Portrait of Dr Erika Nurmsoo

Dr Erika Nurmsoo

Lecturer in Developmental Psychology
Co-Director of the Kent Child Development Unit

About

Erika is a Lecturer in Psychology in the School of Psychology.

Research interests

Erika's research explores children's cognitive and social development. In particular, she is interested in how children's developing social understanding supports their cognitive development, and vice versa. Recent questions she has investigated include:

  • How do children judge whether to believe information that another has told them? When asking questions, do children consider whether a source is likely to give good information?
  • What do young children choose to copy? Is there a special role for tools in children’s early imitation?
  • How do children understand drawings and other representations? Are they flexible, allowing an ambiguous drawing to represent multiple referents? What role does the artist's intent play in children's interpretation of symbols?
  • What do children understand about the eyes? Under what circumstances will they use another person's eye gaze to judge what that person likes, wants, or fears? Can they use gaze cues to identify friendships in others?

Supervision

Current research students

Past research students

  • Dr Angelique Eydam (2017):  Development of social learning in infants and young children.

Professional

Grants and Awards

2014Infants’ selective imitation and emulation of tool use
Faculty of Social Sciences Research Fund
£647
2011Asking questions and taking turns: Children’s strategic use of informants
Faculty of Social Sciences Research Fund
£1,000
2010Imitation with and without pedagogical cues
Experimental Psychology Society
£2,000

Other responsibilities

Ad hoc reviewer for the Economic and Social Research Council and National Science Foundation and for journals including British Journal of Developmental Psychology, Child Development, Cognition, Cognitive Development, Developmental Psychology, Developmental Science, Emotion, Infant and Child Development, International Journal of Psychology, Journal of Cognition and Development, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Social Development.   

Publications

Showing 50 of 55 total publications in the Kent Academic Repository. View all publications.

