Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Prosocial Behaviour (Prosocial Behaviours (Dunfield (2014), Helping…

- - - - 6 mnth and 10 mnth
      - Watch characters: climbing circle, helpful triangle and hindering square
      - Measures: looking times (longer = violating of expectation), choice behaviour (preference)
      - Results
        
        12/12 5 mnths, 14/16 10 mnth olds chose helping
        
        Prefer good - know difference between good and bad
        
        10 mnth olds look longer when climber approaches hinderer
    - - Apply to other situations?
      - Puppets - more realistic situations
      - Experiment 1
        
        Opening a box to get a toy
        
        Help vs hinder opening box
        
        5 + 9 mnth olds sig prefer helper
      - Experiment 2
        
        Retrieving a dropped ball
        
        3 + 5 mnth olds sig prefer the helper
      - Further evidence for potentially innate preference for prosocial people
    - - Margoni + Surian (2018)
      - Infants 4.5 - 32 mnths, 26 studies
      - 2/3 chose prosocial character
      - BUT publication bias - small samples form WEIRD families
      - Well-established finding but caution warranted
  - - - Categorised as altruistic sharers or selfish sharers
      - Preferred toy or non-prefered toy given when asked
      - 1/3 altruistic, 1/3 selfish, 1/3 not sharing
  - - - When appear?
      - Experiment 1
        
        Helping - pick up objects
        
        14 mnths
        
        Six helping tasks
        
        Helping from 14 mnths, mostly in reaching tasks
        
        More obvious need, interpreted as a point
      - Experiment 2
        
        Cooperating - bounce ball together, tubes to release toy
        
        Same Ps
        
        Two cooperation tasks - vocalisation + prompting to cont
        
        Cooperation from 14 mnths, but need low behavioural demands (close to apparatus, easy/straight forward task)
      - All suggesting early altruistic motivation - shared innate desire to be/share with others
    - - Hyp 1
        
        Prosocial makes me feel good
        
        Aknin et al (2012)
        
        More happiness giving (even larger for own rather than found)
      - Hyp 2
        
        Because I get external rewards
        
        Warneken & Tomasello (2008)
        
        Over justification effect (physical reward) in 20 mnths
        
        Two phases to help
        
        1 - three condition after child helped: material reward, verbal praise + neutral (said nothing)
        
        2 - another chance to help
        
        Help because they want to, not for reward
      - Hyp 3
        
        Because I am genuinely concerned about others
        
        Vaish et al (2009)
        
        More prosocial behaviour at all ages when the adult had been harmed - share their own balloons
        
        Suggests sympathetic response can motivate their prosocial behaviours
        
        Helping because they are concerned about others
        
        Phase 1: harm or no harm condition - rising up picture either belonging to another person or not
        
        Phase 2: measure prosocial behaviour - lost balloon after giving to infant, sharing balloons
- - - - How do trust and reciprocity develop? More challenging
      - Trust game
        
        Two players
        
        1: divide money (no trust) OR give all to 2 to divide - doubles it (trust)
        
        2: if given can share equally (reciprocate) OR keep most (exploit)
      - 9-22 yrs
      - Trust increased with age
      - Reciprocity increased with age
      - Late adolescence sensitive to level of risk - amount of money at stake
      - Increase in sophisticated prosocial behaviour (links to egocentricism, persepective-taking)
    - - How does fairness develop?
      - Ultimatum game plus "hidden" condition
      - 8-13 yrs
      - Become more strategically fair with age
- - - - Work out others perspectives and do fair response
      - 5 yr old children who pass false belief task are fairer (in ultimatum game)
      - Adolescents get better at understanding perspectives of others
    - - Effortful or inhibitory control needed to self-regulate
      - Kochanska et al (1997)
        
        Inhibitory control needed for the development of conscience
        
        Longitudinal study from 3-5
        
        Inhibitory control task bettery and assessment of moral conscious
        
        Children with better inhibitory control hd more moral conscious
- - - - Brownell et al (2009)
        
        Deliver food to self and to adult OR Deliver food to self alone
        
        Silent vs "I like/want crackers"
        
        Generally 18 month olds didn't share
        
        25 mnths = silent at chance, vocal are sig more likely to share
        
        18-25 mnth
        
        How does sharing develop?
      - Paulus (2014)
        
        Share more with poor than rich?
        
        3-5 yrs - share with rick or poor teddy (number of stickers in book)
        
        Choice
        
        2 stickers for self + 2 for others OR 3 for self + 1 for other (EVEN CHOICE)
        
        1 for self + 3 for other OR 3 for self + 1 for other (UNEVEN CHOICE)
        
        Results
        
        Even choice = likely
        
        5 yrs = affected by rich poor (esp. poor)
        
        More likely with even choice when teddy is poor (or 1:3 uneven)
        
        Don't share +ive prosocial options when ted = rich
        
        Assessment of others needs at 5 yrs + motivated by this
    - - Vaish et al (2010)
        
        Study 1
        
        3 yr olds witness adult harm or help another adult, plus neutral adult is present
        
        Take part in helping task
        
        Results: 3 yrs were less likely to help the adult who had been harmful - selectivity, punishing a they have been harmful
        
        Study 2
        
        Were they not helping because negative outcome or harmful intention? Sophisticated judgement
        
        Intentional harm vs accidental harm conditions > helping task
        
        Results: 3 yr olds help less when the harm is intentional - selective depending on intent behind actions
      - Sebastian-Enesco et al (2012)
        
        2.5 yrs
        
        Play with prosocial partner + selfish partner
        
        Above chance for choosing prosocial option, regardless of partner's behaviour
        
        Prosocial behaviour in early childhood is indiscriminate - not picky
        
        Preference but own behaviour = to be kind/helpful
        
        Intrinsic + innate behaviour > become more selective over time
    - - Engelmann et al (2012) + Leimgruber et al (2012)
      - 5 yr olds act more generously only when they're being watched or when the observer knows how generous they are being
      - 5yrs start thinking of reputation so what to be seen in a good light
    - - Adults prefer equality + avoid unequal outcomes
      - Blake + McAuliffe (2011)
        
        Inequity game with 4-8 yrs
        
        Accept or reject (1:1, 4:1)
        
        Watched by unfamiliar peer they are sharing with
        
        4-7 yrs rarely reject 4:1
        
        8 yrs do - more likely to choose equal option (more sensitivity to unequal outcome)
    - - Sharing equally does't happen until 7/8
      - Warneken et la (2011)
        
        Collaborative problem solving task
        
        3 yrs
        
        Do share equally if collaborate
        
        Better sense of what is fair