Transgression of cooperative helping norms outweighs children’s intergroup bias

González-Gadea, María Luz; Santamaría-García, Hernando; Aragón, Irina; Santamaría-García, José; Herrera, Eduar; Ibáñez, Agustín; Sigman, Mariano

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100878

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children were then assessed on behavioral measures such as tattle and resource distribution, as well as on cognitive-affective measures such as moral evaluations and social preferences. Consistent with previous studies, we expected children to exhibit a negative bias toward both puppet and human transgressors by tattling on the transgressor (e.g., Heyman et al, 2016;Misch et al, 2018), distributing undesirable rather than desirable resources to the transgressor (e.g., Kenward & Östh, 2015), evaluating the transgressor more negatively on moral goodness (e.g., Kenward & Dahl, 2011), and preferring the non-transgressor over the transgressor (e.g., Gonzalez-Gadea et al, 2020;Wilks et al, 2019).…”

Section: Overview Of Studysupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Yet, some studies have pointed to a nondiscriminatory inclination of children to prioritize moral concerns over ingroup loyalty. For example, while three-to 11-year-olds expressed a social preference for ingroup helpers over outgroup helpers and allocated resources more favorably toward ingroup helpers, they favored neither ingroup hinderers nor outgroup hinderers, suggesting that children demonstrated ingroup loyalty only when ingroup members showed moral rectitude (Gadea et al, 2020). Additionally, four-to six-year-olds evaluated immoral acts of ingroup members on equally negative terms as outgroup members, and believed that these acts deserved punishment regardless of the group membership of the transgressor Schuhmacher & Kärtner, 2019).…”

Section: Ingroup Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conditional prosociality in development: deconstructing social and materialistic factors that modulate early prosocial behavior

Lee¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peipei, thank you for giving me the chance to begin this journey. Six years ago, when I was fresh out of university, as green as moss, and painfully oblivious to the workings of academia, you responded to my floundering attempts to look for Ph.D. supervision and welcomed me into your lab. I am also thankful for your efforts to nudge me out of my comfort zone. Being the social hermit I am, there are valuable experiences (connecting with fellow scientists, venturing overseas, participating in conferences) that I would have given a miss if left to my own devices.To my TAC members: Prof. Kang Lee, I am grateful for the opportunity to work on the race projects with an international team and the guidance you provided during your earlier visits to Singapore; Assoc. Prof. Gianluca Esposito, I am grateful for your kindness and geniality, especially when I first entered the lab.To my dependable comrades: Zhao Siqi, we often seek solace in our shared experiences, as there is no greater comfort than the knowledge that we are not navigating the struggles of graduate school alone. Thank you for being a friend I could always turn to for reassurances when the future looked darker than coal. Shirley Zhang and Michelle Nee, thank you for being my pillar of support back in the early days. To my undergraduate assistants (too many of you to name!), thank you for standing by me during the days of laborious preschool visits and for your steadfast assistance throughout the drudgery of data coding and checking.To the admin staff: Li Sufei, Jennifer Goh, and Lela Ahmad, I am grateful for your constant support in admin matters. I would have been such a lost sheep without you! To the preschools, principals, teachers, and parents: Thank you for entrusting me with your children. To the children: Your laughter and chatter always brighten my day! Thank you for leaving an indelible print on my graduate life. Working with young children is never a walk in the park, but I would not trade this experience for anything in the world.To my family, thank you for being the place I call home. I am very fortunate to be able to enjoy the warmth of homecooked meals.Last but not least, I thank my Queen, Agatha Christie, and Aoyama Gosho-sensei for their wonderful works which have kept me company on many a late night.To all of you, I dedicate this thesis. vii Table of ContentsCover Page .

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Studysupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Ingroup Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditional prosociality in development: deconstructing social and materialistic factors that modulate early prosocial behavior

Lee¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yudkin et al (2019) have also found this effect in young children when they are in an authority position to decide on others' transgressions. On the contrary, other studies in adults (Bernhard et al, 2006;Baumgartner et al, 2012;Hewstone et al, 2002;Tajfel & Turner, 1979; and children (Buttelmann & Böhm, 2014;Chapman et al, 2020;Fehr et al, 2008;Gonzalez-Gadea et al, 2020;Jordan et al, 2014) have…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…al., (2019) have also found this effect in young children when they are in an authority position to decide on others' transgressions. On the contrary, other studies in adults (Bernhard, Fehr, & Fischbacher, 2006;Baumgartner, Götte, Gügler, & Fehr, 2012;Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002;Tajfel & Turner, 1979;Yudkin, Rothmund, Twardawski, Thalla, & Van Bavel, 2016) and children (Buttelmann & Böhm, 2014;Chapman et al, 2020;Fehr et al, 2008;Gonzalez-Gadea et al, 2020;Jordan et al, 2014) have shown that selfish outgroup members are punished more than ingroup selfish members which has been interpreted as a manifestation of ingroup favoritism bias.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Third‐Party Punishment (TPP) has been traditionally studied as the humans’ willingness to pay personal costs to punish those who violate fairness distribution norms even when the transgression does not directly affect the observer (Boyd et al., 2011; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Hauert et al., 2007). The intervention of third parties to rectify injustice is a cornerstone of systems of justice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decisions and mechanisms of intergroup bias in children's third‐party punishment

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledgements:We thank Irina Aragon, Carolina Garrigue, and Camila Sturla for their help in data collection. We would also like to thank the director and staff of the Instituto Sagrada Familia and the Science Cultural Center for providing the facilities for this study. Ethics approval:All children included in this study provided a verbally informed assent, and a parent or guardian gave written informed consent on behalf of the child enrolled in the studies. These written informed consents follow the norms of the declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Cognitive Neurology and the Argentinean Society for Clinical Analyses (SAIC). .

show abstract

Children intend to teach conventional but not moral norms selectively to ingroup members.

Karadağ¹,

Soley²

2023

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have investigated factors guiding children's decisions when learning from others, although less is known about factors that govern children's decisions when they transfer knowledge to others. Here we asked whether children would privilege ingroup members when teaching and, if so, whether this tendency would persist when transferring different kinds of information (conventional norms vs. moral norms). In Experiment 1 (N = 24), we first replicated ingroup preference based on minimal group membership with 5-and 6-year-old Turkish children. In Experiment 2 (N = 64), we examined whether children would consider group membership and the type of knowledge to be transferred in their teaching intentions. Children were introduced to two ignorant targets differing in their group membership and were asked to choose one or both of these targets to teach conventional or moral norms. Children were more likely to choose ingroup members for teaching conventional norms and both members when teaching moral norms. Further, this trend was particularly evident among girls. These results suggest that children make flexible teaching decisions considering the social attributes of the learners and raise interesting questions regarding the mechanisms underlying children's information transfer. Public Significance StatementChildren consider various factors when choosing whom to learn from, although much less is known about children's selectivity when teaching others. We show that children intend to teach conventional norms selectively to ingroup members and moral norms to both ingroup and outgroup members. These results suggest that children make flexible teaching decisions taking both the nature of the information and the recipient's social attributes into account and provide further evidence for children's active role in cultural transmission.

show abstract

Transgression of cooperative helping norms outweighs children’s intergroup bias

Cited by 4 publications

References 56 publications

Conditional prosociality in development: deconstructing social and materialistic factors that modulate early prosocial behavior

Conditional prosociality in development: deconstructing social and materialistic factors that modulate early prosocial behavior

Decisions and mechanisms of intergroup bias in children's third‐party punishment

Children intend to teach conventional but not moral norms selectively to ingroup members.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About