1.
Learning to use novel tools: Behavioral trends associated with
learning to perform means­ends actions
Katherine Kiang Hinsdale Central, Hinsdale Il. & Courtney Filippi, University of Chicago, Chicago Il.
Research Question
What behaviors are associated with learning to perform a means­ends action? In particular, do
infants who successfully perform means­ends actions actively experiment with the tool in a more planful
manner than infants who are unsuccessful at learning to perform these actions? Do infants who are
successful spends more time looking at the goal object or the tool (i.e., the means) compared to
unsuccessful infants?
Abstract
A large body of research demonstrates that infants not only understand that tools can be used as a means
to an end, but that they can also perform tool actions themselves. However, no research has examined the
types of behaviors infants exhibit when learning to use tools. Researching these behaviors can lead to a
better understanding of infant learning, particularly if there is convincing evidence that certain
exploratory behaviors facilitate an understanding of tools. This paper examines these behaviors,
particularly if they are planful (goal oriented) or unplanful (not goal oriented), by examining the actions
of 10­month­old infants as they learn to pull a cane to retrieve an out of reach object. Planful behaviors
included intentionally pulling or touching the cane, reaching for the toy, or asking for help. Unplanful
behaviors included unintentionally pulling or touching the cane, pushing the cane in the wrong direction,
and grabbing non­essential parts of the apparatus. We also examined how infants distributed their
attention during the trials. Infants were categorized as successful if they pulled the cane and retrieved the
toy at least three times. We hypothesize that attentive, planful behavior will be more prevalent in
successful infants. The current study found both similarities and differences in the way both successful
and unsuccessful infants explored. We found that both successful and unsuccessful infants spent more
time intentionally exploring rather than unintentionally exploring. Furthermore, we found that both
successful and unsuccessful infants were more attentive than distracted during trials. One difference we
found between successful and unsuccessful infants was that unsuccessful infants performed equal planful
and unplanful behaviors in both trials. In comparison, successful infants exhibited more planful behaviors
in both trials. In addition, unsuccessful infants spent more time looking at the experimenter than
successful infants. These findings partially support the initial hypothesis.
Introduction
Infants learn about the world around them at an extremely rapid pace. In fact, research has shown
that infants as young as three months have the ability to understand that their own actions are
goal­directed (Sommerville, Woodward & Needham, 2004). The ability to understand that actions are
goal­directed is foundational for learning that people act intentionally. One classic way to measure
whether infants understand actions as goal­directed is by using a habituation task. A habituation task
involves showing infants one event over and over until they are bored. Then the experimenter changes

2. one element from the event. By changing one part of the event, we can see if infants are surprised when
this change occurs. To test infants’ understanding of goal directed actions researchers use the Woodward
paradigm. The Woodward paradigm shows infants a person reaching for one of two toys over and over
until the baby is bored. Then, once the baby is sufficiently bored, the experimenter changes the location of
the toy. Then the person either reaches for the old toy in a new location or the new toy in the old location.
If infants are surprised when the person reaches for the new toy in the old location, they should look
longer at this reaching event as compared to when the person reaches for the same old toy. Longer
looking indicates that infants understood that when the particular person reached over and over, they were
intending to reach for the toy; they were not intending to reach to one particular location in space.
Many studies have investigated how infants develop the ability to understand that actions are
goal­directed. In one study, three­month old infants were given “sticky mittens” (i.e. mittens with Velcro
attached to them) and toys covered in Velcro (Sommerville, Woodward & Needham, 2004). Three­month
old infants do not have enough motor control to grab onto objects themselves but by playing with Velcro
covered toys when wearing these mittens, the infants could grab onto the toys that they wanted. The
infants were split into two groups. One group of infants got to play with the toys and mittens before the
Woodward paradigm, and the other group did this habituation task before playing with the mittens.
Infants that got to play with the sticky mittens first looked longer when the person reached for a new toy.
