Social Cognition and the

Acquisition of Self

Social Cognition and the

Acquisition of Self

Micha el Lewis and

Jeanne Brooks -Gunn Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children

Educational Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey

PLENUM PRESS· NEW YORK AND LONDON

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Lewis, Michael, 1937 (Jan. 10)-Social cognition and the acquisition of self.

Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Self. 2. Social perception. 3. Personality. 4. Infant psychology. I. Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne,

joint author. II. Title. [DNLM: 1. Self concept. BF697 L675] BF697.L46 155.4'22 79-12070

ISBN-13: 978-1-4684-3568-9 001: 10.1007/978-1-4684-3566-5

e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4684-3566-5

© 1979 Michael Lewis and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn,Educational Testing Service

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1 st edition 1979

Plenum Press, New York A Division of Plenum Publishing Corporation 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrirval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfIlming,

recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher

To Rhoda who has given my mind a place to rest

and an opportunity to grow

To my parents

Michael Lewis

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn

Preface

It is always enlightening to inquire about the origins of a research en­deavor or a particular theoretical approach. Beginning with the observa­tion of the mental life of the infant in 1962, Michael Lewis has contrib­uted to the change in the view of the infant as an insensate mass of confusion to a complex and intellectual being. Anyone fortunate enough to have participated in the infancy research of the 1960s knows how exciting it was to have discovered in this small creature such a full and complex organism. More central to the origins of this work was the perception of the infant as an interactive, not a reactive, organism, and as one who influenced its social environment and constructed its cogni­tive life, not one who just passively received information. Other areas of psychology had already begun to conceptualize the organism as active and interactive, even while developmental psychologists still clung to either simple learning paradigms, social reinforcement theories, or reflex­ive theories. Even though Piaget had proposed an elaborate interactive theory, it was not until the late 1960s that his beliefs were fully im­plemented into developmental theory and practice. A concurrent trend was the increase of concern with mother-infant interactions (Ainsworth, 1969; Bowlby, 1969; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Lewis & Goldberg, 1969) which provided the impetus for the study of social and emotional as well as cognitive development.

About this time, Michael Lewis made an interesting observation of his daughter, Felicia, who was then about eight months old. Al­though the approach of adult strangers produced "stranger fear" as expected from the infancy literature, the approach of child strangers, friends of her three-year-old brother Benjamin, elicited no such re­sponse. Fear was absent, yet greeting and approach were not. The cur­rent or subsequent theories concerning fear were not adequate in offer-

vii

viii PREFACE

ing an explanation for the observation, nor did they adequately address the interface between emotional expression and cognition. It was at this point that the notion of similarity, of "like me", was formulated. The empirical literature on self development was practically nonexistent. Discussing this problem with Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, then a student at the University of Pennsylvania, we decided to test this observation. In the study originating out of this observation (Lewis & Brooks, 1974) and in several subsequent studies (Brooks & Lewis, 1976; Lewis, Young, Brooks, & Michalson, 1975), we confirmed that young infants are more wary and frightened of adult strangers than child strangers. In the origi­nal Lewis and Brooks study, we decided to observe the child's response to other social objects besides strangers and, to this end, a mother- and a self-approach procedure were observed. In the self-approach, the in­fants were moved toward a mirror in which they could see only their own image during the approach. From our observations in this study, our interest in self recognition and the development of self was born. For her dissertation, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn studied self recognition in a mirror and a still-picture situation. The results of this labor are Mirror Study I and Picture Study I. The other studies reported in this volume have been run since, confirming our belief that self knowledge has its origins in infancy. Moreover, as our interest in social cognition and affect development has deepened, the central role of the self as a mediat­ing construct has become increasingly relevant. Fortunately, the work of others has guided us: Gallup with nonhuman primates, the personality theory of Kelly, and the social theories of Mead and Cooley. Even more, their insights have encouraged us, sometimes in the face of skepticism of our colleagues, to continue our work. Although self knowledge is widely discussed in the personality, social, clinical, and philosophical literature, its place in developmental psychology is sadly precarious. Since we have begun our work, a few empirical papers have appeared and a few developmental psychologists have begun to discuss the self. Our hope is that this volume and the theoretical approach that we pre­sent will encourage others to approach the problem of self knowledge and development. For us, the problem of the self remains a vital consid­eration in any theory of social cognition and motivation. It is necessary to reintroduce the organism into psychology, somewhere between the stimulus and the behaviors we observe.

