Search

How do we decide what to say to ensure our meanings will be understood? The Rational Speech Act model (RSA, Frank & Goodman, 2012) asserts that speakers plan what to say by comparing the informativity of words in a particular context. We present the first example of an RSA model of sentence level (who-did-what-to-whom) meanings. In these contexts, the set of possible messages must be abstracted from entities in common ground (people and objects) to possible events (Jane eats the apple, Marco peels the banana), with each word contributing unique semantic content. How do speakers accomplish the transformation from context to compositional, informative messages? In a communication game, participants described transitive events (e.g. Jane pets the dog), with only two words, in contexts where two words either were or were not enough to uniquely identify an event. Adults chose utterances matching the predictions of the RSA even when there was no possible fully 'successful' utterance. Thus we show that adults’ communicative behavior can be described by a model that accommodates informativity in context, beyond the set of possible entities in common ground. This study provides the first evidence that adults' language production is affected, at the level of argument structure, by the graded informativity of possible utterances in context, and suggests that full- blown natural speech may result from speakers who model and adapt to the listener’s needs.

The field of infancy research faces a difficult challenge: Some questions require samples that are simply too large for any 1 lab to recruit and test. ManyBabies aims to address this problem by forming large-scale collaborations on key theoretical questions in developmental science, while promoting the uptake of Open Science practices. Here, we look back on the first project completed under the ManyBabies umbrella—ManyBabies 1—which tested the development of infant-directed speech preference. Our goal is to share the lessons learned over the course of the project and to articulate our vision for the role of large-scale collaborations in the field. First, we consider the decisions made in scaling up experimental research for a collaboration involving 100+ researchers and 70+ labs. Next, we discuss successes and challenges over the course of the project, including the following: protocol design and implementation, data analysis, organisational structures and collaborative workflows, securing funding, and encouraging broad participation in the project. Finally, we discuss the benefits we see both in ongoing ManyBabies projects and in future large-scale collaborations in general, with a particular eye toward developing best practices and increasing growth and diversity in infancy research and psychological science in general. Throughout the article, we include first-hand narrative experiences to illustrate the perspectives of researchers playing different roles within the project. Although this project focused on the unique challenges of infant research, many of the insights we gained can be applied to large-scale collaborations across the broader field of psychology.

The field of psychology has increased focus on factors which influence the robustness and replicability of psychological research, illuminating practices which individual investigators might adopt to improve the credibility of their research. These practices include the pre-registration of study design and analytic plans, sharing of study materials, sharing study data, and the circulation of preprints. In service of facilitating adoption of these practices, several tools have been developed to support them. These tools, however, were largely developed by and for investigators in areas of psychology which do not share the same concerns and constraints as developmental scientists, including longitudinal data collection and data collection with sensitive populations. Given this, features of these tools which accommodate more complex study design, revision, and protections where appropriate are poorly advertised. Further, there exists little formalized instruction in the use of these tools and thus their functionality remains poorly understood outside of niche groups. As a result, many developmentalists may view these tools as unapproachable and may see them as a barrier to adopting more transparent, robust practices. This workshop will provide brief tutorials in the use of these tools in the context of developmental research. Specifically, this workshop will address use of the Open Science Framework and AsPredicted.org for pre-registration of longitudinal designs (including steps for modification and revision of pre-registrations), use of the Open Science Framework to share study materials, use of data repositories to share data with protections, and use of PsyArXiv to solicit feedback on preprints, discover unpublished literature, and share existing published works that may be otherwise protected by a paywall.

The field of psychology has become increasingly concerned with issues related to methodology and replicability. Infancy researchers face specific challenges related to replicability: high-powered studies are difficult to conduct, testing conditions vary across labs, and different labs have access to different infant populations, amongst other factors. Addressing these concerns, we report on a large-scale, multi-site study aimed at 1) assessing the overall replicability of a single theoretically-important phenomenon and 2) examining methodological, situational, cultural, and developmental moderators. We focus on infants’ preference for infant-directed speech (IDS) over adult-directed speech (ADS). Stimuli of mothers speaking to their infants and to an adult were created using semi-naturalistic laboratory-based audio recordings in North American English. Infants’ relative preference for IDS and ADS was assessed across 67 laboratories in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia using the three commonly-used infant discrimination methods (head-turn preference, central fixation, and eye tracking). The overall meta-analytic effect size (Cohen’s *d*) was 0.35 [0.29 - 0.42], which was reliably above zero but smaller than the meta-analytic mean computed from previous literature (0.67). The IDS preference was significantly stronger in older children, in those children for whom the stimuli matched their native language and dialect, and in data from labs using the head-turn preference procedure. Together these findings replicate the infant-directed speech preference but suggest that its magnitude is modulated by development, native language experience, and testing procedure.