This suggests that actively reaching for objects can help infants understand goals. However, many actions
that we perform are more complex than simply reaching for an object. Often times we seek out tools to
help us perform actions that we couldn’t otherwise do. For example, one might use a chair to reach a
cookie jar so that they may enjoy a cookie. Using tools in this way is known as a means­end action,
because you’re using a tool as a means to achieve your ultimate goal. As infants progress in their
development, by about 6­7 months, they are then able to understand that means­ends tool actions are
goal­directed just like reaching actions (Munakata, McClelland, Johnson, & Siegler, 1997).
The question then arises of how infants develop the ability to understand that tools can be used as
a means to an end. One way infants have been shown to learn about the actions of others is by actively
practicing the action themselves. For example, Sommerville, Hildebrand, & Crane (2008) demonstrated
that practice performing an action helps infants learn that tool actions are goal­directed. These researchers
compared the effects of active training to observational training by first teaching infants how to perform
an action and then using the classic Woodward habituation paradigm to assess whether infants understood
another person’s action as goal­directed. One group was only given a Woodward paradigm (control),
another group was given active training followed by a habituation paradigm, and a last group received
observational training followed by a habituation paradigm. The means­to­ends tool used was a cane with
a toy in the crook. Through training infants learned that they could pull the cane to get the out of reach
toy. The experiment demonstrated that action training was much more beneficial in helping infants
understand the means­end goal structure of the cane pulling action. Interestingly, these researchers did not
examine whether there were individual differences in how infants actively explored during tool training. It
could be that some kinds of exploration are related to better learning of the tool action and consequently
support understanding of the means­end goal structure of this action sequence.
Using a similar model as used for the active training group of the Sommerville, Hildebrand and
Crane (2008) study, this study will examine which behaviors are exhibited by infants who successfully
learn how to pull the cane to get the toy. Researching these behaviors can lead to a better understanding of
infant learning, particularly if there is convincing evidence that certain exploratory behaviors facilitate an
understanding of tools.
To assess which of these actions is most useful in helping infants successfully understand
the intended goal of the crane tool, video data will be coded with the particular actions of the
infants, and then categorized into two behavioral and two attention subcategories. Various

3. statistical analyses will then be conducted to see if there is a statistically significant difference
between the amount of time infants’ spent performing a particular behaviors or attending in a
specific way, and the amount of time it took them to be successful.
There are two general subtopics of behaviors in which infants will do as they explore the
tool. The first subtopic is planful, which includes actions such as intentionally touching,
grasping, and pulling at the cane. The second subtopic is unplanned experimental, which
includes actions like unintentionally reaching or grasping the cane (see table 1). We hypothesize
that the planned experimental subtopic will be more beneficial because research that shows that
infants understand intended goals better when they are actively taught (Sommerville, Hildebrand,
& Crane, 2008; Sommerville, Woodward, & Needham, 2004) and it could therefore be that
figuring out the tool by physical experimentation would also be helpful. In fact, a second study
using “sticky mittens” (Needham, Barrett, & Peterman, 2002) found that infants with active
experience using the mittens were more engaged and had more sophisticated object exploration
skill. Additionally, planned behaviors have been shown to facilitate an understanding of
goal­directed actions in 10­month­old infants (Sommerville, Woodward, 2005).
There are two general subtopics of attention in which infants will exhibit as they explore
the tool. The first is attentie, which includes actions such as looking at the cane, toy, or
experimenter. The second is inattentive, which means that the infant’s behavior is not focused on
the experiment (see table 1). We hypothesize that the planful observational subtopic will be
more useful, since infants have be known to take in knowledge through their observations
(Eberbach, & Crowley, 2009).
Overall, a combination of behavior and attention that focuses on the goal of the action
sequence (planful and attentive) seems likely to aid infants understanding of the means­end goal
structure of the cane pulling action sequence (Sommerville, Woodward 2005). It seems less
likely that a combination of behavior and attention that focuses on the means of the action
sequence, or doesn’t focus on the action sequence (unplanful, inattentive) will aid infants
understanding of the means­end goal structure of the cane pulling action sequence.
understanding. Finally, it is possible that no particular behavior(s) is or are beneficial to aiding
infants’ understanding of the crane tool and subsequently means­to­and­end goals.
