsaboutapartner’s

mentalstatesthatmightaffecttheirunderstandingofthemessagethatthespeakerintendsto

communicate.Thusaspeakermightrefertoabunnyafterhearingherpartnerusethatlabel

becauseherpartner’suseleadshertobelievethatheunderstandsandprefersthatlabel,and

thattheyhaveamutual(implicit)agreementtouseit.Primingmechanisms,incontrast,are

impervioustobeliefs,anddependupontheautomaticactivationandsubsequentfacilitation

oflinguisticrepresentationsduringlanguageuse.Forexample,comprehendingtheword


8

bunnynecessarilyinvolvesactivatingtherelevantlexicalrepresentation,facilitatingitfor

subsequentre-use.

Incontrast,researchwithinthesocialpsychologicalliteraturehasconsideredpossible

social-affectivemechanismsforalignment,wherebyspeakersimitateapartner’slanguageuse

asameansofachievingaffiliativegoalsorexpressingsocialidentity(Giles&Powesland,

1975).Theseaccountsbuildonthefindingthatlistenerstendtopreferspeakerswhoare

similartothemselves(Smith,Brown,Strong,&Rencher,1975).Accordingly,researchhas

shownthatspeakersaremorelikelytoalignsyntacticallywiththosewithwhomthey

perceivethemselvestobemoresimilar(Weatherholtz,Campbell-Kibler,Jaeger,Hall,&Ave,

2014;seealsoHeyselaar,Hagoort,&Segaert,2017;Hwang&Chun,2018),andspeakerswho

alignwithapartner’sbreadthofvocabularyandspeechrateareratedmorefavorablythan

thosewhodonot(Bradac,Mulac,&House,1988;Putman&Street,1984),andthepositive

affectinducedbysuchlinguisticimitationappearstoyieldtangiblebenefitsforspeakers(van

Baaren,Holland,Steenaert,&vanKnippenberg,2003).

Butalthoughthereisgoodevidencethatadultsimitateapartner’slanguageusein

waysthataremodulatedbysocial-affectivefactors,nostudieshaveinvestigatedwhether

ostracismmightplayaroleininducinglinguisticimitationinthesamewaythatitinduces

non-linguisticimitation,or–moregenerally–soughttodirectlylinkaffiliativegoalsto

linguisticbehavior.Aparticularlypowerfulwaytotestwhetherostracismaffectslinguistic

behaviorsinthesamewaythatitaffectsnon-linguisticbehaviorswouldbetoinvestigate

whetherthesamemanipulationofsocialinclusion/ostracismthathasbeenshowntoenhance

non-linguisticimitationinpreviousstudiesalsoenhanceslinguisticimitation.Ifchildrenwho

haveexperiencedostracismmodifytheirlinguisticbehaviorsinordertoachieveaffiliative

goals,thentheyshouldshowastrongertendencytoimitateaconversationalpartner’s

languagechoicesthanchildrenwhohavenotexperiencedostracism.


9

However,itispossiblethatchildrenmightshowsocially-modulatedlinguistic

alignmentselectivelyfordifferentaspectsoflanguageuse.Inparticular,ifchildrenimitatea

partner’slinguisticbehaviorsforthesamereasonsthattheyimitateapartner’snon-linguistic

behaviors,thenwemightexpecttofinddifferencesbetweentheirtendencytoimitate

syntacticversuslexicalchoices.Previousstudiesofchildren’snon-linguisticimitationhave

shownthat‘conventional’actionsattracthigherimitativefidelitythan‘instrumental’actions,

andmoreoverthatthispatternisamplifiedbyostracism(Watson-Jonesetal.,2014).Watson-

Jonesetal.suggestedthatthispatternoccursbecauseimitationof‘conventional’actions

servestoexpresssocialconformity,andassuchpromotesaffiliation.

Bythesametoken,syntaxandlexismaycorrespondtoabroaddistinctionbetween

‘form’and‘meaning’inlanguage.Thuschildrenwhohaveexperiencedostracismmight

displayhighimitativefidelityforapartner’ssyntax(cf.Bandura&Harris,1966),particularly

whenbothformsofanutterance(e.g.,‘adogisbitingarobber’vs.‘arobberisbeingbittenby

adog’)felicitouslyconveythesamedenotationalmeaning(i.e.,stateofaffairs),albeit

potentiallywithslightlydifferentemphases,andhenceapartner’schoicebetweenthe

structuresisopaque.Incontrast,theymightnotshowthesamedegreeofimitativefidelityfor

apartner’slexicalchoices.Differentnamesarenormallyassociatedwithdifferent

denotationalmeanings(Clark,1997),andyoungchildreninparticularhavestrongbeliefs

abouttheappropriatenessofspecificnamesforspecificobjects(Matthews,Lieven,&

Tomasello,2010).Hencechildrenmightshowmorevariabilityandinnovationwhenchoosing

howtonamethesameobjectastheirpartnerpreviouslynamed.

Toinvestigatewhetherostracismleadschildrentomodifytheirlanguagebehaviors,

andspecificallytoimitateapartner’slanguageuse,wecarriedouttwoexperimentsinwhich

7-12-year-oldchildrenplayedapicture-matchinggameafterexperiencingostracism,and

comparedtheirlanguageusewithchildrenwhohadnotexperiencedostracism.Wefocused

onschool-agedchildrenbecausethisisanageatwhichtheyarebeginningtoformavarietyof


10

socialrelationshipsbutmayalsobeatriskofostracism(Abramsetal.,2011).Inboth

experiments,weusedasocialmanipulationthathasbeensuccessfullyusedinmanystudies

toinduceexperiencesofostracismandsubsequentbehavioralconsequencesintypically

developingchildrenofthisage:theCyberballparadigm(Williamsetal.,2012),inwhich

childrenplayaball-throwinggamewithvirtualpartnerswhoexcludethem(ostracism

condition)ordonotexcludethem(controlcondition).

Inourexperiments,childrenplayedCyberballwithtwovirtualpartnersthatthey

believedtobeotherchildren,andthenplayedaversionofthepicture-matchinggame(based

ontheBritishchildren’sgameSnap!)withtheexperimenter.Inthelexicalsnapversion,each

carddepictedasingleobject,whichplayerswereinvitedtonameastheyplayed(although

notethatthedescriptionswerenotcriticaltothegame,asthegamemechanicsdependedona

visualmatchbetweenpicturesthatcouldbeachievedwithoutrecoursetoplayers’

descriptions).Experimentalobjectshadtwopossiblenames,oneofwhichwasstrongly

favoredbychildren,andoneofwhichwasdisfavored,asestablishedbyapre-test(e.g.,

favored:rabbit;disfavored:bunny).Inthesyntacticsnapversion,eachcarddepicteda

transitiveeventthatcouldbedescribedwithtwostructures,oneofwhichwasstrongly

favored(active;e.g.,asheepishittingagirl)andoneofwhichwasstronglydisfavored

(passive;agirlisbeinghitbyasheep),asestablishedinpreviousstudies(e.g.,Shimpi,Gámez,

Huttenlocher,&Vasilyeva,2007).

Wemanipulatedtheexperimenter’sdescriptionsofhercards(favoredvs.disfavored

name/structure),andmeasuredchildren’slexicalchoices(Experiment1)andsyntactic

choices(Experiment2)whentheysubsequentlydescribedpicturesthatcouldbedescribed

usingthesamenamesorstructures.Specifically,weinvestigatedhowlikelychildrenwereto

imitate,oralignwith,theexperimenter’suseofdisfavorednames/structures,andwhether

thistendencydifferedbetweenchildrenwhohadexperiencedostracismandthosewhohad

notexperiencedostracism.Ifchildrenwhohadexperiencedostracismweremorelikelythan


11

controlstoalign(andconverselylesslikelytomisalign),thenthiswouldprovidenovel

evidencethatchildrensignalsensitivitytoostracismthroughtheirlinguisticbehaviors,and

specificallythattheydosothroughlinguisticimitationofasocialpartner,inthesamewayas

theydothroughnon-linguisticimitation.Ifthistendencywerestrongerforsyntactic

alignmentthanforlexicalalignment,itwouldindicateafiner-grainedcontiguitybetween

children’ssocially-motivatedlinguisticimitationandsocially-motivatednon-linguistic

imitation,wheredifferentaspectsofabehaviorareimitatedtodifferentextentsdependingon

theirspecificfunction.

Experiment1–Alignmentoflexicalchoices

InExperiment1,weinvestigatedwhetherchildrenspontaneouslyalignedlexicalchoiceswith

aconversationalpartner,andwhetheranysuchtendencywasmodulatedbyhaving

experiencedostracism.

METHOD

Participants

Participantswere58typically-developingchildren(30male;meanage[inyears;months]=

8;11;agerange=7;1–10;8),predominantlyWhiteBritish,attendingprimaryschoolin

Dorset,UK.Wetestedanadditional10children,butexcludedtheirdataonthebasisof(1)a

diagnosisofsocial/communicationdifficulties(N=6);(2)bilingualism(N=2);and(3)non-

compliancewithtaskinstructions(N=2).Childrenwererandomlyassignedtooneoftwo

experimentalconditionsofCyberball(ostracismvs.control[inclusion]).Therewere29

childrenineachcondition,whowerewell-matchedintermsofchronologicalage,verbal

ability(receptiveandexpressivevocabulary;assessedviatheKaufmanBriefIntelligenceTest

–SecondEdition;Kaufman&Kaufman,2004),andgender(seeTable1).