Article

  • Abbot-Smith, K., Imai, M., Durrant, S., & Nurmsoo, E. (2017). The role of timing and prototypical causality on how preschoolers fast-map novel verb meanings. First Language, 37, 186-204. doi:10.1177/0142723716679800
    In controlled contexts, young children find it more difficult to learn novel words for actions than words for objects: Imai et al. (2008) found that English-speaking three-year-olds mistakenly choose a novel object as a referent for a novel verb about 42% of the time despite hearing the verb in a transitive sentence. The current two studies investigated whether English three- and five-year-old children would find resultative actions easier (since they are prototypically causative) than the non-resultative, durative event types used in Imai et al.’s studies. The reverse was true. Furthermore, if the novel verbs were taught on completion of the action, this did not improve performance, which contrasts with previous findings (e.g. Tomasello & Kruger, 1992). Our resultative actions were punctual, change-of-location events which may be less visually salient than the non-resulative, durative actions. Visual salience may play a greater role than does degree of action causality in the relative ease of verb learning even at three years.
  • Abbot-Smith, K., Nurmsoo, E., Croll, R., Ferguson, H., & Forrester, M. (2016). How 2;6-year-olds tailor verbal expressions to interlocutor informational needs. Journal of Child Language, 43, 1277-1291. doi:10.1017/S0305000915000616
    Although preschoolers are pervasively under-informative in their actual usage of verbal reference, a number of studies have shown that they nonetheless demonstrate sensitivity to listener informational needs, at least when environmental cues to this are obvious. We investigated two issues. The first concerned the types of visual cues to interlocutor informational needs which 2;6-year-olds can process whilst producing complex referring expressions. The second was whether performance in experimental tasks related to naturalistic conversational proficiency. We found 2;6-year-olds used fewer complex expressions when the objects were dissimilar compared to highly similar objects, indicating that they tailor their verbal expressions to the informational needs of another person, even when the cue to the informational need is relatively opaque. We also found a correlation between conversational skills as rated by the parents and the degree to which 2;6-year-olds could learn from feedback to produce complex referring expressions.
  • Allen, M., Nurmsoo, E., & Freeman, N. (2016). Young children show representational flexibility when interpreting drawings. Cognition, 147, 21-28. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.003
    Drawings can be ambiguous and represent more than one entity. In three experiments, we examine whether young children show representational flexibility by allowing one picture to be called by a second name. We also evaluate the hypothesis that children who are representationally flexible see the artist’s intention as binding, rather than changeable. In Experiment 1, an artist declared what she intended to draw (e.g. a balloon) but then produced an ambiguous drawing. Children were asked whether the drawings could be interpreted differently (e.g. ‘could this be a lollipop?’) in the presence of a perceptually similar or dissimilar distractor (e.g., lollipop or snake). Six-year-olds accepted two labels for drawings in both conditions, but four-year-olds only did so in the dissimilar condition. Experiment 2 probed each possible interpretation more deeply by asking property questions (e.g., ‘does it float?, does it taste good?’). Preschoolers who understood that the ambiguous drawing could be given two interpretations nevertheless mostly endorsed only properties associated with the prior intent. Experiment 3 provided converging evidence that 4-year-olds were representationally flexible using a paradigm that did not rely upon modal questioning. Taken together, our results indicate that even 4-year-olds understand that pictures may denote more than one referent, they still think of the symbol as consistent with the artist’s original intention.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Einav, S., & Hood, B. (2012). Best friends: children use mutual gaze to identify friendships in others. Developmental Science, 15, 417-425. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01143.x
    This study examined children’s ability to use mutual eye gaze as a cue to friendships in others. In Experiment 1, following a discussion about friendship, 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds were shown animations in which three cartoon children looked at one another, and were told that one target character had a best friend. Although all age groups accurately detected the mutual gaze between the target and another character, only 5- and 6-year-olds used this cue to infer friendship. Experiment 2 replicated the effect with 5- and 6-year-olds when the target character was not explicitly identified. Finally, in Experiment 3, where the attribution of friendship could only be based on synchronized mutual gaze, 6-year-olds made this attribution, while 4- and 5-year-olds did not. Children occasionally referred to mutual eye gaze when asked to justify their responses in Experiments 2 and 3, but it was only by the age of 6 that reference to these cues correlated with the use of mutual gaze in judgements of affiliation. Although younger children detected mutual gaze, it was not until 6 years of age that children reliably detected and justified mutual gaze as a cue to friendship.
  • Robinson, E., Butterfill, S., & Nurmsoo, E. (2011). Gaining knowledge via other minds: Children’s flexible trust in others as sources of information. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29, 961-980. doi:doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02036.x
    In five experiments, we examined 3- to 6-year-olds’ understanding that they could gain knowledge indirectly from someone who had seen something they had not. Consistent with previous research, children judged that an informant, who had seen inside a box, knew its contents. Similarly, when an informant marked a picture to indicate her suggestion as to the content of the box, 3- to 4-year-olds trusted this more frequently when the informant had seen inside the box than when she had not. Going beyond previous research, 3- to 4-year-olds were also sensitive to informants’ relevant experience when they had to look over a barrier to see the marked picture, or ask for the barrier to be raised. Yet when children had to elicit the informant’s suggestion, rather than just consult a suggestion already present, even 4- to 5-year-olds were no more likely to do so when the informant had seen the box’s content than when she had not, and no more likely to trust the well-informed suggestion than the uninformed one. We conclude that young children who can ask questions may not yet fully understand the process by which they can gain accurate information from someone who has the experience they lack.