Princeton, New Jersey

MICHAEL LEWIS

JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to the many people who pro­vided assistance and support. Christine Brim, Susan Lee-Painter, Eileen Scott, Linda Michalson, Gina Rhea, and Sherrill Lord all gave gener­ously of their time during data collection and data coding. Erik Holme designed our original mirror apparatus and provided invaluable techni­cal help during all the studies. Al Rogers and Allan Yates lent their statistical expertise to the data analysis. Jeannette Haviland assisted us in the study presented in Chapter 8 in her design of a system for coding emotional expressions. Marsha Weinraub deserves special mention as she contributed to early conceptualizations of the problem and early behavioral coding systems.

Picture Study I and Mirror Study I were conducted as part of Jeanne Brooks-Gunn's dissertation at the University of Pennsylvania, and spe­cial mention should be made of the faculty members who served on the thesis committee. Dr. Joanna Williams, Dr. Gail Zivin, and Dr. Erling Boe's encouragement and advice were extremely helpful.

Special thanks are due to the many mothers from the Princeton area who participated in our studies with their infants, who were usually cooperative and always interesting subjects, and to Gloria Weiss and Claire Montagna who typed the many drafts of this book.

Support for this research was generously provided by a grant from the National Institute for Mental Health (MH-24849-0l). The writing of the volume was funded by a grant from the Foundation for Child De­velopment. Our personal appreciation goes to Orville Brim, who sup­ported our work.

ix

Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XV

LIST OF TABLES ............................................ " xvii

Chapter 1 THE ORIGINS OF SELF ........................................ 1

Social Cognition .......................................... 7 Duality of Self ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Theoretical Accounts of the Origins of Self .................. 11 Self Knowledge and Self Awareness ................ . . . . . . . . 26 Plan of This Volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter 2 MIRROR REPRESENTATIONS OF SELF ............ ,. ... . . . . . . . . .. . 29

Mirror Study I ............................................ 29 Mirror Study II ........................................... 46

Chapter 3 VIDEOTAPE REPRESENTATIONS OF SELF AND OTHERS.... . . . ... . . . 69

Videotape Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Videotape Study II ........................................ 87

Chapter 4 PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF SELF AND OTHERS..... . . . ...... 115

Picture Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116 Picture Study II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123

xi

xii CONTENTS

Chapter 5 VERBAL LABELING OF SELF AND OTHERS. ...... ...... . . . . . . . . . .. 141

Labeling Study I .......................................... 142 Labeling Study II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150

Chapter 6 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE EXPRESSION OF SELF RECOGNIfION 165

Chapter 7 SELF RECOGNITION AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184

A Definition of Emotion ................................... 185 The Ontogenesis of Emotional Experience and Self Knowledge 189

Chapter 8 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF RECOGNITION..... . . ... . ..... ...... 198

Representational Forms of the Self. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 199 Criteria for Self Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 212 The Ontogeny of Self Recognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 214 Individual Differences in the Development of Self Recognition 219

Chapter 9 TOWARD A THEORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SELF. ... . . . . . . ..... 222

Self Development ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 222 Self, Interaction, and Other: The Onset of Social Cognition ... 228 Three Principles of Social Cognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 230 Social Dimensions and the Categorical Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 233

Chapter 10 THE USES OF A THEORY OF SELF ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 241

The Ontogeny of Thought: A Sociobiological Approach.. . . ... 241 The Role of Self in Cognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 246 The Self-Other Distinction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 249 Self and Interaction ....................................... 257

CONTENTS xiii

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 273

AUTHOR INDEX ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 289

SUBJECT INDEX .............................................. 293

List of Figures

2-1 Nose-directed behavior: Percentage difference between No Rouge and Rouge 1 Conditions by age . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2-2 Body-directed behavior: Percentage difference between No Rouge and Rouge 1 Conditions by age. . ... ...... 43

2-3 Mark-directed behavior in Rouge 1, Mirror Study I and Condition B, Mirror Study II ....................... 56

2-4 Percentage of subjects exhibiting mark recognition in the present study and in Amsterdam's (1968) study by age 64

2-5 Percentage of subjects in the Rouge 1 Condition by age who exhibited other- and self-directed behavior. . . . . . 68

3-1 Mean percentage of subjects who smiled, concentrated, imitated the tapes, and played with the contingencies 76

3-2 Contingent play: Mean proportion of trials by stimulus condition and by age .............................. 79

3-3 Imitates tape: Mean proportion of trials by stimulus condi-tion and by age ................................... 80

3-4 Mean difference scores for the three comparisons for con-tingent play and imitates tape ...................... 81