12

Samplesizedeterminationwashamperedbyalackofavailabledataonaffiliativelanguage

imitation,henceweaimedtotestasmanychildrenaspossible(andusedBayesfactorsto

quantifythestrengthofevidenceforthealternativeversusnullhypothesis;seecodingand

analysissectionbelow).

Materials

Allchildrenwereadministeredthesamebatteryoftasksinafixedorder,beginningwiththe

Cyberballsocialmanipulation(eitherostracismorcontrolcondition),followedbythepicture-

matchinggame,thenthelanguageassessment,thenafinalgameofCyberball(inclusiontrials

only;seebelow).Theorderoftasksensuredthatthepicture-matchinggamealwaysfollowed

theCyberballmanipulation;weplacedthelanguageassessmentattheendofthesessionto

avoidparticipantfatiguebeforeourkeyexperimentalmeasures.

Socialmanipulation

WeinducedfeelingsofeitherostracismorinclusionusingCyberball,acomputerisedball-

throwinggameplayedwithtwoother‘players’(actuallypre-programmedsoftwareagents;

Williamsetal.,2012).WefollowedZadroetal.’s(2013)guidelinesinadaptingthegamefor

children.TheSchoolofPhilosophy,Psychology&LanguageSciencesResearchEthics

Committee(PPLSREC)attheUniversityofEdinburghapprovedtheuseofCyberballinour

study(title:‘ConversationalalignmentinchildrenwithanAutismSpectrumConditionand

typicallydevelopingchildren’;IRBprotocolnumber:207-1617/2).

WeexplainedCyberballtoparticipantsusinganinformationscreen(displayedona

laptop)thatlaidouta‘coverstory’forthegame.Todeflectchildren’sattentionfromthe

purposeofthestudy,theywereinstructedtofocusonusingtheirimaginationwhileplaying

thegame,ratherthanonwinning(Zadroetal.,2013).Childrenfirstplayedawarm-upround


13

ofCyberball(comprisingsixball-throws[trials])undertheobservationoftheexperimenter;

thiswastoensurethattheyunderstoodthegame,andwereabletousethemousetothrow

theballtotheotherplayers.Therewere20trials(eachlasting200milliseconds)inafull

gamesession.Intheostracismcondition,the‘otherplayers’wereprogrammedtothrowthe

balltotheparticipantwithequalprobabilityacrossthefirstsixtrials;thereafter,theywould

throwtheballtoonlyeachotherfortherestofthegame.Inthecontrolcondition,theywere

programmedtothrowtheballtotheparticipantwithequalprobabilityacrossall20trials.

Onthegamescreen,playerswererepresentedbyanimatedavatars(Figure1).To

heightentheauthenticityoftheCyberballexperience,eachparticipant’snameappeared

belowtheiravatar;theavatarsalsoappearedwithnames(matchedfortheparticipant’s

gender)thatwererandomlydrawnfromlistsofpopularboys’andgirls’namesinEngland

andWales(OfficeforNationalStatistics,2015).Experimentalconditionwasblind-codedso

thattheexperimenterwasunawareofwhetherachildwasassignedtotheostracismor

controlcondition.

Picture-matchinggame

Thelexicalpicture-matchinggame,includingtheexperimentalmaterials,wasidenticalto

Braniganetal.(2016).Inthegame,achildandtheexperimentertookturnsturningover

pictures,whichtheydescribed,anddecidingwhethertwoadjacentpictureswereidentical.

The20experimentalitemscomprisedpairsofpicturecards(aprimeandatargetcard)anda

scriptedprimename(favoredvs.disfavored).Theprimeandtargetpicturesdepictedthe

sameobject.Allexperimentalobjectshadtwoconventionalnames,oneofwhichwasstrongly

favored(e.g.,rabbit)andoneofwhichwasstronglydisfavored(e.g.,bunny),asestablishedby

apretest(seeBraniganetal.,2016,fordetailsofthepre-test).

Wepreparedtwopaired(experimenter/child)lists,eachcontainingoneversionof

eachexperimentaliteminaLatinSquaredesign,sothateachlistcontainedtenitemswith


14

favoredprimenamesandtenitemswithdisfavoredprimenames,plus28fillerpictures

depictingobjectswithoneconventionalname(e.g.,cake;seeFigure2a).Childrenwere

randomlyassignedtolists;itemorderwasindividuallyrandomizedforeachchildwiththe

constraintthattwofillersintervenedbetweentheexperimenter’sprimecard/primename,

andthechild’sassociatedtarget.Thusthelistswereconstructedsothattheexperimenter

alwaysdescribedherprimecardfirst,andaftertwofillercards(onedescribedbythechild

andonedescribedbytheexperimenter),thechilddescribedthetargetcard.

Languagemeasures

Weassessedchildren’svocabularyabilitiesviatheverbalscaleoftheKaufmannBrief

IntelligenceTest–SecondEdition(KBIT-2;Kaufmann&Kaufman,2004).Thescaleis

composedoftwoparts:VerbalKnowledgeandRiddles.TheVerbalKnowledgesubtesttests

receptivevocabulary:Theexperimenterreadwordsthatchildrenwereaskedtomatchtoone

ofsixpictures.TheRiddlessubtesttestsexpressivevocabulary:Childrenhadtosayaword

thatansweredriddlesspokenbytheexperimenter(e.g.,whatissomethingshinyandhardthat

youwearonyourfinger?).Hencetheverbalscaleyieldsareceptiveandanexpressive

vocabularyscoreforeachchild;thesearerawscoreswhicharesummedtoyielda

standardisedmeasureofoveralllanguageability.

Pre-andpost-manipulationmeasures

BeforethepracticeroundofCyberball,wemeasuredchildren’smoodtoverifythatchildren’s

responsetoplayingCyberballreflectedtheirconditionassignment,ratherthanhowthey

werefeelingontheday(seeAbramsetal.,2011).Apost-manipulationcheckaskedchildren

howmuchtheyreceivedtheballduringthegame,toestablishthattheywereawareoftheir

ostracised/includedstatus.


15

Boththemoodmeasure–‘TodayIfeelgoodaboutmyself’(1=notatall;5=very

good)–andthepost-manipulationcheck–‘Howmuchdidtheythrowyoutheball?’(1=not

atall;5=alot)–werepresentedonpaperasfive-pointresponsescales(Abramsetal.,2011).

Childrenrecordedtheirresponsesonpaperformsmarkedwithanidentifyingnumber,which

theypostedintoaballotboxsothattheexperimenterremainedblindtotheconditionto

whichtheyhadbeenassigned.

Procedure

Atthebeginningoftheexperimentalsession,childrenweregivenadetailedoverviewofthe

taskstheywouldbeaskedtocomplete.Thiswasinordertominimisedelaybetween

Cyberballandthepicture-matchinggame,whichmighthavelimitedtheeffectivenessofthe

socialmanipulation.

Wefirstmeasuredchildren’smood.Afterchildrenhadreadthecoverstoryfor

Cyberball,andplayedawarm-upround,theexperimentercheckedthatthattheyunderstood

howtoplaythegame,andwereabletousethelaptop.Whilechildrenplayedthefirstgame

session,theexperimenterpositionedherselfawayfromthelaptopscreen,toavoidseeing

whetherachildwasexperiencinginclusionorostracism.Afterthegamesessionhadfinished,

childrencompletedthepost-manipulationcheck.

Childrenthenplayedthepicture-matchinggamewiththeexperimenter.Duringthe

game,theexperimenterandchildeachhadapileofface-downcards,andtookturnsrevealing

theirtopcard,describingthepictureonit,andlayingitface-uponthetable.The

experimenteralwayswentfirst,followingascriptthatspecifiedtheappropriatedescription

foreachcard,sothatshenamedherprimecardtwoturnsbeforethechildnamedthe

associatedtargetcard.Childrenwerenotinstructedhowtonamethecards,butwereallowed

tonamethemfreely.Whenadjacentcardswereidentical,thefirstplayertosay‘snap!’won

thosecardsandanyothersplaceddownbeforehand.


16

ChildrenthencompletedtheKBIT-2subtests(VerbalKnowledge,thenRiddles).Last,

theyplayedafinalgameofCyberballinwhichtheyalwaysexperiencedinclusion,toensure

thatchildrenleftthesessioninapositivemood(e.g.,Ruggierietal.,2013).Afterdata

collectionfortheexperimenthadbeencompleted,theresearcherexplainedtochildrenthat

theotherCyberballgameplayershadnotbeenreal.

Codingandanalysis

TargetresponseswerecategorisedasFavored,Disfavored,orOther(Table2).Disfavored

responseswerecodedas1,andallotherresponses(favored/other)as0.Seventarget

responseswereexcludedfromanalysis,owingtoexperimentererror(N=1)orchildren’s

non-adherencetogameprotocol(N=6).

Therewerethreepartstoouranalysis.First,weusedthepre-manipulationcheck

scorestoconfirmthatchildreninthedifferentCyberballconditionsdidnotdifferintermsof

theirmoodonthedayoftestingandthepost-manipulationcheckscorestoconfirmthatthe

Cyberballmanipulationhadworkedasintended.