Materials and Methods/Experimental Procedures
​The data that I will be analyzing has already been acquired by researchers in the Woodward lab.
My project will involve coding the video files to determine what behaviors successful infants
exhibit.
Participants: ​Fourteen 10­month­old infants participated in the experiment (​M​= 10 months, 1
day; Range=9 months, 16 days : 10 months, 15 days ). Infants were categorized as successful
(N=9) and unsuccessful (N=5). Eight of the infants were female and 6 were male. The infants
were from a large city in the United States. Parents volunteered to participate in response to
advertisements and mailings.
Experimental Design
Room Set Up:
The experiment will be conducted in a quiet and neutrally colored room that has a table

4. and two chairs. In the first chair, the 10­month­old infant sits securely in the mother’s lap. The
experimenter sits in the second chair, which is directly next to the first one. The chairs face
toward the table, and on the table, right in front of the infant, is a plastic toy cane. The bottom, or
long, part of the cane is to the infants’ right. This part of the cane is loosely put into a silver
holder. The top, or crook, of the cane is to the infants’ left (see diagram 1).
Procedure:
Before the experiment begins, mothers’ are briefed on the experiment, asked not to
interfere with their infants’ actions in the experiment room, and assured that a break or stop at
any time is okay. Then mother and infant are brought into the experiment room and situated.
Once the infants are comfortably situated in their mothers’ lap, the cane is set up a toy is placed
on the table to make sure that the infants are able to reach the cane and are not inhibited. This
assures that the infant is motivated to get the toy. Mothers are also reminded to keep the infant
on their lap, to not influence their infant, and to be aware that their infant may or may not figure
out the problem.
After everything is ready, a pre­test will be given to the infant. There will be four trials of
this test with a different toy each time. Before each trial, the infant is given the toy for two
seconds. Then, the toy is placed in the crook of the cane and the experimenter looks at the table.
The infant is then allowed to do as they please. This part of the procedure is repeated for each
trial.
Next, the infants will undergo get practice pulling a cane in order to obtain an out of
reach toy. Training is infant directed and changes depending on how the infant behaves.
However, training is different than pretest because the experimenter is able to point to the cane
and to the toy (so the infants’ attention is drawn both), or pull the cane with the infant (so the
infant can get experience using the cane).Training ends when the infant successfully grabs the
toy within seven seconds of touching the cane. There will be up to six trials for this part. If the
infant shows no intentional signs of touching the cane or the toy within 20 seconds, the
experimenter will move onto the next trial. This is repeated for each trial with a different toy.
Diagram 1: Experimental Setup
Data collection and coding:
All of the procedure will be videotape so that observational data can be collected. When
all the subjects are tested the behavioral data and success data will be coded using Interact (a

5. behavioral coding software) . This will be my part of the project. By going frame by frame
though the videos, I will be able to code each behavior that the infant exhibits during the training
session and determine whether the infant successfully used the cane to obtain the toy. I will also
identify when the infant successfully obtains the toy.
The behaviors documented include:
Category Behavior
Planful Intentionally pulling or touching the cane, reaching for the toy, or
asking for help
Unplanful Unintentionally pulling or touching the cane, pushing the cane and
grabbing the silver piece or top of cane
Attentive Looking at toy, cane, or experimenter
Inattentive Distracted
Table 1: Behavioral categories
A successful trial occurs when the infant pulls the cane by themselves and is then able to
reach for the toy. It is okay for the experimenter to aid the infant as long as the infant does a
portion of the work themselves. An infant is considered successful after three successful trials.
After all the trials are coded, the coding software adds up the total duration that each
behavior occurred for each trial. For each trial, the durations of each behavior are then added
together into their respective general behavioral groupings as discussed above. The behaviors for
each subject are also averaged over the total time of the subjects’ trial for successful and
unsuccessful trials. Planful and unplanful actions remained as durations, while attention coding
was put into proportions (duration/total time trial) for more accurate interpretation. After adding
in demographic data (gender and age) all the data was put into an excel sheet and then imported
into a statistics software.
