Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Poster #193 - Attributing Psychological Goals to Others: Children’s and Adults’ Explanations of Interpersonal Events

Fri, March 22, 2:30 to 3:45pm, Baltimore Convention Center, Floor: Level 1, Exhibit Hall B

Integrative Statement

Theory-of-mind research focuses primarily on young children’s simple belief-desire explanations of behavior (e.g., Miller & Aloise-Young, 2017; Wellman, 2014) while paying relatively little attention to older children’s consideration of more advanced explanations. We examined children’s and adults’ preference for direct- and indirect-psychological goals as explanations of interpersonal behavior across varying social contexts (positive- versus negative-valenced events; the presence of a group of peers vs. a teacher). Sixteen 1st-, 17 3rd-, 16 5th-, and 14 7th-graders, and 23 adults heard eight stories in which a child behaved positively or negatively while peers or a teacher observed the exchange. For example, while peers watched, Nathan shared his game with Ben; while a teacher watched, Jacob excluded Connor from his team. Using a 5-point scale, participants rated the likelihood of six possible explanations for each behavior: a direct psychological goal (Recipient Emotion; to make Connor feel bad), three indirect psychological goals (Actor Emotion: to make himself feel good; Observer’s Thought about Actor: to make the teacher think Jacob is good at soccer; Observer’s Thought about Recipient: to make the teacher think Connor isn’t good at soccer), a social goal (to be friends with Connor), and the actor’s mood (Jacob was in a bad mood). A 5 x 2 x 4 x 2 (Age x Story Valence x Explanation X Observer Type) ANOVA yielded significant main effects of Story Valence and Explanation, and three significant interactions: Age x Story Valence, Age x Explanation Story, and Valence x Explanation interaction, but no significant Observer Type effects; whether observers were peers or teachers had no influence on ratings. See Table 1 for mean ratings. Among all age groups, the actor’s behavior was most likely explained by the actor wanting to directly affect the recipient’s emotional state, and least likely explained by the actor wanting to indirectly affect the bystanders’ thoughts about the recipient. In addition, third- and fifth-graders rated the actor wanting to influence the actor’s own emotional state as unlikely, but adults rated this option as a relatively likely. Finally, although third graders rated the actor wanting to affect the bystanders’ thoughts about the actor as less likely, seventh-graders and adults rated this impression management goal as likely. Participants viewed positive actions as aimed at enhancing the recipient’s emotional state or the actor’s social relationship with the recipient; a pattern of attributions that should support the perceived benevolence of prosocial acts. However, participants viewed negative actions as aimed at influencing the bystanders’ thoughts about the actor (impression management), or at influencing the recipient’s emotion. These results suggest that (a) by first grade, children differentiate among specific goals depending on the social context of the event, (b) even first graders recognize direct psychological goals (e.g., an actor’s intention to influence a recipient’s emotion) as explanations of social events, and (b) older children and adults recognize psychological goals that span multiple people or roles (e.g., an actor’s intention to direct an action toward a recipient in order to influence a bystander’s thought about the actor or recipient).

Authors