Second,weanalysedourpicture-matchinggamedatawithlogitmixedeffect(LME)

models,usingthelme4package(version1.1-21;Batesetal.,2019)inR(version3.6.1;RCore

Team,2019),toexaminewhetherchildrenspontaneouslyalignedonthedisfavorednames

usedbytheexperimenterduringthepicture-matchinggame,andwhetherchildren’s

alignmentvariedacrosstheCyberballconditions.LMEmodelsareappropriateforhandling

categoricaldependentmeasures,andcanaccountforunmeasuredsourcesofheterogeneityin

psycholinguisticdata(e.g.,fromparticipantsandexperimentalitems;Barr,Levy,Scheepers&

Tily,2013).WeconstructedanLMEmodel(ourexperimentalmodel)inwhichthedependent

variablewasthelikelihoodofaligningwiththeexperimenteronadisfavoredname,whichwe

predictedfromthefixedeffects(i.e.,independentvariables)ofprimename(favoredvs.

disfavored)andcondition(ostracismvs.control),andaprimename*conditioninteraction


17

term.Crucially,theinteractiontermwouldindicatewhetherchildren’sresponsestothe

experimenter’sprimenames(i.e.,theiralignment)variedaccordingtoexperimental

condition.Wealsoincludedchildren’srawreceptiveandexpressivevocabularyscoresas

fixedeffects,totestwhethertheseaspectsofverbalabilitycontributedtolexicalalignment.

Themodelincorporatedby-itemandby-participantrandomintercepts,asjustifiedbythe

experimentaldesign.

Third,weconductedfollow-uptestsonourexperimentalmodel.Asimpleeffects

analysiswasperformedontheprimename*conditioninteractionusingtheemmeanspackage

(version1.2.3.;Lenth,2018)inR.Weusedalikelihoodratiotesttocomparetheexperimental

modelagainstanullmodelthatincludedonlythefixedeffectofprimename.Thistest

generatedparameterestimatesthatallowedustoevaluatethegoodness-of-fitofour

experimentalmodel,andap-valuetoassessthesignificanceoftheprimename*condition

interaction.Wealsousedthemodels’BayesianInformationCriteria(BIC)valuestoestimate

BayesFactors,whichofferanalternativetoclassicalhypothesistesting.Akeymotivationfor

usingBayesFactorswasthat,owingtothelackofpriorstudiesexaminingtheinfluenceof

ostracismonchildren’slanguageimitation,wewereunabletouseatraditionalpower

analysistodetermineasamplesizeforourexperiment;poweranalysesdependupon

publishedeffectsizestoestablishthethresholdbeneathwhichahypothesiswouldbe

renderedfalse.BayesFactorshavebeenarguedtobebetterthan,forexample,power

calculations(Dienes,2014),andtheuseofBayesFactorsallowedustoquantifythestrength

ofevidenceforthealternativehypothesisversusthenullhypothesis.

RESULTS

Pre-andpost-manipulationcheckscores

AMann-Whitneytestonchildren’sresponsestothestatement‘TodayIfeelgoodabout

myself’(1=notatall;5=verygood)showednosignificantdifferencebetweentheostracism


18

(Mdn=4)andcontrol(Mdn=4)conditions,U=333.50,p=.17.However,asecondMann-

Whitneytestonchildren’sresponsestothequestion‘Howmuchdidtheythrowyoutheball?’

(1=notatall;5=alot)showedasignificantdifferencebetweentheostracismandcontrol

conditions,U=79.0,p<.001;childrenintheostracismconditionreportedreceivingtheball

lessfrequently(Mdn=2)thanchildreninthecontrolcondition(Mdn=4).Thiseffectsuggests

thatthesocialmanipulationwaseffective.

LMEmodelforlexicalpicture-matchinggamedata

TheexperimentalLMEmodelisreportedinTable3.Themodelrevealedasignificanteffectof

primename,indicatingthatchildrenshowedlexicalalignment:Theyproducedahigher

proportionofdisfavoredtargetresponsesafterhearingtheexperimenteruseadisfavored

primenamethanafterhearingtheexperimenteruseafavoredprimename(62%vs.5%

disfavoredresponses,asa%oftotalfavored+disfavoredresponses).Children’soverall

likelihoodofproducingadisfavorednamewasnotsignificantlyrelatedtotheirreceptiveor

expressivevocabularyabilities.

Critically,theexperimentalLMEmodelrevealedasignificantinteractionbetween

primenameandcondition,suggestingthattheextenttowhichchildrenalignedlexicalchoice

withtheexperimentervariedaccordingtowhetherornottheyhadexperiencedostracism

duringtheCyberballgame(Table3;Figure3a).

Follow-uptests

Thesimpleeffectsanalysisoftheprimename*conditioninteractionentailedaseriesof

pairwisecomparisons,towhichweappliedaBonferronicorrection.Onlytwoofthese

comparisonsweretheoreticallyrelevanttoourexperiment:Onecomparedthelikelihoodof

producingadisfavorednameafterhearingadisfavoredprimeintheostracismvs.control

condition(i.e.,howlikelychildrenweretoalignlexicalchoicewiththeexperimenter,


19

dependingonwhetherornottheyhadexperiencedostracism;e.g.,prime:bunny/target:

bunny);theothercomparedthelikelihoodofproducingadisfavorednameafterhearinga

favoredprimeintheostracismvs.controlcondition(i.e.,howlikelychildrenweretomisalign

lexicalchoicewiththeexperimenter,dependingonwhetherornottheyhadexperienced

ostracism;e.g.,prime:rabbit/target:bunny;).

Childrenintheostracismconditionweresignificantlymorelikelythanchildreninthe

controlconditiontoproducedisfavorednamesfollowingdisfavoredprimes(69%vs.55%),z

=-2.88,p=.004.Moreover,childrenintheostracismconditionweresignificantlylesslikely

thanchildreninthecontrolconditiontoproduceadisfavorednamefollowingafavoredprime

(3%vs.7%),z=2.62,p=.01.Takentogether,thesefindingsindicatethatchildren’suseof

disfavorednamesmorecloselyimitatedtheexperimenter’suseofdisfavorednamesinthe

ostracismconditionthaninthecontrolcondition.

Parameterestimatesfromthelikelihoodratiotestshowedthattheprime

name*conditioninteractioncontributedsignificantlytoourexperimentalLMEmodelfit,χ2

(2)=17.65,p<.001,supportingthehypothesisthatchildrenshowstrongerlexicalalignment

withaninterlocutorwhentheyhaveexperiencedostracismthanwhentheyhavenot

experiencedostracism.Toassessthestrengthofthisevidence,weestimatedaBayesFactor

(BF10)ase(BIC_null–BIC_experimental)/2fromtheBayesianInformationCriterion(BIC)valuesofboth

theexperimentalandnullmodels(Wagenmakers,2007).Theexperimentalmodelfitthedata

betterthanthenullmodel,BF10=e(972.72-969.16)/2=5.91,providingpositiveevidencethat

conditioninfluencedtheextentofchildren’salignment,accordingtoRaftery’s(1995)

categorization.

DISCUSSION

Childrenshowedarobusttendencytorepeatthedisfavorednamethattheirpartnerhad

previouslyusedwhentheysubsequentlynamedthesameobject.Suchlexicalalignmentwas


20

spontaneous,andunrelatedtochildren’sreceptiveandexpressivevocabularyabilities.

Crucially,althoughchildreninbothgroupsshowedatendencytolexicallyalign,theextentof

thisalignmentvariedaccordingtowhetherornottheyhadexperiencedostracismduringthe

initialsocialmanipulation.Childrenwhohadexperiencedostracismweremorelikelythan

childrenwhohadnotexperiencedostracismtore-useapartner’schoiceofname.

Theseresultsshowthatthesocialeffectsthathavebeenreportedinstudiesof

children’snon-linguisticimitationandthathavebeenlinkedtoaffiliativemotivations(Over&

Carpenter,2013)extendtoatleastoneaspectoftheirlinguisticimitation.Additionally,the

patternofeffects-wherebychildrenintheostracismconditionweremorelikelythan

childreninthecontrolconditiontoproducedisfavorednamesafteradisfavoredprime,but

lesslikelytoproducedisfavorednamesafterafavoredprime-showsthattheyimitatedword

choicesinahighlylocalisedway,basedonindividualepisodesoflanguageuse.

Experiment2–Syntacticalignment

Experiment1establishedthatschool-agedchildren’stendencytospontaneouslyimitatea

partner’slexicalchoicesinapicture-matchinggamewasinfluencedbyapriorexperienceof

ostracism.InExperiment2,weinvestigatedwhetherthesamepatternwouldoccurfor

syntacticchoices,inotherwordswhetherchildren’stendencytospontaneouslyimitatea

partner’suseofa(disfavored)passivestructurewouldbeinfluencedbyostracism.

METHOD

Participants

Participantswere57furthertypically-developingchildren(27male;meanage[inyears;

months]=9;6;agerange=8;0–12;10),predominantlyWhiteBritish,attendingprimary

schoolinEdinburgh,UK.27childrenwererandomlyassignedtotheinclusionconditionof

Cyberball,and30totheostracismcondition.Thegroupswerewell-matchedbychronological


21

age,verbalability(receptivegrammar;assessedviatheTestofReceptiveGrammar–Second

Edition;Bishop,2004),andgender(Table1).SamplesizewasdeterminedasinExperiment1.

Materialsandprocedure

ChildrenwereadministeredtasksinthesamefixedorderasinExperiment1,andfollowing

thesameprocedure:Cyberballsocialmanipulation(eitherostracismorcontrolcondition),

followedbythepicture-matchinggame,thenthelanguageassessment,thenafinalgameof

Cyberball(inclusiontrialsonly).Thesocialmanipulation(Cyberball)wasidenticalto

Experiment1,butthematerialsforthepicture-matchinggame,andthelanguageassessment

weredifferent.

