Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Our results suggest that interindividual differences in neur

    2018-11-13

    Our results suggest that interindividual differences in neural mirroring are related to successful cooperation. Yet, the causal direction underlying this relation remains an open question. Better interpersonal coordination likely is the result of higher general levels of neural mirroring. Previous research has shown that neural mirroring supports prediction (e.g., Southgate et al., 2009; Stapel et al., 2010) and monitoring of others’ actions (Becchio et al., 2012; Bekkering et al., 2009) as we can use our own action system to predict the actions of a partner (Kilner et al., 2007). Enhanced prediction and monitoring, in turn, might help us prepare for and execute our own actions accordingly (Kourtis et al., 2013; Sebanz et al., 2006). Based on this reasoning, individuals with higher levels of neural mirroring might be better at coordinating their actions with others. However, neural mirroring and cooperation might also both be the result of a third factor, such as social motivation. Children differ in their motivation to be involved in social interactions (Brownell and Hazen, 1999), which could impact both their level of mirroring and their cooperation success. Neuroimaging studies in adults have shown a role of social motivation for mirroring as they found enhanced mirroring when participants were socially primed (Hogeveen and Obhi, 2012; Oberman et al., 2007), and enhanced mirroring for in-group members than for out-group members (Gutsell and Inzlicht, 2010; Molenberghs et al., 2013; Rauchbauer et al., 2015). Studies with adults also support the role of social motivation in interpersonal coordination: Adults with a pro-social orientation coordinated their actions better than adults with a pro-self orientation (Lumdsen et al., 2012). Whether children’s neural mirroring is really at the ionomycin of their interpersonal coordination or whether both are the result of their social motivation has to be addressed in future research. Hereby, it would especially be informative to develop stimulus videos acted by children for children, as these videos would be more socially relevant for them. The question arises to what extent interindividual differences in neural mirroring play a role in children’s social development. Friedlmeier (2009) suggested that adapting behavior might be an indicator of social competence. And Cirelli et al. (2014) and Kirschner and Tomasello (2010) found more helping behavior in children after chromatin experienced smooth interpersonal coordination. This increased prosociality could be an indicator of likeability, thereby suggesting that higher levels of mirroring result in better peer relations via successful interpersonal coordination. However, a relation between interpersonal coordination and peer preference was not present in a recent longitudinal study we conducted (Endedijk et al., submitted). On the other hand, the increased helping behavior as response to interpersonal coordination also could suggest that mirroring supports estimation of the needs of peers. Baimel et al. (2015) argued that coordinating interpersonally helps reasoning about others’ mind, thereby fostering perspective taking and empathic concern. Although the exact social consequences of peer coordination are unclear, these lines of reasoning suggest that interindividual differences in neural mirroring may have several implications for children’s social development.
    Introduction Mindsets – or implicit beliefs about the malleability of intelligence – have been linked with differential responding to setbacks and failures. Whereas individuals with more of a growth mindset – the belief that intelligence is expandable with learning and effort – tend to readily bounce back from their errors, those with more of a fixed mindset – the belief that intelligence is a stable entity – tend to feel helpless after encountering failures (e.g., Dweck, 1999; Henderson and Dweck, 1990; Hong et al., 1999; Moser et al., 2011). In fact, the connection between mindsets, attributions, and differential reactions to failure is well established across much of development (Dweck, 1975; Dweck and Reppucci, 1973; Hong et al., 1999; Mueller and Dweck, 1998). Mindset-like beliefs are present as early as kindergarten and first grade (Bempechat et al., 1991; Cain and Dweck, 1995; Herbert and Dweck, 1985; Smiley and Dweck, 1994), and have been shown to distinguish students who “thrive” from those who “dive” across middle school (Blackwell et al., 2007; Romero et al., 2014), high school (Yeager et al., 2014), and college (Yeager et al., 2016). As such, disseminating the growth mindset belief on a national scale has become a research priority across grade levels (Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2013; Yeager et al., 2016).