4.4 Article

Infants' preferences for approachers over repulsers shift between 4 and 8 months of age

期刊

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 487-499

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ab.22033

关键词

aversive interaction; infancy; preferential looking task; social evaluation; sociomoral development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that 8-month-old infants showed a preference for agents displaying prosocial behavior, while 4-month-old infants did not exhibit this preference. This indicates that infants' evaluation of agents is influenced by social information and reflects their ability to avoid choosing agents involved in unpleasant interactions as partners.
Despite its adaptive value for social life, the emergence and the development of the ability to detect agents that cause aversive interactions and distinguish them from potentially affiliative agents (approachers) has not been investigated. We presented infants with a simple interaction involving two agents: one of them (the repulser) moved toward and pushed the other (the approacher) which reacted by simply moving toward the repulser without contacting it. We found that 8-month-olds (N = 28) looked longer at the approacher than at the repulser (Experiment 1), whereas 4-month-olds (N = 30) exhibited no preference (Experiment 2). To control for low-level cues (such as the preference for the agent that moved after the contact), two new groups of 4- and 8-month-old infants were presented with a series of interactions in which the agents inverted their social roles. Older infants (N = 30) manifested no preference for either agent (Experiment 3), while younger infants (N = 30) looked longer at the first agent to move (Experiment 4). Our results indicated that 8-month-olds' preferences for the approacher over the repulser depended on social information and were finely tuned to agents that display prosocial rather than antisocial behavior. We discuss these findings in light of the development and adaptive value of the ability to negatively evaluate repulsers, to avoid choosing them as partners.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据