Picture-matchinggame

Thesyntacticpicture-matchinggamewasadaptedfromExperiment1ofMessengeretal.’s

(2012)study.Therewere24experimentalitems,eachcomprisingaprimeandatargetcard,

andanassociatedactiveandpassiveprimedescriptioninthepresentprogressiveform(e.g.,A

sheepishittingagirl;Agirlisbeinghitbyasheep).Allcardsdepictedatransitiveevent

involvingananimalagentandhumanpatient,buttargetcardsdisplayeddifferentagent-

patienteventsanddifferentcharacterstothoseontherelevantprimecard(e.g.,atiger

scratchingaking).Eight‘snap!’itemsinvolvingconsecutiveidenticalpictureswereevenly

distributedthroughthegame.Wepreparedtwopaired(experimenter/child)lists,each

containingoneversionofeachexperimentaliteminaLatinSquaredesign,sothateachlist

containedtwelveitemswithanactivedescriptionandtwelveitemswithapassive

description.Childrenwererandomlyassignedtolists;itemorderwasindividually

randomizedforeachchild.Thesyntacticpicture-matchinggamefollowedtheprotocolusedin

Experiment1,exceptthatprimecardsimmediatelyprecededtargetcards(seeFigure2b).


22

Languagemeasure

Weassessedchildren’sgrammaticalabilitiesusingtheTestofReceptiveGrammar–Second

Edition(TROG-2;Bishop,2004).Childrenheardsentencesreadbytheexperimenterandhad

tomatcheachsentencetooneoffourpictures.

Codingandanalysis

Targetresponseswerescored,followingMessengeretal.(2012),asActiveifitwasacomplete

sentencethatcontainedasubjectbearingtheagentrole,averb,adirectobjectbearingthe

patientrole,andthatcouldalsobeexpressedasapassive;Passiveifitwasacomplete

sentencethatcontainedasubjectbearingthepatientrole,anauxiliaryverb,amainverb,a

prepositionby,anobjectbearingthepatientrole,andthatcouldalsobeexpressedasan

active;orOther(anyotherresponse;Table2).Passive(disfavored)responseswerecodedas

1,andallotherresponses(active/other)as0.Twotargetresponseswereexcludedowingto

experimentererror.WeadoptedthesameapproachtodataanalysisasinExperiment1.

Pre-andpost-manipulationcheckscores

Therewasnosignificantdifferenceinchildren’smoodbetweentheostracism(Mdn=4)and

control(Mdn=4)conditions,Mann-WhitneyU=381.0,p=.65.Childrenintheostracism

conditionreportedreceivingtheballsignificantlyless(Mdn=2)thanchildreninthecontrol

condition(Mdn=4)duringCyberball,Mann-WhitneyU=158.50,p<.001,suggestingthatthe

socialmanipulationwaseffective.

LMEmodelforpicture-matchinggamedata

OurexperimentalLMEmodel(Table3)predictedchildren’slikelihoodofaligningwiththe

experimenteronapassivestructurefromthefixedeffectsofprimestructure(activevs.

passive),condition(inclusionvs.ostracism),andaprimestructure*conditioninteraction


23

term.RawTROG-2scoreswerealsoincludedasafixedeffect,todeterminewhetherchildren’s

receptivegrammarrelatedtotheirsyntacticalignment,alongwithby-itemandby-participant

randomintercepts.

Therewasasignificanteffectofprimestructure(Table3),showingthatoverall,

childrensyntacticallyalignedwiththeexperimenter:Childrenproducedahigherproportion

ofpassivetargetsafterhearingapassiveprimethanafterhearinganactiveprime(29%vs.

8%asa%ofallactive/passiveresponses).Children’soveralllikelihoodofproducinga

passivestructurewasnotsignificantlyrelatedtotheirreceptivegrammarability.Critically,

theprimestructure*conditioninteractiontermwasnotsignificant,indicatingthatthe

tendencytoaligndidnotvaryaccordingtowhetherchildrenhadexperiencedostracismor

hadnotexperiencedostracism(Figure3b).

Follow-uptests

Becausetheprimestructure*conditioninteractionwasnotsignificant,wedidnotsubmitthis

toasimpleeffectsanalysis.Goodness-of-fitcalculationsindicatedthatourexperimentalLME

modelwasapoorerfitforourdatathananullmodelincludingonlythefixedeffectofprime,

χ2(2)=0.20,p=.90.Bayesiananalysesindicatedthattheexperimentalmodelwasapoorerfit

thanthenullmodelbyBF10=e(1068.80–1083.04)/2=.001,whichisverystrongevidenceagainst

thehypothesisthatostracisminfluenceschildren’ssyntacticalignment(Raftery,1995).

DISCUSSION

Childrenshowedarobusttendencytospontaneouslyrepeatthedisfavoredsyntactic

structurethattheirpartnerhadusedonanimmediatelypreviousturnwhensubsequently

describinganunrelatedeventinvolvingdifferentlexicalitems.Thisalignmentonabstract

syntacticstructurewasunrelatedtochildren’sreceptivegrammarabilities.Unlikein

Experiment1,themagnitudeofalignmentdidnotvaryaccordingtowhetherchildrenhad


24

experiencedostracismduringtheinitialsocialmanipulation,despitechildrenshowing

awarenessofhavingbeenostracisedornot.

GENERALDISCUSSION

Peoplearedrivenbyastrongneedtobelong.Whenfacedwiththethreatofostracism,they

modifytheirsocialbehaviorinordertopromoteandfacilitatetheirinclusionwithinthe

group.Weinvestigatedwhetherthisbehavioralmodificationextendstothedomainof

languageinschool-agedchildren.Intwoexperiments,wemanipulatedchildren’sinclusionary

status,andmeasuredtheextenttowhichtheysubsequentlyimitated,oralignedwith,a

partneronfunctional(lexical)andformal(syntactic)aspectsoflanguageinapicture-

matchinggame.

Experiment1showedthatchildrentendedtospontaneouslyalignwitha

conversationalpartner’slexicalchoicesduringapicture-matchinggame.However,this

tendencywasenhancedinchildrenwhohadpreviouslyexperiencedostracismcomparedto

childrenwhohadnotexperiencedostracism:Ostracisedchildrenweremorelikelytodescribe

targetobjectsusinganamethatwasnormallydisfavoredafterhearingtheexperimenteruse

thedisfavorednametodescribethesameobject.Andtheywereconverselylesslikelyto

produceadisfavorednameafterhearingtheexperimenterusethefavoredname.Together,

thispatternsuggeststhattheyadheredmorecloselytotheexperimenter’slanguagechoices

overallthanchildrenwhohadnotexperiencedostracism.Experiment2showedthatchildren

alsotendedtospontaneouslyalignwithapartner’ssyntacticchoices.Butincontrastto

Experiment1,thistendencydidnotdifferbetweenchildrenwhohadexperiencedostracism

andthosewhohadnot.

Ourresultsdemonstratethatchildrenhaveastrongtendencytospontaneouslyimitate

differentaspectsofaconversationalpartner’slanguageuse.Butmoreimportantly,they

providethefirstevidence(toourknowledge)ofsocial-affectiveinfluencesonchildren’s


25

languagebehavior.Inparticular,theyshowthatexperiencingostracismselectivelymodulates

children’stendencytoimitateapartner’slanguage.Previousresearchhasshowna

relationshipbetweenaffiliativegoalsandsocialbehavior,andspecificallybetween

experiencesofostracismandenhancednon-linguisticimitation(Over&Carpenter,2009b;

Watson-Jonesetal.,2014,2016).Ourfindingsarenovelinextendingthisrelationshiptothe

domainoflanguage.Thusourresultssuggestthattherelationshipbetweenostracismand

imitationisnotlimitedtomotorbehaviors,butratherhasabroadbasisacrossarangeof

behaviors.Assuch,theyhighlightthefundamentalrolethatimitationplaysinpromoting

socialrelationships(Lakin,Jefferis,Cheng,&Chartrand,2003).Equally,theyemphasisethat

languagesubservesnotonlycommunicativebutalsocohesivefunctions.

Ourfindingsarealsoinformativeaboutthenatureoftherelationshipbetween

ostracismandlinguisticimitation.First,theysuggestthatexperiencesofostracismleadtoa

general(i.e.,non-directed)enhancementinlinguisticimitation,inthesamewayasinnon-

linguisticimitation.ParticipantsinExperiment1showedastrongertendencytorepeatthe

experimenter’slexicalchoicesafterbeingostracisedby(whattheybelievedtobe)twoother

children.Here,asinWatson-Jonesetal.'s(2016)studyofnon-linguisticimitation,thetarget

ofimitation(andhencethetargetwithwhomaffiliationwassought)wasnotthesourceofthe

exclusionarythreat.Fromthiswecaninferthatostracismcausesanincreaseinaffiliative

linguisticbehaviorsgenerally,ratherthananincreasedirectedspecificallyattheostracising

agent.Inotherwords,beingostracisedleadschildrentoimitateothers’languageinorderto

promotere-inclusionwithagroup,butnotnecessarilythesamegroup.

Inanotherrespect,however,theresultsofExperiment1suggestthatchildren’ssocial-

affectivelinguisticimitationiscloselytargeted:Childrenintheostracismconditionwere

morelikelythanchildreninthecontrolconditiontoproducedisfavorednamesafterhearinga

disfavoredprime(e.g.,prime:bunny/target:bunny)-buttheywerealsolesslikelytoproduce

disfavorednamesafterhearingafavoredprime(e.g.,primerabbit/target:bunny).Hencethey


26

didnotshowagreaterlikelihoodofproducingdisfavorednamesoverall.Insteadtheir

heightenedsensitivitytotheexperimenter’slinguisticbehaviorwastiedtoindividual

episodesoflanguageuseinthepicture-matchinggame,i.e.,thespecificlexicalchoicethat

theirpartnermadeforaspecificobject.

