Young children consider individual authority and collective agreement when deciding who can change rules

Abstract

Young children demonstrate awareness of normativity in various domains of social learning. It is unclear, however, whether children recognize that rules can be changed in certain contexts and by certain people or groups. Across three studies, we provided empirical evidence that children consider individual authority and collective agreement when reasoning about who can change rules. In Study 1, children of 4 to 7 years old watched videos of children playing simply sorting and stacking games in groups or alone. Across conditions the group game was initiated 1) by one child, 2) by collaborative agreement, or 3) by an adult authority. In the group games with a rule initiated by one child, children attributed ability to change rules only to that individual and not his/her friends, and mentioned ownership and authority in their explanations.When the rule was initiated collaboratively, older children said that no individual could change the rule, while young children said that either individual could do so. When an adult initiated the rule children stated that only the adult could change it. In contrast, children always endorsed a child's decision to change his own solitary play, and never endorsed any child's ability to change moral and conventional rules in daily life. Age differences corresponded to beliefs about friendship and agreement in peer play (Study 2) and disappeared when the decision process behind and normative force of collaboratively initiated rules was clarified (Study 3). These results show important connections between normativity and considerations of authority and collaboration in early childhood.

Children expect leaders to oust intruders, to refrain from aggression, but do not expect leaders to be generally more prosocial

“…When told that one of the subordinates wore the wrong colored shirt and someone made them change it, we found inconclusive evidence as to whether children chose the leader as frequently or more frequently than the other characters (Story 3e). This diverges from other work on the topic (Gülgöz & Gelman, 2016;Zhao & Kushnir, 2018). It could be that the norm violation in our story was not serious enough to elicit expectations and that children expect leaders to enforce only more important norms.…”

Young children conform more to norms than to preferences

“…One straightforward way to linguistically signal conventionality is to state a rule [ 14 ]. But rules may not be an ideal operationalization of conventionality because the source of a rule’s normative force may be unclear to children.…”

Conceptual Development and Change Precede Adults’ Judgments About Powerful Appearance

“…They are also capable of utilizing this knowledge to identify which of two people is "in charge" within third-party interactions. For children, people that are in charge establish rules and gives orders (Bernard et al 2016;Charafeddine et al 2016), control resources (Charafeddine et al 2014;Gülgöz and Gelman 2016), are less likely to help in low-cost situations (Terrizzi et al 2020), are more likely to be imitated by others (Over and Carpenter 2014), and generally influence how other people behave in their presence (Chudek et al 2011;Gülgöz and Gelman 2016;Zhao and Kushnir 2017).…”