Dr. Felix Warneken What Factors Influence Prosociality in Young Children? Department of Psychology Harvard University
Cooperation in humans Prosociality Collaboration
Cooperation in humans Prosociality Helping Sharing
What are the origins of prosociality? � Prosociality imposed by social environment? � Development as internalization of social norms (Bar-Tal, 1982; Cialdini et al., 1982; Henrich et al., 2005) � Limitation: Research focused on adults & school-children (Dovidio et al., 2005; Eisenberg et al., 2006) � Alternative: Predisposition to develop prosocial behaviors? (Hoffman, 2000)
Research approach Question: What are the origins of human prosociality in phylogeny and ontogeny? Hypothesis: Human socialization practices build upon a biological predisposition for altruism Evidence: Experiments with young children: Psychological capacities for altruism in early ontogeny Comparative studies with chimpanzees Shared vs. species-unique aspects
What are the origins of prosociality? 0 2 3 4 5 1 Age Early forms � Cultural norms of � Social-cognitive development prosociality
hildren Helping be lping beha havior viors in y s in young c oung childr
Helping individual goal Helping requires: (1) cognitive understanding of other's goal (2) motivation to act on behalf of the other
Helping in children: Clothespin task
Helping in children: Cabinet task
Helping in young children Warneken & Tomasello, 2006, Science • Social-cognitive skills Warneken & Tomasello, 2007, Infancy – Early emergence (14-18 months) – Flexibility: Various goals & types of intervention • Motivation: Costs
Costly helping Warneken & Tomasello, 2012, Infancy
Helping in young children • Social-cognitive skills – Early emergence (14-18 months) – Flexibility: Various goals & types of intervention Warneken et al., 2007, PLoS Biology • Motivation: Costs Warneken et al., 2007, PLoS Biology Warneken & Tomasello, 2012, Infancy Warneken & Tomasello, 2012, Infancy – Effort: Surmounting obstacles – Opportunity: Disengaging from attractive activity
Helping in young children • Social-cognitive skills – Early emergence (14-18 months) – Flexibility: Various goals & types of intervention • Motivation: Costs – Effort: Surmounting obstacles – Opportunity: Disengaging from attractive activity • Motivation: Rewards Warneken et al., 2007, PLoS Biology Warneken et al., 2007, PLoS Biology Warneken & Tomasello, 2008, Dev Psy Warneken & Tomasello, 2008, Dev Psy – Not necessary
Intrinsic motivation Trials with Helping in Subsequent Test Phase * * p < .05 � Extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation Warneken & Tomasello, 2008, Developmental Psychology
Helping in young children • Social-cognitive skills – Early emergence (14-18 months) – Flexibility: Various goals & types of intervention • Motivation: Costs – Effort: Surmounting obstacles – Opportunity: Disengaging from attractive activity • Motivation: Rewards Warneken et al., 2007, PLoS Biology Warneken et al., 2007, PLoS Biology Warneken & Tomasello, 2008, Dev Psy Warneken & Tomasello, 2008, Dev Psy – Not necessary – Rewards can undermine prosocial motivation
Reactive and proactive prosociality Previous studies with young children Response to overt behavioral and facial cues = Reactive prosociality � Can children help proactively?