Assuch,ourfindingsdonotprovideevidenceforthe‘communicationaccommodation’

thathassometimesbeenobservedinadultdialogue,whichcaninvolveadjustingone’s

linguisticstyleforapartner,withaffectiveconsequences(Giles&Powesland,1975).For

instance,Bradacetal.(1988)foundthatspeakerswhoconvergedintheiroverallbreadthof

vocabularywereevaluatedmorefavourablythanthosewhodidnot.Butsuchstylistic

imitationwouldhaveledostracisedchildrentobemorelikelytoproducedisfavorednamesin

general(toreflecttheexperimenter’shighoverallrateofusageofdisfavorednames),rather

thanproducingdisfavorednamesonlyforobjectsforwhichtheexperimenterhaduseda

disfavoredname.Wecannotruleoutthepossibilitythatchildrenmightimitateapartner’s

overallstyle(ratherthanspecificepisodesoflanguageuse)insomecontexts.Itmayalsobe

thattheabilitytoco-ordinatestylisticallyinconversationinvolvesmoresophisticated

linguisticandsocial-affectiveskillsthanschool-agedchildrenpossess.Butwhatisclearisthat

inourstudy,childrenimitatedlexicalchoicesforsocially-motivatedreasonsinahighly

localizedway(Garrod&Doherty,1994).

Importantly,however,ourexperimentssuggestthatthesocialmodulationoflinguistic

imitationinchildrenisselective:Itdoesnotoccuracrosstheboard.Thesamesocial

manipulationandthesameinteractionalcontextyieldedareliablemodulationofimitationfor

oneaspectoflanguage(lexicalchoices),butnotforanother(syntacticchoices).Theexistence

ofanasymmetricpatternisnotinitselfsurprising,butthedirectionofthisasymmetryis

unexpected.Existingevidencefromadultdialoguehasshownthatsocialperception

influencessyntacticalignment(Balcetis&Dale,2005;Heyselaar,Hagoort,&Segaert,2017;

Hwang&Chun,2018;Weatherholtz,Campbell-Kibler,Jaeger,Hall,&Ave,2014).Moreover,


27

previousresearchonostracismandnon-linguisticimitationhasfoundgradedpatternsof

effects,withchildrenmanifestingsensitivitytoostracismtoagreaterextentwhenimitating

conventionalactions,inwhichtherealizationoftheactionisarbitraryandsoimitation

necessarilyindicatesconformitytoagroup,thanwhenimitatingfunctionalactions(Watson-

Jonesetal.,2014).

Hencetherearegoodreasonsaprioritoexpectthatchildrenmightmanifestsensitivity

toostracismintheirsyntacticchoices,andfurthermorethatthissensitivitymightbe

manifestedmorestronglyintheirsyntacticchoices,whichmaymorestronglyreflectchoices

aboutformthanaboutmeaning(e.g.,differentsyntacticstructures,suchastheactiveand

passiveversionsofasentence,canconveythesamedenotationalmeaning)thanintheir

lexicalchoices,whichmayprimarilyreflectchoicesaboutmeaning(e.g.,differentwords

conveydifferentmeanings).Yetinourstudy,childrennotonlymanifestedlesssensitivityto

ostracismintheirsyntacticchoicesthanintheirlexicalchoices,theymanifestednodetectable

sensitivitywhatsoever.

Whatmightunderliethisunexpectedpatternofeffects?Onepossibilityisthatthe

socialmanipulationwasineffectiveinExperiment2,i.e.,childrenintheostracismcondition

didnotinfactexperienceostracism,andhenceshowednoeffectofthemanipulation.Butthe

resultsofourmanipulationchecksuggestthatthemanipulationwaseffective:Childreninthe

ostracismconditionappropriatelyreportedreceivingtheballsignificantlylessthanchildren

inthecontrolcondition.Anotherpossibilityisthatthebasicsyntacticalignmenteffectwas

tooweakortoostrongtoadmitmodulation.Butthemagnitudeofalignment(21%more

disfavoredpassiveresponsesafterpassiveprimesthanafteractiveprimes)suggeststhat

responseswereneitheratceilingnoratfloor,andhenceallowedforsignificantmodulationto

occur.

Itthereforeappearsthatexperiencingostracismindeedimpactedchildren’slinguistic

behaviordifferentlywithrespecttotheirlexicalchoicesversustheirsyntacticchoices.We


28

nowconsiderthreepossibleinterpretationsoftheseresults,butnotethattheyneednotbe

mutuallyexclusive.Thefirstpossibilityrelatestothenatureoflexicalversussyntacticchoices

inlanguageuse,bothgenerallyandalsointhespecificcontextofourexperiments.Wesuggest

thatlexicalchoicesmaybeaparticularlocusforaffiliativebehaviorsbecausetheyarea

strongcueaboutindividualspeaker’spreferences,andparticularlysowithinour

experimentaldesign.Lexicalchoicesareastronglypragmaticallyconditionedaspectof

language:Clark(1997)arguedthatwhenapartnerusesaparticularnameforanobject,she

indicatesnotonlythatsheunderstandsthatnamebutalsoprefersit(anditsassociated

conceptualization)toalternatives.Previousevidenceshowsthattheexistenceofshared

preferencespromotesasenseofinterpersonalsimilarity(Gershman,Pouncy,&Gweon,

2017).Thusbyconveyingherstablepreferences,theexperimenter’slexicalchoicesmayhave

beenparticularlyeffectiveinelicitingaffiliativebehaviors(inthiscase,imitation).Notethat

thisinterpretationiscloselyrelatedtoresearchonadults’alignmentonreferential

expressionsthataccountsforsucheffectsintermsoflocalconventionsor‘conceptualpacts’,

wherebyinterlocutorstacitlyagreetoadheretoonepartner’sexpressedpreference(Brennan

&Clark,1996).

Incontrast,althoughsyntacticcontrastsalsoindexaspeaker’smeaningand

preferences(Clark,1987),theymaydosolesssalientlythanlexicalcontrasts(Branigan,

Pickering,Pearson,&McLean,2010),especiallyamonginexperiencedlanguageusers.This

wouldhavebeenparticularlythecaseinourexperiments.InExperiment1,theexperimenter

alwaysnamedeachobjectonce(andthusexpressedaclearpreferencewithrespecttothe

appropriatelexicalchoice).ButinExperiment2,theexperimenterusedbothactiveand

passivestructuresequallyfrequentlythroughtheexperimentasawhole.Thusalthoughshe

expressedapreferenceregardingtheappropriatesyntacticchoiceforanygivenpicture(and

notethatthechildalwaysdescribeddifferentpicturestotheexperimenter),herbehaviordid

notexpressanoverallpreferenceforonestructureortheother.Itispossiblethatinacontext


29

whereapartnermoreconsistentlyexpressedapreferenceforonestructureoveranother,

childrenwhohadexperiencedostracismandsosoughtaffiliationwouldshowanenhanced

tendencytoimitatesyntax.

Adifferentpossibilityisthatourfindingsreflectadiscrepancyinprocessingdemands

betweenthelexicalandthesyntacticpicture-matchinggames,whichservedtoeither

strengthenorweakentheimpactofouraffiliationmanipulationonchildren’salignment.Ifthe

effectofourostracismmanipulationwastransient,itispossiblethatitexertedastronger

influenceinthelexicalpicture-matchinggame,wherechildrenwererequiredtocomprehend

andproducesimple,singlewords,thaninthesyntacticpicture-matchinggame,where

childrenhadtocomprehendandproducecomplexsentences.Shatz(1983)proposedthat

children’sconversationalbehaviorfluctuatesaccordingtotaskdemands.Accordingly,the

syntacticpicture-matchinggamemayhavebeensufficientlydemandingofchildren’s

cognitivecapacitytohinderanysocial-affectiveadaptationoftheirlinguisticbehaviour.

Certainly,thereisevidencethatspeakersareabletoengagemoreeffectivelyin

communicativeperspective-takingwhentheyhaveadequatetimeandcognitiveresources

(Epley,Morewedge,&Keysar,2004;Nadig&Sedivy,2002;Nilsen&Graham,2009).Wedo

notclaimthatincreasedalignmentisaconsciousresponsetoostracism(Lakin&Chartrand,

2003;Lakinetal.,2008),butitispossiblethatthegreatercognitivedemandsof

conceptualisingandproducingsententialdescriptions(includingmorecomplexpassive

structures)inExperiment2mayhaveextinguishedtheeffectsofexperiencingostracism.

Athirdinterpretationisthattheeffectsofostracismthatweobservedinchildren’s

lexicalalignmentreflectcue-dependencies.Inthelexicalpicture-matchingtask,childrenhad

theopportunitytoimitatefromthesameexemplarmodelledbytheexperimenter,sinceall

primesandtheirassociatedtargetcardssharedaconspicuouscommontoken(e.g.,thesame

brown,short-hairedrabbit).Inthisregard,thelexicalpicture-matchinggamewasmore

analogousthanthesyntacticpicture-matchinggametothetasksdescribedinthenon-


30

linguisticimitationliterature.Forinstance,inOverandCarpenter’s(2009b)study,an

experimenterchoseatooltoperformanactionsequencethatopenedabox;afterwatching

thisdemonstration,childrenreceivedthesametoolsandboxandwereaskedtoopenthebox

themselves.Althoughinbothexperimentsourpicture-matchinggameinvolvedspontaneous

imitation–likethetasksusedinnon-linguisticimitationstudies–thelexicalgamemayhave

moreclearlycuedchildren’simitationthanthesyntacticgame,inwhichprimeandtarget

cardsdidnotoverlapintermsoftheeventsandagents/patientsdepicted.Ifaffiliative

motivationspromoteincreasedencodingandrecallofdemonstratedactions,asthe‘social

hunger’accountproposes(Gardneretal.,2000),thenthesecuesmighthavebeenparticularly

salientforchildrenwhohadexperiencedostracism.Wenotehoweverthatpreviousevidence

foundchildren’slexicalalignmentisunaffectedbywhetherprimeandtargetcardsdepictthe

sameordifferenttokens,suggestingthatsuchcuesplayaminimalroleinlexicalalignmentin

contextsthatdonotinvolveexplicitsocialmanipulations(Braniganetal.,2016).