  • Nurmsoo, E. (2010). Perceptual Access and Knowledge: Letter to the Editor. Human Development, 0-0.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Robinson, E., & Butterfill, S. (2010). Children’s Selective Learning from Others. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 551-561. doi:10.1007/s13164-010-0043-y
    Psychological research into children’s sensitivity to testimony has primarily focused on their ability to judge the likely reliability of speakers. However, verbal testimony is only one means by which children learn from others. We review recent research exploring children’s early social referencing and imitation, as well as their sensitivity to speakers’ knowledge, beliefs, and biases, to argue that children treat information and informants with reasonable scepticism. As children’s understanding of mental states develops, they become ever more able to critically evaluate whether to believe new information.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Robinson, E., & Butterfill, S. (2010). Children’s selective learning from others. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 511-561. doi:10.1007/s13164-010-0043-y
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2009). Identifying unreliable informants: do children excuse past inaccuracy?. Developmental Science, 12, 41-47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00750.x
    In three experiments (N = 123; 148; 28), children observed a video in which two speakers offered alternative labels for unfamiliar objects. In Experiment 1, 3- to 5-year-olds endorsed the label given by a speaker who had previously labeled familiar objects accurately, rather than that given by a speaker with a history of inaccurate labeling, even when the inaccurate speaker erred only while blindfolded. In Experiments 2 and 3, 3- to 7-year-olds showed no preference for the label given by a previously inaccurate but blindfolded speaker, over that given by a second inaccurate speaker with no obvious excuse for erring. Children based their endorsements on speakers’ history of accuracy or inaccuracy irrespective of the speakers’ information access at the time, raising doubts that children made mentalistic interpretations of speakers’ inaccuracy.
  • Robinson, E., & Nurmsoo, E. (2009). When do children learn from unreliable speakers?. Cognitive Development, 24, 16-22. doi:doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.08.001
    Children do not necessarily disbelieve a speaker with a history of inaccuracy; they take into account reasons for errors. Three- to five-year-olds (N= 97) aimed to identify a hidden target in collaboration with a puppet. The puppet’s history of inaccuracy arose either from false beliefs or occurred despite his being fully informed. On a subsequent test trial, children’s realistic expectation about the target was contradicted by the puppet who was fully informed. Children were more likely to revise their belief in line with the puppet’s assertion when his previous errors were due to false beliefs. Children who explained this puppet’s prior inaccuracy in terms of false belief were more likely to believe the puppet than those who did not. As
    children’s understanding of the mind advances, they increasingly balance the risk of learning falsehoods from unreliable speakers against that of rejecting truths from speakers who made excusable errors.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2009). Children’s Trust in Previously Inaccurate Informants Who Were Well or Poorly Informed: When Past Errors Can Be Excused. Child Development, 80, 23-27. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01243.x
    Past research demonstrates that children learn from a previously accurate speaker rather than from a previously inaccurate one. This study shows that children do not necessarily treat a previously inaccurate speaker as unreliable. Rather, they appropriately excuse past inaccuracy arising from the speaker’s limited information access. Children (N 5 67) aged 3, 4, and 5 years aimed to identify a hidden toy in collaboration with a puppet as informant. When the puppet had previously been inaccurate despite having full information, children tended to ignore what they were told and guess for themselves: They treated the puppet as unreliable in the longer term. However, children more frequently believed a currently well-informed puppet whose past inaccuracies arose legitimately from inadequate information access.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Bloom, P. (2008). Preschoolers’ Perspective Taking in Word Learning: Do They Blindly Follow Eye Gaze?. Psychological Science, 19, 211-215. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02069.x
    When learning new words, do children use a speaker’s eye gaze because it reveals referential intent? We conducted two experiments that addressed this question. In Experiment 1, the experimenter left while two novel objects were placed where the child could see both, but the experimenter would be able to see only one. The experimenter returned, looked directly at the mutually visible object, and said either, "There’s the [novel word]!"
    or "Where’s the [novel word]?" Two- through 4-year-olds selected the target of the speaker’s gaze more often on there trials than on where trials, although only the older children identified the referent correctly at above-chance levels on trials of both types. In Experiment 2, the experimenter
    placed a novel object where only the child could see it and left while the second object was similarly hidden. When she returned and asked, ‘‘Where’s the [novel word]?’’ 2- through 4-year-olds chose the second object at above chance levels. Preschoolers do not blindly follow gaze, but consider the linguistic and pragmatic contextwhen learning a new word.
  • Robinson, E., Haigh, S., & Nurmsoo, E. (2008). Children’s working understanding of knowledge sources: Confidence in knowledge gained from testimony. Cognitive Development, 23, 105-118. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.05.001
    In three experiments, children aged between 3 and 5 years (N= 38, 52, 94; mean ages 3–7 to 5–2) indicated
    their confidence in their knowledge of the identity of a hidden toy. With the exception of some 3-year-olds,
    children revealed working understanding of their knowledge source by showing high confidence when
    they had seen or felt the toy, and lower confidence when they had been told its identity by an apparently
    well-informed speaker. Correct explicit source reports were not necessary for children to show relative
    uncertainty when the speaker subsequently doubted the adequacy of his access to the toy. After a 2-min
    delay, 3–4-year-olds, unlike 4–5-year-olds, failed to see the implications of the speaker’s doubt about his
    access.