As more researchers make their data sets openly available, the potential of secondary data analysis to address new questions increases. However, the distinction between primary and secondary data analysis is unnecessarily confounded with the distinction between confirmatory and exploratory research. We propose a framework, akin to library-book checkout records, for logging access to data sets in order to support confirmatory analysis when appropriate. This system would support a standard form of preregistration for secondary data analysis, allowing authors to demonstrate that their plans were registered prior to data access. We discuss the critical elements of such a system, its strengths and limitations, and potential extensions.

Concerns have been growing about the veracity of psychological research. Many findings in psychological science are based on studies with insufficient statistical power and nonrepresentative samples, or may otherwise be limited to specific, ungeneralizable settings or populations. Crowdsourced research, a type of large-scale collaboration in which one or more research projects are conducted across multiple lab sites, offers a pragmatic solution to these and other current methodological challenges. The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) is a distributed network of laboratories designed to enable and support crowdsourced research projects. These projects can focus on novel research questions, or attempt to replicate prior research, in large, diverse samples. The PSA’s mission is to accelerate the accumulation of reliable and generalizable evidence in psychological science. Here, we describe the background, structure, principles, procedures, benefits, and challenges of the PSA. In contrast to other crowdsourced research networks, the PSA is ongoing (as opposed to time-limited), efficient (in terms of re-using structures and principles for different projects), decentralized, diverse (in terms of participants and researchers), and inclusive (of proposals, contributions, and other relevant input from anyone inside or outside of the network). The PSA and other approaches to crowdsourced psychological science will advance our understanding of mental processes and behaviors by enabling rigorous research and systematically examining its generalizability.

A key component of most models of pragmatics is that speakers consider more than one way of conveying a message, and how informative each version is in context. Theories of pragmatics, and particularly pragmatic development, are hampered by the fact that while we can often observe what a participant does (either as a speaker or a listener), we can rarely observe the choices they consider. Here, we focus on the problem that remains once two alternative utterances are available: selecting the most informative one. By providing 3-6 year old children with a choice between transitive sentences that drop either an uninformative argument (i.e. one that can be directly recovered from the visual context) or an informative one, we can directly test their ability to select between alternate ways of conveying the same message, abstracting away from the many other processes required to produce a multi-word expression. While 3 year olds select between these alternatives at chance (a pattern which, based on control version, may be partially due to task demands), we find clear evidence that children aged 4 and older preferentially select the more informative option. This result shows that (1) children's awareness of informativity contrasts extends to sentence-level messages, not just object referent selection and (2) directly testing the development of specific cognitive abilities theorized to be involved in pragmatic communication can both clarify and constrain our theories of language development.

An Open Letter to Producers and Consumers of Psychological Science

How do children map linguistic representations onto the conceptual structures that they encode? In the present studies, we provided 3-4 year old children with minimal-pair scene contrasts in order to determine the effect of particular event properties on novel verb learning. Specifically, we tested whether spatiotemporal cues to causation also inform children’s interpretation of transitive verbs either with or without the causal/inchoative alternation (She broke the lamp/the lamp broke). In Experiment 1, we examined spatiotemporal continuity. Children saw scenes with puppets that approached a toy in a distinctive manner, and toys that lit up or played a sound. In the causal events, the puppet contacted the object, and activation was immediate. In the noncausal events, the puppet stopped short before reaching the object, and the effect occurred after a short pause (apparently spontaneously). Children expected novel verbs used in the inchoative transitive/intransitive alternation to refer to spatiotemporally intact causal interactions rather than to 'gap' control scenes. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the temporal order of sub-events, holding spatial relationships constant, and provided evidence for only one verb frame (either transitive or intransitive). Children mapped transitive verbs to scenes where the agent's action closely preceded the activation of the toy over scenes in which the timing of the two events was switched, but did not do so when they heard an intransitive construction. These studies reveal that children’s expectations about transitive verbs are at least partly driven by their nonlinguistic understanding of causal events: children expect transitive syntax to refer to scenes where the agent's action is a plausible cause of the outcome. These findings open a wide avenue for exploration into the relationship between children’s linguistic knowledge and their nonlinguistic understanding of events.