Ourstudydoesnotdeterminethemechanismsbywhichostracismledtochildren’s

increasedlexicalalignment.Previousworkhasidentifiedasocial-affectivecomponentto

linguisticimitation(Bradacetal.,1988;vanBaarenetal.,2003),butdidnotconsidersuch

effectsinthecontextofostracism.Studiesofnon-linguisticimitationhaveattributedsocial-

affectiveeffectstoaffiliationgoals,whicharetriggereddirectlyandautomaticallybyan

experienceofostracism(Aarts&Dijksterhuis,2000).IfweapplythisaccounttoExperiment

1,thenanexperienceofostracismactivatedaffiliationgoalsthatinturninducedchildrento

imitatetheexperimenter’slexicalchoiceswithgreaterfrequencythancontrols.Byconveying

theirsimilaritytoasocialpartnerinthisway,childrencouldfacilitatetheirsocial

(re)inclusion,sincepeoplerespondprosociallytobeingmimicked(Chartrand&Bargh,1999;

Carpenteretal.,2013).

Alternatively,anexperienceofostracismmayhavealteredhowchildreninExperiment

1processedincomingsocialinformation:Underasocialhungeraccount(Gardneretal.,


31

2000),theaffiliationmanipulationwouldhaveinfluencedhowmuchattentionchildrengave

totheexperimenter’slexicalchoices,andconferredaselectivememoryadvantagefor

disfavoredwordsonthechildrenwhoexperiencedostracism.Similarideashavebeen

integratedwithlanguageprocessingmodelstoexplainsocially-mediatedeffectsonsyntactic

alignmentinadults(Hwang&Chun,2018),andwehavealsosuggestedthatenhancedcoding

mighthaveoccurredatthelevelofthetokensdepictedontheSnap!cards.

Onewayofdistinguishingbetweentheaffiliativegoalsandsocialhungeraccountsas

theyapplytolexicalalignmentwouldbetohavechildrenplaythepicture-matchinggame,and

thentorenametheexperimentalitemsafteranintervalinanon-socialcontext(e.g.,aspartof

asingle-playercomputerizedgame).Ifenhancedencodingwerethemechanismthatinduced

affiliativemotivationandhenceincreasedalignmentduringthegame,thenostracised

childrenshouldcontinuetoshowanadvantageovercontrolchildrenfordisfavorednames

eveninanon-socialcontext;whereasanaffiliativegoalsaccountwouldpredictthatthe

advantageforostracisedchildrenwouldbeattenuatedinanon-socialcontext.

Wenotethatbothaccountswouldpredictthatanymanipulationthatinduced

affiliativegoals(i.e.,notjustexperiencesofostracism)wouldyieldsimilareffects.However,

thisremainstobeestablishedinfuturework.Moregenerally,itisunclearhowfareffectsof

socialmodulationonlanguageimitationmightextend.Ourresultsalreadysuggestthatthey

arerestrictedinatleastsomeways(i.e.,withrespecttoimitationofsyntacticchoicesinthese

experiments).Butwecannotdeterminetowhatextentsucheffectsmightbecontingenton

thecontextoflanguageuse.Ourexperimentsinvolvedatwo-playerpicture-matchinggamein

whichchildrensoughttowincards.Althoughthegameinvolvedcompetition(asplayers

competedwitheachothertowincards),italsonecessarilyinvolvedcooperation(asplayers

wereenagagedinjointactionthatinvolvedamutualgoaltoplaythegame,mutualadherence

toitsrules,appropriateturn-takingetc.).Itthereforeseemslikelythatthecontextinwhich

languageimitationoccurredwasonethatintrinsicallypromotedaffiliation,andhencemay


32

haveattenuatedtheeffectsofoursocialmanipulation.Othercontextsthatdidnotsimilarly

promoteaffiliationmightshowastrongermodulationinlanguageimitationasafunctionofa

socialmanipulation.

Relatedly,itisuncleartowhatextentsimilarmodulationsmightbecontingentonthe

experienceofostracismversusinclusion,orostracisminandofitself.Intheseexperiments,

wefollowedpreviousresearchincomparingchildren’s(linguistic)behaviorsafter

experiencingostracisminagamewithacontrolconditioninwhichchildrennotonlyfailedto

experienceostracism,butinfactactivelyexperiencedinclusion(i.e.,theyreceivedtheballthe

samenumberoftimesasotherplayers;e.g.,Watson-Jonesetal.,2016;Whiteetal.,2016;

Abramsetal.,2011).Thiscomparisonmightinprincipleexaggeratetheeffectsofthe

ostracismmanipulation.However,recentresearchusingtheCyberballparadigmsuggeststhat

moreneutralcontrolconditionsprovideasimilarexperiencetoinclusion(Dvir,Kelly,&

Williams,2018),suggestingthattheresultsfoundherearelikelyindicativeofchildren’s

responsetoostracismassuch.

Finally,ourstudyfocusedonschool-agedchildren.Althoughsensitivitytoostracismis

manifestedacrossthelifespan,fromearlychildhood(e.g.,Over&Carpenter,2009b;Watson-

Jonesetal.,2016)tooldage(e.g.,Hawkley,Williams,&Cacioppo,2011),recentresearch

suggeststhatresponsesvarywithage(Abramsetal.,2011),andmaybeparticularlystrong

duringadolescence(Tang,Lahat,Crowley,Wu,&Schmidt,2019).Wemightthereforeexpect

tofindthesamequalitativepatternacrossthelifespanofenhancedlexicalafterexperiencing

ostracism,butthattherewouldbequantitativedifferencesinthemagnitudeoftheseeffects.

Onepossibilityisthatsuchalignmentwouldbeenhancedinadolescence,andmightindeedby

supplementedbysensitivitytootheraspectsoflanguagebehavior(e.g.,syntacticchoice).An

alternativepossibilityisthatpeopledevelopamoresophisticatedandcomprehensive

repertoireofaffiliativebehaviorswithincreasingage,sothatlanguageimitationasameansof

promotingsocialrelationshipsmaycometobemanifesteddifferently(e.g.,throughbroader


33

stylisticaccommodation)duringadolescenceandadulthoodthanintheagerangestudied

here.Importantly,thereisaconsiderablebodyofresearchsuggestingthatconvergencewitha

partner’slanguagecontinuestoplayanimportantsocial-affectiveroleinadulthood(Giles,

Coupland,&Coupland,1991).

Insum,thepresentstudymakesanimportantcontributiontoourunderstandingof

socialimitation,byprovidingnovelevidencethattherelationshipbetweenostracismand

motoricimitationinchildrenextendstochildren’simitationoflanguage.Childrenwho

experiencedostracismshowedastrongertendencytoimitatethelexicalchoicesofapartner,

implicatinglinguisticbehavior(andspecificallylexicalalignment)asanadditionalbehavior

throughwhichchildrenmightaddressthreatstotheirsenseofbelonging.Thisfinding

underlinestheroleofsocial-affectivefactorsinchildren’scommunicativedevelopment.Butit

alsosuggeststhatapotentiallyvaluableformofbehavioraladaptationmightbeunavailableto

childrenwhohaveimpairedsocial-affectiveunderstanding(thoughseeBraniganetal.,2016;

Hopkinsetal.,2017).Ourfindingsalsohighlightcontiguitiesbetweenchildren’smotoricand

languageimitation,andprovideanintriguingleadfornewresearchinafieldwherecross-

domainrelationshipsinimitativebehaviorareunderexplored.Assuch,theyhighlightthe

needforfurtherinvestigationsoftherangeandconditionsofchildren’saffiliativebehavior,

theoutcomesofwhicharelikelytohaveprofoundimplicationsfortheoriesofchild

development.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorsthankparticipatingschools,andalsoFraserCaldwell,RebeccaFallon,andCaitlin

Murphy-Clarkfortheirhelpwithdatacollection.ThisresearchwassupportedbyESRCgrant

ES/N013115/1.Theauthorshavedeclaredthattheyhavenocompetingorpotentialconflicts

ofinterest.


34

REFERENCES

Aarts,H.,&Dijksterhuis,A.(2000).Habitsasknowledgestructures:Automaticityingoal-

directedbehavior.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.1.53

Abrams,D.,Weick,M.,Thomas,D.,Colbe,H.,&Franklin,K.M.(2011).On-lineOstracism

AffectsChildrenDifferentlyFromAdolescentsandAdults.TheBritishJournalof

DevelopmentalPsychology,29(1),110–123.

https://doi.org/10.1348/026151010X494089

Balcetis,E.E.,&Dale,R.(2005).AnExplorationofSocialModulationofSyntacticPriming.

Proceedingsofthe27thAnnualMeetingoftheCognitiveScienceSociety,184–189.

