Infants possess an abstract expectation of ingroup support

Abstract

One pervasive facet of human interactions is the tendency to favor ingroups over outgroups. Remarkably, this tendency has been observed even when individuals are assigned to minimal groups based on arbitrary markers. Why is mere categorization into a minimal group sufficient to elicit some degree of ingroup favoritism? We consider several accounts that have been proposed in answer to this question and then test one particular account, which holds that ingroup favoritism reflects in part an abstract and early-emerging sociomoral expectation of ingroup support. In violation-of-expectation experiments with 17-mo-old infants, unfamiliar women were first identified (using novel labels) as belonging to the same group, to different groups, or to unspecified groups. Next, one woman needed instrumental assistance to achieve her goal, and another woman either provided the necessary assistance (help event) or chose not to do so (ignore event). When the two women belonged to the same group, infants looked significantly longer if shown the ignore as opposed to the help event; when the two women belonged to different groups or to unspecified groups, however, infants looked equally at the two events. Together, these results indicate that infants view helping as expected among individuals from the same group, but as optional otherwise. As such, the results demonstrate that from an early age, an abstract expectation of ingroup support contributes to ingroup favoritism in human interactions.infant cognition | sociomoral reasoning | ingroup support | ingroup favoritism | minimal groups

Children's neural processing of moral scenarios provides insight into the formation and reduction of in‐group biases

“…While it is known that infants and young children are capable of distinguishing between arbitrary groups and can use that information in inferential judgments (Jin & Baillargeon, 2017), research on age-related changes in bias manifestation is somewhat mixed. While it is known that infants and young children are capable of distinguishing between arbitrary groups and can use that information in inferential judgments (Jin & Baillargeon, 2017), research on age-related changes in bias manifestation is somewhat mixed.…”

“…Human beings have a natural proclivity to make distinctions between "us" and "them", which has survival value (Diesendruck, 2013), but is also a source of bias and prejudice. Group biases manifest early in development (Jin & Baillargeon, 2017), and carry with them expectations of behavior and constrain the possible actions individuals believe others will engage in (Rhodes & Chalik, 2013). Strongly held biases typically emerge around groups intimately tied to societally reinforced stereotypes, making them particularly susceptible to individual differences in life experiences (Hirschfeld, 2013).…”

“…Specifically, younger children were more likely to show a higher level of initial bias than older ones. While it is known that infants and young children are capable of distinguishing between arbitrary groups and can use that information in inferential judgments (Jin & Baillargeon, 2017), research on age-related changes in bias manifestation is somewhat mixed. Depending on the outcome measure and type of group involved, children may show an increase (Dunham & Emory, 2014) or decrease (Doyle & Aboud, 1995) in bias with age.…”

What Do Group Members Share? The Privileged Status of Cultural Knowledge for Children

“…Sensitivity to social groups emerges early in life. Young children and even infants expect members of a social group to engage positively with one another (e.g., to help each other, share resources with each other) (Jin & Baillergeon, ; Misch, Over, & Carpenter, ; Rhodes & Chalik, ) and to share physical, behavioral and psychological attributes (e.g., Diesendruck & haLevi, ; Dunham, Baron, & Carey, ; Plötner, Over, Carpenter, & Tomasello, ; Powell & Spelke, ; Shutts, Pemberton‐Roben, & Spelke, ). Even though group members can share various attributes, however, different attributes are constrained by group membership in varying degrees.…”

Infants expect leaders to right wrongs

“…This suggested that infants would perceive the wrongdoer and the victim, 2 group members of equal standing, to be entitled to an equal share of the toys, and hence that they would detect a fairness transgression when the wrongdoer took both toys, leaving none for the victim. Finally, there is also evidence that infants aged 12 to 17 mo possess an abstract expectation of ingroup support: For example, individuals in a group are expected to care for each other by refraining from unprovoked harm and by providing assistance when needed (47)(48)(49)(50). This suggested that infants would also perceive an ingroup-support transgression in our events and would be particularly sensitive to the plight of the victim, who was treated unfairly by a member of her own group.…”