This is how “you” play it: Children rely on generic pronouns to learn new norms

• In Event: Poster Session 09
  In Poster Session: PS 09 Topic - Language, Communication

Abstract

Norms are an integral part of children’s social worlds, dictating what is expected, typical and valued in a variety of contexts (Rakoczy & Schmidt, 2013). Here we ask whether subtle linguistic shifts, which frame information as applying to people in general rather than to a specific individual, can inform children’s interpretations of norms. We focus on the generic pronouns “you” and “we” (e.g., “You/we read stories before bedtime”).

Research with children and adults reveals a tight association between generic pronouns and norms in language production (Orvell et al., 2017, 2018; see also Göckeritz et al., 2014). Research also suggests that generic pronouns inform adults’ interpretations of norms (Orvell, Kross, & Gelman, 2019). However, it is unknown whether children rely on such linguistic cues to inform their interpretations of new norms, and when in development this sensitivity may emerge.

We tested this question in a pair of pre-registered experiments, wherein children needed to figure out the rules to a new game. Children ages 6-7 (n=48) and 8-9 (n=49) were randomly assigned to either Experiment 1 (n=49), contrasting “you” vs “I” or Experiment 2 (n=48), contrasting “we” vs “I.” In both experiments, one speaker used generic language (e.g., “Here is what you/we do next…”) to describe the rules of the game, whereas the other used first-person language (“Here is what I do next…”). Between-subjects, we counterbalanced which speaker used generic vs. specific language, whether the generic language was presented first vs. second, and the rules themselves. During each trial we asked, “What is the right thing to do first/next/last?” After the last trial, we asked, “Who follows the rules?” to examine whether children extrapolated from the generic language to inform their judgments about the speakers.

We predicted that participants would be more likely to endorse actions described with generic language as the right way to do things (i.e., normatively correct). We also predicted that participants would judge the speaker using generic language to be the “rule follower.” An open question was at what point in development these sensitivities might emerge.

As predicted, children endorsed actions described with generic language above chance across the five trials (Generic-you vs. “I”: β = 1.37, p = .001; Generic-we vs. “I”: β = 1.18, p < .001; Figure 1, Panel A). Children also selected the generic speaker as the “rule follower” above chance (Generic-you vs. “I”: β = 1.24, p < .001; Generic-we vs. “I”: β = .89, p = .005; Figure 1, Panel B). For “you”, these effects were present in both age groups. In contrast, for “we”, these effects were present among older children, but not younger ones.

Interestingly, there was no difference between the force of “you” vs. “we” in shaping normative interpretations overall (ps ≥ .450).

Together, these results demonstrate how a subtle shift in language can influence how children make sense of unfamiliar norms, as well as their judgments about others. Future work will examine whether these effects extend beyond a game context to socially meaningful interpersonal rules.

Authors

• Ariana Orvell, Bryn Mawr College
  Presenting Author

• Giulia V Elli, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  Non-Presenting Author

• Ella Simmons, University of California, Berkeley
  Non-Presenting Author

• Valerie Umscheid, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  Non-Presenting Author

• Ethan Kross, University of Michigan
  Non-Presenting Author

• Susan A Gelman, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  Non-Presenting Author