Bandura,A.,&Harris,M.B.(1966).Modificationofsyntacticstyle.JournalofExperimental

ChildPsychology,4(4),341-352.https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(66)90036-1

Bannard,C.,Klinger,J.,&Tomasello,M.(2013).Howselectiveare3-year-oldsinimitating

novellinguisticmaterial?DevelopmentalPsychology.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032062

Barkley,J.E.,Salvy,S.-J.,&Roemmich,J.N.(2012).Theeffectofsimulatedostracismon

physicalactivitybehaviorinchildren.Pediatrics,129(3),e659-66.

https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0496

Baumeister,R.,&Leary,M.(1995).Theneedtobelong:desireforinterpersonalattachments

asafundamentalhumanmotivation.PsychologicalBulletin,117,497–529.

https://doi.org/(doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497),

Bradac,J.,Mulac,A.,&House,A.(1988).Lexicaldiversityandmagnitudeofconvergentversus

divergentstyleshiftingperceptualandevaluativeconsequences.Languageand

Communication,8(3–4),213–228.

Branigan,H.P.,Pickering,M.J.,Pearson,J.,&McLean,J.F.(2010).Linguisticalignment

betweenpeopleandcomputers.JournalofPragmatics,42(9),2355-2368.


35

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.012

Branigan,HollyP.,Pickering,M.J.,&Cleland,A.A.(2000).Syntacticco-ordinationindialogue.

Cognition,75(2),13–25.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00081-5

Branigan,HollyP.,Tosi,A.,&Gillespie-Smith,K.(2016).SpontaneousLexicalAlignmentin

ChildrenWithanAutisticSpectrumDisorderandTheirTypicallyDevelopingPeers.

JournalofExperimentalPsychology:Learning,Memory,andCognition,42(11),1821-1831.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000272

Branigan,HollyP,Pickering,M.J.,Pearson,J.,McLean,J.F.,&Brown,A.(2011).Theroleof

beliefsinlexicalalignment:evidencefromdialogswithhumansandcomputers.

Cognition,121(1),41–57.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.011

Brennan,S.E.,&Clark,H.H.(1996).Conceptualpactsandlexicalchoiceinconversation.

JournalofExperimentalPsychology.Learning,Memory,andCognition,22(6),1482–1493.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8921603

Carpenter,M.,Uebel,J.,&Tomasello,M.(2013).Beingmimickedincreasesprosocialbehavior

in18-month-oldinfants.ChildDevelopment,84(5),1511–1518.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12083

Carter-Sowell,A.R.,Chen,Z.,&Williams,K.D.(2008).Ostracismincreasessocial

susceptibility.SocialInfluence,3(3),143–153.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802204868

Chartrand,T.L.,&Bargh,J.A.(1999).Thechameleoneffect:theperception-behaviorlinkand

socialinteraction.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,76(6),893-910.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893

Clark,E.V.(1987).Theprincipleofcontrast:Aconstraintonlanguageacquisition.InB.

MacWhinney(Ed.),Mechanismsoflanguageacquisition(pp.1–33).Erlbaum,Hillsdale,NJ.

Clark,E.V.(1997).Conceptualperspectiveandlexicalchoiceinacquisition.Cognition,64,1–

37.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00010-3


36

Crick,N.R.,Casas,J.F.,&Ku,H.C.(1999).Relationalandphysicalformsofpeervictimization

inpreschool.DevelopmentalPsychology,35(2),376–385.https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.35.2.376

Crick,N.R.,Casas,J.F.,&Mosher,M.(1997).Relationalandovertaggressioninpreschool.

DevelopmentalPsychology,33(4),579–588.https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.33.4.579

Dienes,Z.(2014).UsingBayestogetthemostoutofnon-significantresults.Frontiersin

Psychology.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781

Dvir,M.,Kelly,J.R.,&Williams,K.D.(2018).Isinclusionavalidcontrolforostracism?Journal

ofSocialPsychology,159(1),106-111.https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1460301

Epley,N.,Morewedge,C.K.,&Keysar,B.(2004).Perspectivetakinginchildrenandadults:

Equivalentegocentrismbutdifferentialcorrection.JournalofExperimentalSocial

Psychology,40(6),760–768.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.002

Fusaroli,R.,Bahrami,B.,Olsen,K.,Roepstorff,A.,Rees,G.,Frith,C.,&Tylen,K.(2012).Coming

toTerms:QuantifyingtheBenefitsofLinguisticCoordination.PsychologicalScience,

23(8),931-939.https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612436816

Gardner,W.L.,Pickett,C.L.,&Brewer,M.B.(2000).SocialExclusionandSelectiveMemory:

HowtheNeedtobelongInfluencesMemoryforSocialEvents.PersonalityandSocial

PsychologyBulletin,26(4),486–496.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200266007

Garrod,S,&Anderson,a.(1987).Sayingwhatyoumeanindialogue:astudyinconceptual

andsemanticco-ordination.Cognition,27(2),181–218.Retrievedfrom

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3691025

Garrod,S,&Doherty,G.(1994).Conversation,co-ordinationandconvention:anempirical

investigationofhowgroupsestablishlinguisticconventions.Cognition,53(3),181–215.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7842633

Garrod,Simon,&Clark,A.(1993).Thedevelopmentofdialogueco-ordinationskillsinschool


37

children.LanguageandCognitiveProcesses,8(1),101-126.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308406950

Gershman,S.J.,Pouncy,H.T.,&Gweon,H.(2017).LearningtheStructureofSocialInfluence.

CognitiveScience,41,545–575.https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12480

Giles,H.,Coupland,J.,&Coupland,N.(1991).Accommodationtheory:Communication,

context,andconsequence.InH.Giles,J.Coupland,&N.Coupland(Eds.),Contextsof

accommodation:Developmentsinappliedsociolinguistics(pp.1–68).Cambridge,England:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663673

Giles,H.,&Powesland,P.(1975).SpeechStyleandSocialEvaluation.London:AcademicPress.

Hawes,D.J.,Zadro,L.,Fink,E.,Richardson,R.,O’Moore,K.,Griffiths,B.,…Williams,K.D.

(2012).Theeffectsofpeerostracismonchildren’scognitiveprocesses.EuropeanJournal

ofDevelopmentalPsychology,9(5),599–613.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.638815

Hawkley,L.C.,Williams,K.D.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(2011).Responsestoostracismacross

adulthood.SocialCognitiveandAffectiveNeuroscience,6(2),234–243.

https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq045

Heyselaar,E.,Hagoort,P.,&Segaert,K.(2017).Howsocialopinioninfluencessyntactic

processing-Aninvestigationusingvirtualreality.PLoSONE,12(4),1–21.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174405

Hopkins,Z.,Yuill,N.,&Branigan,H.P.(2017).Inhibitorycontrolandlexicalalignmentin

childrenwithanautismspectrumdisorder.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatry

andAlliedDisciplines,58(10),1155-1165.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12792

Huttenlocher,J.,Vasilyeva,M.,&Shimpi,P.(2004).Syntacticpriminginyoungchildren.

JournalofMemoryandLanguage,50(2),182–195.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2003.09.003


38

Hwang,H.,&Chun,E.(2018).InfluenceofSocialPerceptionandSocialMonitoringon

StructuralPriming.CognitiveScience,1–11.https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12604

Lakin,J.L.,&Chartrand,T.L.(2003).Usingnonconsciousbehavioralmimicrytocreate

affiliationandrapport.PsychologicalScience,14(4),334–339.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.14481

Lakin,J.L.,Chartrand,T.L.,&Arkin,R.M.(2008).Iamtoojustlikeyou:Nonconscious

mimicryasanautomaticbehavioralresponsetosocialexclusion.PsychologicalScience,

19(8),816–822.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02162.x

Lakin,J.L.,Jefferis,V.E.,Cheng,C.M.,&Chartrand,T.L.(2003).TheChameleonEffectasSocial

Glue:EvidencefortheEvolutionarySignificanceofNonconsciousMimicry.Journalof

NonverbalBehavior,27(3),145–162.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025389814290

Matthews,D.,Lieven,E.,&Tomasello,M.(2010).What’sinamannerofspeaking?Children’s

sensitivitytopartner-specificreferentialprecedents.DevelopmentalPsychology,46(4),

749–760.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019657

Messenger,K.,Branigan,H.P.,McLean,J.F.,&Sorace,A.(2012).Isyoungchildren’spassive

syntaxsemanticallyconstrained?Evidencefromsyntacticpriming.JournalofMemory

andLanguage,66(4),568-587.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008

Messenger,Katherine,Branigan,H.P.,&McLean,J.F.(2011).Evidencefor(shared)abstract

structureunderlyingchildren’sshortandfullpassives.Cognition,121(2),268–274.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.003

Messenger,Katherine,McLean,J.F.,Branigan,H.P.,&Sorace,A.(2012).Isyoungchildren’s

passivesyntaxsemanticallyconstrained?Evidencefromsyntacticpriming.Journalof

MemoryandLanguage,66(4),568–587.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.008

Nadig,A.S.,&Sedivy,J.C.(2002).Evidenceofperspective-takingconstraintsinchildren’son-

linereferenceresolution.PsychologicalScience,13(4),329–336.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2002.00460.x


39

Nilsen,E.S.,&Graham,S.a.(2009).Therelationsbetweenchildren’scommunicative

perspective-takingandexecutivefunctioning.CognitivePsychology,58(2),220–249.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.07.002

Over,H.,&Carpenter,M.(2009a).Eighteen-month-oldinfantsshowincreasedhelping

followingprimingwithaffiliation:Researchreport.PsychologicalScience,20(10),1189–

1193.

