Toddlers' preference for prosocial versus antisocial agents: No associations with empathy or attachment security

Abstract

Research has indicated that the majority of infants and toddlers prefer prosocial to antisocial agents, but little research has examined interindividual differences in children's preference. This study examined whether 24‐month‐olds' (n = 107) sociomoral preference was associated with attachment security or empathy, assessed with the Attachment Q‐Sort and the Empathy Questionnaire. Toddlers were presented with a puppet play, in which a protagonist tried to open a box and was helped by a prosocial agent and hindered by an antisocial agent. Then, toddlers were asked to pick up either the prosocial or the antisocial agent (manual choice), as a measure of their sociomoral preference. Of the 107 toddlers included in this study, 60.7% chose the prosocial over the antisocial agent. Neither empathy nor parent‐child attachment was associated with children's preference. Our findings indicate a slight overall preference for the prosocial agent, but with notable interindividual differences not explained by empathy or attachment.

Infants’ neural responses to helping and hindering scenarios

“…The current study did not find a group-level helper preference in either age group. These results are consistent with some recent findings using the hill paradigm ( Cowell and Decety, 2015 , Schlingloff et al, 2020 ; but see positive evidence in Hamlin, 2015 ; Loheide-Niesmann et al, 2021 ; Tan and Hamlin, 2021 ). While acknowledging the inconsistencies in infants’ helper preferences to date, we view infants’ failure in the current studies as relatively unsurprising.…”

Human Morality Is Based on an Early-Emerging Moral Core

“…In subsequent experiments involving either a helper or a hinderer and a neutral agent, infants preferred a helper over a neutral agent, and a neutral agent over a hinderer. This pattern, which is now well-replicated (Hamlin 2015;Loheide-Niesmann et al 2021;cf. Schlingloff et al 2020), suggests that infants (at least within this single prosocial/antisocial interaction) differentiated helping from hindering, positively evaluated the helper, and negatively evaluated the hinderer.…”

“…Chae & Song 2018;Geraci 2020a;Geraci 2020b;Geraci & Simion 2021;Holvoet, et al 2018;Kanakogi et al 2017;Loheide-Niesmann et al 2021;Lucca et al 2018; Singh 2020; Tan & Hamlin 2021; Van de Vondervoort et al 2018; Woo & Spelke 2020; Ziv et al 2021), and three report null findings (Schlingloff et al 2020; Singh 2020; Vaporova & Zmyj 2020) (Fig. 2).…”

A Systematic Review of Early Childhood Research on Socioemotional Development and Prosocial Behaviour

“…Many studies suffer from small sample sizes, which can undermine their findings' statistical power and generalisability. Researchers need to consider larger and more diverse samples to ensure robust and applicable findings (Bret et al, 2022;Elhusseini et al, 2023;Stern et al, 2015;Keenan et al, 2017;Lau et al, 2023;Little, 2023;Wilson et al, 2023;Mesurado & Richaud, 2017;Stefan et al, 2017;Loheide-Niesmann et al, 2021). Focusing on specific populations, age groups and cultural contexts, such as low-income African-American families or specific countries, limits the generalisability of research findings.…”