Book section

  • Robinson, E., Nurmsoo, E., & Einav, S. (2014). Does understanding about knowledge and belief influence children’s trust in testimony?. In Trust and Skepticism: Children’s Selective Learning from Testimony (pp. 42-54). Psychology Press.
  • Gerken, L., Wilson, R., Gomez, R., & Nurmsoo, E. (2009). The relation between morphosyntactic analogies and syntactic categories. In J. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Conference or workshop item

  • Bozin, N., Yuen, N., Umek, L., & Nurmsoo, E. (2018). Preschool children reason about artists’ mental states when naming drawings. In 8th annual Budapest CEU Conference on Cognitive Development. Budapest, Hungary.
    This research investigated how 3- to 5-year-old children understand drawings based on mental states, namely knowledge and belief. Results showed that most 3-year-olds understood an artist's knowledge state. Children aged between four and five years showed understanding of false belief. The drawing did not facilitate children's understanding of the artist's mental state, as children were equally successful when naming a drawing or answering a question about the artist's mental state. These results imply that children are able to understand different mental states simultaneously.
  • Nurmsoo, E. (2017). Developing a parent report measure of social cognition from birth to 3 years. In LCICD 2017: Lancaster international conference on infant and early child development. Lancaster, UK.
    While social cognition has traditionally been measured with lab tasks (e.g., Carpenter, et al., 1998), recently, Tahiroglu et al (2014) have developed the
    Children’s Social Understanding Scale for 3- to 5-year-olds. They found parents reliably report socio-cognitive development. To examine earlier
    socio-cognitive development, we have created a parent-report measure of social cognition from birth to 3 years, the Early Social Cognition Scale (ESCS).

    In study 1 (exploratory, N=230) parents of 0- to 47-month-olds completed the 23-question ESCS online. Questions determined children’s level of social
    cognition, e.g., “Does your child follow where you point to look at the same things as you?” and, “Does your child understand what it means for others to
    make mistakes? E.g., that they dropped a plate by accident.” One item did not correlate with the total score, “Does your child like to look at faces?”
    since it was at ceiling, so was dropped. The remaining 22 items correlated with the total score with Spearman’s rho>.3, p<.05. Scale reliability was
    excellent, KR20=0.95. The ESCS correlated strongly with age, Pearson’s r=0.86, p<.001.

    In study 2 (confirmatory, N=228), scale reliability was again excellent, KR20=0.93, and again, the ESCS correlated strongly with age, Pearson’s
    r=0.82, p<.001.

    A subset of children from the above studies were tested for test-retest reliability. Children (N=48) had similar scores 6 months later, Pearson’s
    r=0.56, p<.001, df=45, controlling for age. Children (N=24) also had similar scores 12 months later, Pearson’s r=0.66, p=.001, df=21, controlling for age.
    A subset of children from the above studies were tested for inter-observer agreement by having both parents separately complete the ESCS. Both
    parents gave similar scores to children (N=32), Pearson’s r=0.85, p<.001, df=29, controlling for age.