3-5 Mean difference scores for smiling for the three compari-sons. .. .. . ... .. . . .. . .. . . ... . ... . .. ... . ... . . . ... . .. 84

3-6 Mean proportion difference scores for the three compari-sons for target turns by age ........................ 95

3-7 Mean proportion difference scores for the three compari-sons for contingent play by age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 102

9-1 Schematic representation of social objects utilizing three social categories: age, gender, and familiarity ........ 239

10-1 The relative influence of complex social reflexes and com-plex social cognitions upon behavior expression in the first year of life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 243

xv

List of Tables

1-1 Mirror Test Items in Five Infant Tests .................. 22 2-1 Behaviors Observed in the Mirror Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . 32 2-2 Percentage of Subjects Responding in the No Rouge Condi-

tion by Behavior and by Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2-3 Percentage Change Scores between the No Rouge and

Rouge 1 Condition by Behavior and by Age. . . . . . . . . . . 40 2-4 Number of Subjects Exhibiting Mark Recognition in Rouge

1, Mother Rouge, and Rouge 2 Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2-5 Percentage of Subjects Exhibiting Each Behavior in Trials 1

and 2 of Condition A in Mirror Study II (No Rouge Trials) and in the No Rouge and Rouge 1 Condition in Mirror Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2-6 Percentage of Subjects Exhibiting Each Behavior in Trial 2, Condition B in Mirror Study II by Age ............... 54

2-7 Percentage of Subjects Exhibiting Each Behavior in Trial 2 of Conditions Band C in Mirror Study II and in the Rouge 1 and 2 Conditions in Mirror Study I .......... 55

3-1 Measures Used in Videotape Study I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3-2 Mean Proportion of Trials and Number of Subjects Exhibit-

ing Contingent Play and Imitates Tape by Stimulus Con-dition ............................................. 78

3-3 Mean Proportion of Trials in Which the Infants Smiled, Moved toward, and Vocalized Positively to the Stimulus Condition by Age and Sex of Subject ................ 82

3-4 Mean Proportion of Trial Spent Looking, and Mean Pro-portion of Trial in Which Infants Exhibited a Concentrate Expression to the Stimulus Conditions by Age and Sex of Subject. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

xvii

xviii LIST OF TABLES

3-5 Measures Used in Videotape Study II .................. 91 3-6 Mean Proportion of Trials in Which Subjects Turned Right

and Left by Age, Sex, and Stimulus Condition . . . . . . . . 94 3-7 Mean Proportion of Trials in Which Infants Exhibited Posi-

tive Affect and Contingent Play by Age, Sex, and Stimu-lus Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

3-8 Mean Proportion of Trials in Which Subjects Turned Right and Left by Stimulus Condition and Turning Group dur-ing Training ....................................... 103

4-1 Behaviors Observed and Scores Assigned to Each Behavior in the Picture Procedure ............................ 118

4-2 Mean Amount of Affect and Fixation for the Age of Stranger Comparison .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120

4-3 Mean Amount of Affect and Fixation for the Self-Peer Comparisons ...................................... 124

4-4 Mean Amount of Positive Affect and Visual Fixation for the Stranger Comparisons .............................. 128

4-5 Mean Amount of Positive Affect and Visual Fixation for the Self-Peer Comparisons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131

5-1 Number of Subjects and Frequency with Which Different Labels Are Applied by Baby Picture and by Age of Sub-ject. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 148

5-2 Picture Sets for the Verbal Comprehension Task Labeling Study II ........................................... 152

5-3 Number of Infants Using Their Own Name and Personal Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154

5-4 Number of Infants Using "Boy" and "Girl" . . . . . . . . . . . .. 156 5-5 Percentage of Subjects Who Pointed at Least Once during

the Comprehension Task by Stimulus Group ......... 158 6-1 Correlations between the Mirror and Videotape Measures

of Self Recognition ................................. 171 6-2 Correlations between Self Recognition and Cognitive Mea-

sures ..... . .. . . ........... ........ . . ......... . .. . .. 173 6-3 Correlations between Self Recognition and Social Measures 176 6-4 Summary of Multiple Regressions for Self Recognition

Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 177 7-1 Percentage of Subjects Exhibiting Self-Directed Behaviors

and Facial Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 195

LIST OF TABLES xix

7-2 Relationship between Self Recognition and Facial Ex-pressions (Number of Subjects) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 196

8-1 Self Recognitory Representations ...................... 218 9-1 Development of Self Knowledge, Emotional Experience,

and Cognitive Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 227