Results
Behavior:
Planful vs. Unplanful
We were primarily interested in how long infants spent doing planful behaviors versus
not planful behaviors. We divided trials based on the infants success on each trial. To investigate
the difference between planful and not planful behavior in unsuccessful infants we ran a paired
t­test on the total duration of time infants did planful and not planful behaviors. Unsuccessful
infants did not show a statistical difference in duration of planful behaviors (​M=​15.229,
SE​=7.131) and unplanful behaviors (​M=​4.738, ​SE​=2.417) on successful trials
(​t​(4)=1.739,​p​=.157). Nor did they show a statistical difference between planful (​M=​8.316,
SE​=1.494) and not planful (​M=​5.592, ​SE​=.705)behaviors in unsuccessful trials (​t​=2.184,
p​=.094). To investigate the difference between planful and not planful behavior in successful
infants we ran a paired t­test on the total duration of time infants did planful and not planful

6. behaviors. We found a marginally significant difference between planful (​M=​25.107, ​SE​=7.069)
and not planful (​M=​2.338, ​SE​=.486) behaviors on successful trials (​t​(8)=2.040, ​p​=.076) and a
significant difference between planful (​M=​17.128, ​SE​=4.111) and not planful (​M=​5.630,
SE​=1.379) behaviors on unsuccessful trials (​t​(8)=2.875, p=.021).
Furthermore, we were interested were successful infants showed differences in the
amount of planful and not planful behavior. we ran an independent t­test between successful and
unsuccessful infants across all trial types and behaviors. We did not find any significant
differences (all ​p​s > .23​). ​See figure 1 for means and standard errors.
Figure 1. Mean duration of planful and unplanful behaviors for all infants. Brackets represent significant differences
Intentional vs. Unintentional
To look further into the planful and not planful behaviors of infants, we compared the
proportion of intentional behaviors (intentional touch and pull) and unintentional behaviors
(unintentional touch and pull). This is a subset of a planful behaviors, and is better to look at
because they are direct comparisons. We conducted an ANOVA with success as a between
subjects factor (successful infants vs. unsuccessful infants) and intent as a within subjects factor
(intentional vs. unintentional) to determine differences in the amount of intentional and
unintentional behavior. We found a main effect of intent (F (1, 12)=63.892, ​p​<.001). This
suggests that infants did more intentional behaviors than unintentional behaviors overall. We
found an interaction effect between success and intent (F (1, 12)=10.058, ​p​=.008). This suggests
that successful infants were more intentional overall, and unsuccessful infants did more
unintentional behaviors overall.

7.
Figure 2. Mean duration of planful and unplanful behaviors for all infants. Brackets represent significant differences
Attention:
To determine whether unsuccessful infants were more distracted overall compared to
successful infants, we ran an independent sample t­test on the proportion of time infants were
distracted. We found that there were no differences (​t​(12)=­.128,​ p​=.901). Using paired t­tests
we found that both successful (​t​(8)=­12.67,​ p​<.001) and unsuccessful (​t​(4)=­19.26,​ p​<.001)
infants spent more time attending to the problem than not attending to the problem. See figure 3
for averages and standard errors.
Figure 3. Mean proportion of attentive and inattentive attention for all infants. ​Brackets represent pairs with significant differences.
Next we asked how infants distributed their attention during the trials. We looked at the
differences in attention to the toy, cane, and experimenter between the successful and

8. unsuccessful infants. No significant difference was found in infants attention to the toy
[unsuccessful​(​M=​.508, ​SE​=.058); successful (​M=​.683, ​SE​=.066); (​t​(12)=­1.770,​ p​=.102) ] or
cane ​[unsuccessful​(​M=​.160, ​SE​=.027); successful (​M=​.109, ​SE​=.026); (​t​(12)=1.246,​ p​=.236) ].
There was, however, a significant difference in the proportion of time unsuccessful infants
looked at the experimenter compared to the successful infants ​[unsuccessful​(​M=​.222, ​SE​=.063);
successful (​M=​.090, ​SE​=.029); (​t​(12)=­2.172,​ p​=.051) ]. Unsuccessful infants looked
significantly longer at the cane. See figure 4 for averages and standard errors.