    The final stage will involve comparing the ESCS to lab tasks for 84 children.
  • Abbot-Smith, K., Nurmsoo, E., Forrester, M., & Ferguson, H. (2015). Preschooler awareness of listener informational need in relation to linguistic reference. In Child Language Symposium. University of Warwick. Retrieved from https://www.regonline.co.uk/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=1628415
    Making appropriately informative requests necessitates understanding what others know and what they are paying attention to. Matthews, Butcher, Lieven and Tomasello (2012) carried out two training studies in which 21?2-year-olds requested one of an array of pictures. If the child was ambiguous (e.g. 'pig one!' when the array contained two pigs), E2 provided feedback (e.g. 'Which pig?'). They found that 21?2-year-olds cannot take elements of picture detail into account when determining listener informational need. However, their pictures frequently required the children to infer actions and to produce reduced relative clauses (e.g. 'Can I have the pig dancing'). We modified Matthews et al.'s (2012) procedure to reduce cognitive load, primarily by reducing array size and modifying the stimuli so they contained no actions so 21?2-year-olds could produce complex requests by using early- acquired prepositions (e.g. 'rabbit on boat'). In each training trial, children requested one of two 'similar' pictures which contained identical animals (e.g. TARGET: pig on bike, DISTRACTOR: pig with cake) and received feedback if their first request was ambiguous. There were two post-test conditions: 'similar' vs. 'dissimilar' distractors. Our 21?2-year-olds were significantly less likely to produce complex referring expressions for 'dissimilar' pictures, showing sensitivity to when disambiguating information was needed. There was a relationship between individual differences in parent-rated conversation skills and training outcome. We discuss our data in terms of the roles of cognitive load reduction alongside how discourse around repair can focus attention on the need to incorporate listener informational need when planning requests.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Eydam, A., Carby, A., & Rater, L. (2015). Children’s social learning of tool use. In 23rd annual meeting of the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Tartu, Estonia.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Davis, S., & Haji-Abdullah, S. (2015). Tool innovation: Are groups better than individuals?. In 23rd annual meeting of the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Tartu, Estonia.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Franke, N., & Spruce, M. (2015). Children’s use of testimony from inaccurate speakers. In 23rd annual meeting of the European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Tartu, Estonia.
  • Forrester, M., Bellchambers, C., Eydam, A., & Nurmsoo, E. (2015). Don’t put your hand in! Children’s orientation to recipient epistemic access. In IMPRS workshop: Perspectives on the ontogeny of mutual understanding. Nijmegen, NL.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Eydam, A., Leahy, V., & Burton, T. (2014). Children’s high-fidelity imitation of tool vs non-tool actions. In XIX Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies. Berlin, Germany.
  • Abbot-Smith, K., Croll, R., Forrester, M., Nurmsoo, E., & Ferguson, H. (2014). Training 30-month-olds to take listeners’ informational needs into account. In XIX Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies. Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.isisweb.org/view/0/ISISconference2014.html
  • Eydam, A., & Nurmsoo, E. (2014). Infant social learning theories: Taking the social part seriously. In Enacting Culture: Embodiment, Interaction and the Development of Human Culture. Heidelberg.
  • Eydam, A., Leahy, V., Cuffari, E., & Nurmsoo, E. (2014). Teaching infants: Effect of teacher familiarity and teaching in real life. In International Conference on Infant Studies. Berlin.
  • Eydam, A., Leahy, V., & Nurmsoo, E. (2013). The effect of pedagogy and model familiarity on infants’ imitation. In Experimental Psychology Society. Lancaster.
  • Eydam, A., Leahy, V., & Nurmsoo, E. (2013). Do infants imitate strangers? 18-month-olds imitation of familiar and unfamiliar models. In Society for Research in Child Development. Seattle.
  • Eydam, A., Leahy, V., & Nurmsoo, E. (2013). Imitation and emulation of novel tool actions. In Budapest CEU Conference on Cognitive Development. Budapest, Hungary.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Dickerson, H., & Grigges, T. (2013). Preschoolers’ sensitivity to testimony when learning generalisable vs non-generalisable information. In Experimental Psychology Society. Lancaster.
  • Eydam, A., Leahy, V., & Nurmsoo, E. (2013). When do infants imitate? Effects of pedagogical communication, model familiarity, and tool use. In Aegina Summer school: Embodied inter-subjectivity. London.
  • Eydam, A., Leahy, V., & Nurmsoo, E. (2012). Eighteen-month-old infants differentially imitate tool and nontool actions. In European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. London.