Proactive helping Recipient during test: • No behavioral cues • No request • No solicitation Conditions (between subject) Experimental Cans drop accidentally Control Cans discarded on purpose Warneken, 2013, Cognition
Proactive helping Warneken, 2013, Cognition
Proactive helping � Proactive helping emerges at around 25 months of age Warneken, 2013, Cognition
Helping in young children • Social-cognitive skills – Early emergence (14-18 months) – Flexibility: Various goals & types of intervention • Motivation: Costs – Effort: Surmounting obstacles – Opportunity: Disengaging from attractive activity • Motivation: Rewards – Not necessary – Rewards can undermine prosocial motivation Warneken 2013, Cognition • Spontaneous, proactive helping Warneken & Tomasello 2013, Infancy – Children help without concurrent behavioral cues – Parental presence or encouragement unnecessary
Conclusion Ontogeny � Children’s social-cognitive understanding of others’ goals and their altruistic motivation enable acts of helping � Propensity to altruistically help others emerges in early childhood Phylogeny � Crucial aspects of human altruism in chimpanzees � Culture can facilitate these basic forms of altruism
Development of prosociality 0 2 3 4 5 1 Age Early forms � Cultural norms of � Social-cognitive development prosociality
ring The he soc socia ializa lization of tion of sha sharing
Resource sharing in adults ‘Dictator game’ as standard test of sharing Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler, 1986; Engel 2010 • Anonymous, one shot • No possibility for reciprocation or retaliation • Adults share on average 30% of resource Cross-cultural studies with adults Henrich et al. 2005 • Variation in Dictator game offers • Western, industrialized countries as outliers � How do children acquire culture-typical behavior?
Transmission of cultural norms Social learning • Many culturally relevant behaviors are acquired through imitation • Parents are at the center of introducing children the cultural norms & practices � No experiments on the effect of parental modeling on resource sharing
Variability in socialization goals Individualism Collectivism Independence Interdependence Autonomy Interpersonal relatedness Be unique Belong, fit in Realize internal attributes Engage in appropriate action … … e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, 2003, Oyserman et al. 2002; Triandis, 1989
Collectivist culture India • Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh Blake, Corbit, Callaghan, & Warneken, under review
Individualist culture USA • Boston Blake, Corbit, Callaghan, & Warneken, under review
Method Subjects USA N = 163 India N = 154 Age 3 to 8 years olds Task Dictator game with candy Design Between subject: Generous model (give 9, keep 1) Stingy model (give 1, keep 9) Control (no model) Blake, Corbit, Callaghan, & Warneken, under review
US sample Control Generous Stingy 50% * * * � No parental modeling effect in Generous condition � Less sharing in Stingy condition
India sample Control Generous Stingy
India sample Control * * Generous Stingy * * � Parental modeling effect in both conditions � Effect emerges over age
India sample Control Generous Stingy 50%
Hyper-generous donations Giving more than half of resource 100% Control Generous 80% % children 60% 40% 20% 0% US India � US children ignore hyper-generous donations � Children from India show more faithful imitation
Socialization of sharing behaviors • Faithful imitation is rare: Children’s own preferences prevail • Children from India more influenced by parental modeling • Effects of socialization emerge over development
Development of prosociality 0 2 3 4 5 1 Age Early forms � Cultural norms of � Social-cognitive development prosociality
Thank you Collaborators Funding Peter Blake National Science Foundation Tara Callaghan John Templeton Foundation John Corbit European Science Foundation Michael Tomasello Harvard Mind, Brain & Behavior Warneken lab members
Thank you
Preliminary results Longitudinal study with N = 567 twin pairs (33% DRD4 7-repeat carriers) 4.0 Mean number of stickers donated (0 to 6) 7-repeat carriers 3.0 Non- carriers 2.0 1.0 0.0 No model Non-generous model Generous model Control Generous Stingy model model � 7 repeat allele carriers more responsive to generous model Knafo, Blake & Warneken, in prep
Socialization of cooperative behaviors Cross-cultural differences • Children from India more influenced by parental modeling • Effects of socialization emerge over development � Effects of socio-cultural environment Individual differences • DRD4 polymorphism: 7 repeat allele carriers are more susceptible to environmental variables • Genetic differences in receptivity to parental modeling � Interaction of genes and environment
lity? Wha What e t elic licits pr its prosoc osocia iality? Actor Recipient Proactive No behavioral cues Reactive Behavioral cues indicate recipient's need Interactive Communicative request directed at donor Self-protective Harassment
vior? Wha What e t elic licits pr its prosoc osocia ial be l beha havior? Agent Recipient Proactive No behavioral cues Reactive Behavioral cues indicate recipient's need Interactive Communicative request directed at agent Self-protective Harassment
justice Sha Sharing a ring and distrib nd distributiv utive justic
Recommend
More recommend