Figure 4. Mean duration of attention for successful and unsuccessful infants. ​Brackets represent pairs with significant differences
Discussion and Conclusion
The results of the current study indicate that infants that were both successful at using the
tool to get the toy and unsuccessful at using the tool to get the toy exhibited similar behaviors
across all trials (successful vs. unsuccessful trials). As hypothesized, successful infants exhibited
more planful behaviors compared to unplanful behaviors. Interestingly though, this occurred in
both successful and unsuccessful trials, but this was more pronounced in successful trials. This
indicates that successful infants planned their actions even on ultimately unsuccessful trials.
However, unsuccessful infants performed equal planful and unplanful behaviors in both trials.
The fact that unsuccessful infants are equally planful and not planful across all trials suggests
that the unsuccessful infants don’t yet understand the means­to­ends goal of the tool. All in all,
this indicates that infants do indeed learn by gearing more of their behaviors directly toward the
goal at hand. When taking a closer look at the data (comparing only the intentional planful acts
with the unintentional unplanful acts), however, it is apparent that both successful and
unsuccessful infants spent more time intentionally exploring rather than unintentionally
exploring. This suggests that unsuccessful infants are still intentionally exploring the problem.
Similarities between the infants was also found in the attention data. We found that both
successful and unsuccessful infants were more attentive than distracted during trials. This shows
that unsuccessful infants were interested to the problem. The reason why they were failing was
not because they were distracted. One must remember though, that there were more instances for

9. attentive behavior compared to inattentive behavior, which could skew the data. A closer look at
how the infants distributed their the attention gives further insight into what particular parts of
the problem the infants are attending to. We found that unsuccessful infants looked more at the
experimenter. This is interesting because it might suggest that it is important for infants to attend
directly to the problem in order to understand the means to ends goal of a tool. All in all, we
conclude that it is possible that unsuccessful infants are unsuccessful simply because they have
not yet hit the developmental stage where they understand the goals of the tool, and are instead
only focusing on looking for cues from the experimenter.
Overall, the current study offers interesting insight into the abilities of infants who both
understand and do not understand the means­to­end goals structure of tools. It seems that
unsuccessful infants exhibit a surprising amount of planful and attentive behavior, and are much
closer to understanding the means­to­end goal of the toy than one might initially believe. It
would be interesting to have further research conducted with a larger sample size and possibly an
eye tracker for even more precise attention data.
References
Eberbach, C., and K. Crowley. "From Everyday to Scientific Observation: How Children Learn
to Observe the Biologist's World." ​Review of Educational Research​ 79.1 (2009): 39­68. Print.
Hamlin, J. Kiley, Elizabeth V. Hallinan, and Amanda L. Woodward. "Do as I Do: 7­month­old
Infants Selectively Reproduce Others’ Goals." ​Developmental Science​ 11.4 (2008): 487­94.
Print.
Munakata, Yuko, James L. McClelland, Mark H. Johnson, and Robert S. Siegler. "Rethinking
Infant Knowledge: Toward an Adaptive Process Account of Successes and Failures in Object
Permanence Tasks." ​Psychological Review​ 104.4 (1997): 686­713. Print.
Needham, A. "A Pick­me­up for Infants' Exploratory Skills: Early Simulated Experiences
Reaching for Objects Using 'sticky Mittens' Enhances Young Infants' Object Exploration Skills."
Infant Behavior and Development​ 25.3 (2002): 279­95. Print.
Sommerville, J., A. Woodward, and A. Needham. "Action Experience Alters 3­month­old
Infants' Perception of Others' Actions." ​Cognition​ 96.1 (2005): B1­B11. Print.
Sommerville, Jessica A., Elina A. Hildebrand, and Catharyn C. Crane. "Experience Matters: The
Impact of Doing versus Watching on Infants' Subsequent Perception of Tool­use Events."
Developmental Psychology​ 44.5 (2008): 1249­256. Print.
Sommerville, Jessica A., and Amanda L. Woodward. "Pulling out the Intentional Structure of
Action: The Relation between Action Processing and Action Production in Infancy."​Cognition
(2003): n. pag. Print.