  • Eydam, A., & Nurmsoo, E. (2011). Third-party imitation and pedagogy: 14- and 18-month-olds’ imitation of novel actions. In British Psychology Society Developmental Section. Newcastle.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Allen, M., & Freeman, N. (2011). Intention and representational flexibility in young children’s understanding of visual depictions. In British Psychology Society Developmental Section. Newcastle.
  • Nurmsoo, E. (2009). Children’s monitoring of gaze in referential contexts. In European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Budapest, Hungary.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Einav, S., & Hood, B. (2009). Best friends: Children’s sensitivity to social information in gaze. In Society for Research in Child Development. Denver, Colorado.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Einav, S., & Hood, B. (2009). Tracking fears and preferences: Typically developing children’s monitoring of gaze in static and dynamic scenes. In Society for Research in Child Development Biennial Conference. Denver.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Einav, S., & Hood, B. (2008). Best friends: Children’s sensitivity to social information in gaze. In Theory of mind: Celebrating 30 years. Nottingham UK.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Robinson, E., & Butterfill, S. (2008). Extracting knowledge from other minds. In European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Utrecht.
  • Nurmsoo, E., Allen, M., & Freeman, N. (2008). Can a balloon be a lollipop? Four-year-olds use representational flexibility when understanding pictures. In Society for Research in Child Development. Denver, Colorado.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2008). Children’s inferences about the reliability of informants: When do they excuse past errors?. In Experimental psychology society.. UCL, London.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2007). Learning from others: Identifying unreliable individuals vs unreliable assertions. In Experimental Psychology Society conference. Edinburgh.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Scholl, B. (2007). Word learning and unlearning: Preschoolers revise the meanings of newly learned words. In European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Geneva.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2007). Learning from others: Children’s understanding of speaker inaccuracy. In European Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Geneva.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2007). Learning from others: Understanding speaker inaccuracy. In British Psychological Society Developmental Section. Plymouth.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Robinson, E. (2007). Learning from others: Identifying unreliable individuals vs unreliable assertions. In Society for Research in Child Development. Boston, USA.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Bloom, P. (2005). Do preschoolers attend to a speaker’s knowledge when learning words?. In Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, USA.
  • Nurmsoo, E. (2005). Preschoolers reason about the artist’s perceptual knowledge when learning words. In Jean Piaget Society. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  • Nurmsoo, E., & Bloom, P. (2005). Preschoolers’ use of a speaker’s perceptual knowledge when learning words. In Society for Research in Child Development. Atlanta, Georgia.

Thesis

  • Eydam, A. (2017). Development of Social Learning in Infants and Young Children.
    Social learning is one important way that children learn about the world. This thesis presents and discusses several current social learning theories, exploring how they explain different facets of social learning. In particular, I examined the naïve theory of rational action, the theory of natural pedagogy, the ideomotor approach to social and imitative learning, and the normative account of social learning. Each theory is reviewed on how it explains four facets of social learning: imitation, emulation, action understanding or interpretation, and the consideration of varying social and situational circumstances. The review shows that each theory focuses on only one or two facets, often providing very limited discussion (if any) of the others, and none of the theories systematically varies its predictions of a learner's behaviour as a factor of multiple social and situational circumstances. By means of six empirical studies I show that the social and situational circumstances strongly influence social learning, and that none of the discussed theories can account for the findings at large. I also argue that the current social learning theories explain developmental shifts in different biases that affect social learning rather than core mechanisms of social learning, and that what is needed is a strong social learning theory that explains multiple facets of social learning, in particular making differential predictions as a factor of varying social and situational circumstances.
Last updated