Baby Empathy: Infant Distress and Peer Prosocial Responses

Abstract

Empathy is an important competence in our social world, a motivator of prosocial behavior, and thought to develop throughout the second year of life. The current study examined infants' responses to naturalistic peer distress to explore markers of empathy and prosocial behavior in young babies. Seventeen 8-month-old infants participated in a repeated measures design using the "babies-in-groups" paradigm, with maternal presence as the independent variable. Significant differences were found between response types: Gaze was the standard response to infant distress, followed by socially directed behaviors and affect, with self-distress rarely occurring. Maternal presence was not found to impact the nature or frequency of babies' responses to peer distress. During distress episodes, babies looked preferentially at the distressed peer, then other mothers, and least to their own mother. Data revealed that infant responses to peer distress resulted in a successful cessation of that distress episode over one third of the time. Case studies are provided to illustrate the quantitative data. The results provided evidence of empathic concern and prosocial behavior in the first year of life, and provoke a challenge to developmental theories of empathy.

Young infants are pro‐victims, but it depends on the context

“…On the other hand, the victims' predicament may evoke empathic concern in the observer (the infant) and thus motivate the infants to prefer the harmed and distressed character over the unharmed neutral one. This possibility is consistent with the recent evidence regarding young infants' empathic capabilities (Davidov, Zahn-Waxler, Roth-Hanania, & Knafo, 2013;Liddle, Bradley, & Mcgrath, 2015;Roth-Hanania, Davidov, & Zahn-Waxler, 2011) and with infants' preference for the victim shape in Kanakogi et al's (2013) study. We therefore predicted that at least some of the infants would favour the distressed victim.…”

“…() using a fully matched, unrelated, neutral character (instead of a bystander), and are in stark contrast to a hedonic preference towards a contented other in this context (Gong, ). Infants’ preference of the distressed victim may reflect their capacity for empathy and concern for others, previously observed in young infants’ reactions to a crying peer and to maternal simulations of distress (Liddle et al ., ; Roth‐Hanania et al ., ).…”

“…This theory has been critiqued, however, for likely underestimating young infants’ empathic capabilities (Davidov et al ., ). Indeed, evidence is beginning to accumulate that during the first year of life, infants can already exhibit empathic concern for distressed others – through their facial expressions, vocalizations, and gestures (Liddle et al ., ; Roth‐Hanania et al ., ). The pro‐victim preference in our experimental paradigm may likewise reflect young infants’ caring and empathic concern for hurt others.…”

Groupness in Preverbal Infants: Proof of Concept

“…Amongst these, perhaps the most obvious is: how do group-members respond to noisy vocalization, and, in particular, distress? Here, a study by Liddle et al (2015) is illustrative, although it did not employ the concept of groupness proved here. Liddle et al (2015) showed that 8-month-olds’ distress in infant–peer trios always elicited gaze from other group members—plus, albeit to a lesser extent, non-distressed social behavior: responses that had the effect of significantly reducing that distress.…”

“…Here, a study by Liddle et al (2015) is illustrative, although it did not employ the concept of groupness proved here. Liddle et al (2015) showed that 8-month-olds’ distress in infant–peer trios always elicited gaze from other group members—plus, albeit to a lesser extent, non-distressed social behavior: responses that had the effect of significantly reducing that distress. Presumably, if future studies show that non-distressed vocalization also provokes and/or accompanies groupness, this would be germane to understanding the development of group communication, and of language.…”