Over,H.,&Carpenter,M.(2009b).Primingthird-partyostracismincreasesaffiliativeimitation

inchildren.DevelopmentalScience,12(3),F1-8.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

7687.2008.00820.x

Over,H.,&Carpenter,M.(2013).TheSocialSideofImitation.ChildDevelopmentPerspectives,

7(1),6–11.https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12006

Pickering,M.J.,&Garrod,S.(2004).Towardamechanisticpsychologyofdialogue.Behavioral

andBrainSciences,27(2),169–190;discussion190-226.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056

Putman,W.B.,&Street,R.L.(1984).Theconceptionandperceptionofnoncontentspeech

performance:implicationsforspeech-accommodationtheory.InternationalJournalofthe

SociologyofLanguage,46,97-114.https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.46.97

Raftery,A.E.(1995).Bayesianmodelselectioninsocialresearch.SociologicalMethodology,

25,111–163.https://doi.org/10.2307/271063

Riva,P.,Williams,K.D.,Torstrick,A.M.,&Montali,L.(2014).Orderstoshoot(aCamera):

Effectsofostracismonobedience.JournalofSocialPsychology,154(3),208–216.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.883354

Shatz,M.(1983).Communication.InP.H.Mussen,J.H.Flavell,&E.M.Markman(Eds.),

Handbookofchildpsychology(Vol.4,pp.841–889).NewYork:Wiley.

Shimpi,P.M.,Gámez,P.B.,Huttenlocher,J.,&Vasilyeva,M.(2007).SyntacticPrimingin3-and

4-Year-OldChildren:EvidenceforAbstractRepresentationsofTransitiveandDative


40

Forms.DevelopmentalPsychology,43(6),1334–1346.https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-

1649.43.6.1334

Smith,B.L.,Brown,B.L.,Strong,W.J.,&Rencher,A.C.(1975).Effectsofspeechrateon

personalityperception.LanguageandSpeech,18(2),145–152.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097501800203

Song,R.,Over,H.,&Carpenter,M.(2015).ChildrenDrawMoreAffiliativePicturesFollowing

PrimingWithThird-PartyOstracism.DevelopmentalPsychology,51(6),831–840.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039176

Spoor,J.R.,&Williams,K.D.(2011).Theevolutionofanostracismdetectionsystem.InJ.P.

Forgas,M.G.Haselton,&W.vonHippel(Eds.),Sydneysymposiumofsocialpsychology.

Evolutionandthesocialmind:Evolutionarypsychologyandsocialcognition(p.279–292).

Routledge/Taylor&FrancisGroup.

Tang,A.,Lahat,A.,Crowley,M.J.,Wu,J.,&Schmidt,L.A.(2019).Neurodevelopmental

DifferencestoSocialExclusion:AnEvent-RelatedNeuralOscillationStudyofChildren,

Adolescents,andAdults.Emotion,19(3),520–532.

https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000456

vanBaaren,R.B.,Holland,R.W.,Steenaert,B.,&vanKnippenberg,A.(2003).Mimicryfor

money:Behavioralconsequencesofimitation.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,

39(4),393–398.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00014-3

VonKlitzing,K.,White,L.O.,Otto,Y.,Fuchs,S.,Egger,H.L.,&Klein,A.M.(2014).Depressive

comorbidityinpreschoolanxietydisorder.JournalofChildPsychologyandPsychiatryand

AlliedDisciplines,55(10),1107–1116.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12222

Wagenmakers,E.-J.(2007).Apracticalsolutiontothepervasiveproblemsofpvalues.

PsychonomicBulletin&Review,14(5),779–804.https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105

Watson-Jones,R.E.,Legare,C.H.,Whitehouse,H.,&Clegg,J.M.(2014).Task-specificeffectsof

ostracismonimitativefidelityinearlychildhood.EvolutionandHumanBehavior,35(3),


41

204–210.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.004

Watson-Jones,R.E.,Whitehouse,H.,&Legare,C.H.(2016).In-GroupOstracismIncreases

High-FidelityImitationinEarlyChildhood.PsychologicalScience,27(1),34–42.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615607205

Weatherholtz,K.,Campbell-kibler,K.,Jaeger,T.F.,Hall,O.,&Ave,N.(2014).Socially-Mediated

SyntacticAlignment.LanguageVariationandChange,26,387–420.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394514000155

Wesselmann,E.D.,Bagg,D.,&Williams,K.D.(2009).“IFeelYourPain”:Theeffectsof

observingostracismontheostracismdetectionsystem.JournalofExperimentalSocial

Psychology,45(6),1308–1311.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.003

White,L.O.,Klein,A.M.,Klitzing,K.von,Graneist,A.,Otto,Y.,Hill,J.,Over,H.,Fonagy,P.,&

Crowley,M.J.(2016).Puttingostracismintoperspective:Youngchildrentellmore

mentalisticstoriesafterexclusion,butnotwhenanxious.FrontiersinPsychology,22(7),

Article1926.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01926

Zadro,L.,Williams,K.D.,&Richardson,R.(2004).Howlowcanyougo?Ostracismbya

computerissufficienttolowerself-reportedlevelsofbelonging,control,self-esteem,and

meaningfulexistence.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,40(4),560–567.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006


42

Table1:Participantcharacteristics(agesinyears;months)

Experimentalgroup

Experiment Ostracism Control pvalue

1 Chronologicalage M=8;9(range7;1–

10;8)

M=9;0(range7;3

-10;6)

.273

Receptivevocabulary1 M=28.79(SD=

5.84)

M=27.83(SD=

5.15)

.513

Expressivevocabulary1 M=24.79(SD=

5.46)

M=25.10(SD=

5.51)

.833

Standardisedvocabulary

score2

M=107.55(SD=

13.53)

M=103.10(SD=

11.40)

.183

Gender(M:F) 13:16 17:12 .294

2 Chronologicalage M=9;9

(range8;4–12;10)

M=9;6

(range8;0–11;6)

.443

Receptivegrammar1 M=14.60(SD=

3.70)

M=14.63(SD=

2.91)

.973

Standardisedgrammar

score

M=95.23(SD=

15.19)

M=95.26(SD=

12.52)

.993

Gender(M:F) 16:14 11:16 .344

1Rawscores

2Standardisedsumofreceptiveandexpressivevocabularyscores

3Nosignificantgroupdifferenceonanindependentt-test

4NosignificantgroupdifferenceonaChi-squaretest


43

Figure1:ScreenshotofCyberballgame


44

A.

B.

Figure2.Sampleexperimentaltrials.A.Disfavoredprimenamefollowedbysnap!trialinlexicalpicture-

matchinggame.Onexperimentaltrials,theexperimenternamedanobjectusingthefavoredname(“rabbit”)

ordisfavoredname(“bunny”);aftertwofillers,thechildnamedthesameobject.Alignmentoccurredifthe

childusedthesamenameastheexperimenterpreviouslyused(“bunny”).Onsnap!trials,theexperimenter

andchildconsecutivelynamedthesameobject.B.Passiveprimecondition;activeprimeconditionfollowed

bysnap!trialinsyntacticpicture-matchinggame.Onexperimentaltrials,theexperimenterdescribeda

transitiveeventusingthefavored(active)ordisfavored(passive)structure;thechildthendescribeda

differenttransitiveevent.Alignmentoccurredifthechildusedthesamestructureastheexperimenter

previouslyused.Onsnap!trials,theexperimenterandchildconsecutivelydescribedthesameevent.


45

Table2:Frequency(and%)ofchildren’stargetresponses,byprimeandcondition

Prime

Experiment Condition Response Favored Disfavored Alignmenteffect†

(95%bootstrappedCIs)

1 Ostracism Favored 268(92%) 83(29%)

Disfavored 11(3%) 197(69%) 66%(60-72)

Other 10 7

Control Favored 254(88%) 112(39%)

Disfavored 22(7%) 160(55%) 48%(40-57)

Other 12 17

2 Ostracism Active 319(89%) 249(69%)

Passive 25(7%) 99(27%) 20%(13-26)

Other 14 12

Control Active 282(87%) 210(65%)

Passive 27(8%) 98(30%) 22%(14-31)

Other 15 15

†Alignmenteffectsrepresentpercentagepointincreasesintheobservedprobabilityof

producingadisfavoredresponseafteraFavoredvs.afteraDisfavoredprimename/structure.


46

Table3:summaryofexperimentalLMEmodels,predictinglexical1andsyntacticalignment

Parameter

estimates

Wald’stest

Experiment Fixedeffects β S.E. Z p(β=0)

1 Intercept -1.50 0.21 -7.02

Primename2 -4.09 0.28 -14.64 <.001

Condition2 0.35 0.27 1.30 .20

Receptive

vocabulary3

0.19 0.12 1.67 .10

Expressive

vocabulary3

-0.13 0.11 -1.18 .24

Prime

name*condition

1.86 0.52 3.60 <.001

2 Intercept -2.53 0.32 -7.92

Primestructure2 -2.49 0.42 -5.86 <.001

Condition2 .03 0.49 .05 .95

Receptivegrammar3 0.24 0.22 1.06 .29

Prime

name*condition

-0.17 0.46 -0.37 .72

1Modelconvergeduponsimplifyingrandomeffectsstructure.

2Primename,primestructure,andconditionweredeviation-contrastcoded,with

values-.5/.5forlevelsDisfavored/Favored,andostracism/control.

3Receptivevocabulary,expressivevocabulary,andreceptivegrammarwerecenteredand

scaled.


47

A.

B.

Figure3.Linegraphsofprime*conditioninteractions.A.Predictslexicalalignment.B.Predictssyntactic

alignment.

edinburgh research explorer · 2020. 2. 10. · branigan, pickering, & cleland, 2000;...

Documents