Cooperation or Competition: Do Children Consider Resource Scarcity When Inferring Friendships From Imitation?

• In Event: Poster Session 11
  In Poster Session: PS 11 Topic - Social Cognition

Abstract

Introduction. Infants and children consider imitation when making social inferences, and often view imitation as signaling affiliative intent (Powell & Spelke, 2018; Over & Carpenter, 2015). However, imitation is not always positive: when resources are scarce, making the same choice can result in competition rather than cooperation. Do children consider the availability of resources when reasoning about the positive or negative intentions behind imitation? If so, then when resources are limited, children should treat imitation as an antisocial rather than a prosocial act. Alternatively, young children may always perceive imitation as a sign of affiliation, even when it results in competition.

Participants. We will test 102 4-6-year-olds (determined by power analyses with 80% power and a small-to-moderate effect size). We expect to collect these data over less than 3 months; in two weeks, we have tested 23 children of this final sample and expect to continue at this rate.

Methods. Children are told two stories in which a target character expresses a desire for one of two object choices (e.g., cupcakes, popsicles). After hearing the target's request, two other agents make their choice. One agent (the imitator) copies the target character’s choice, while the other agent (the non-imitator) chooses the other type of object. After hearing each story, children are asked two test questions: Which of the two agents does the target character like more, and which of the two agents was being nice to the target character (order counterbalanced)?
Across story trials (within-subject) the object quantities are manipulated: In one trial, there are enough resources of both types for all of the agents to have one (e.g., three popsicles and three cupcakes). In the other trial, there are enough resources of one object-type for all of the agents, but there is only one object of the other type (e.g., three paintbrushes and one crayon). When one of the resources is limited, the target character and imitator always both choose the object that is scarce, and the non-imitator chooses the type of object that is plentiful.

Predictions & Analyses. We predict that children will be less likely to select the imitator for both test questions (Who does the target like? Who is being nice?) when the desired object is limited vs. unlimited. We will test this hypothesis via logistic regression, with trial type (limited vs. unlimited resources), age (continuous), and subject as predictors, and will use two nested model comparisons to determine whether trial type and age significantly improve the model's fit for each of the two test questions (preference, niceness).

Implications. These findings will extend our knowledge of how children reason about imitation and affiliation. In particular, they can adjudicate between accounts in which social imitation primarily establishes similarity and supports homophily-based affiliation, in which case resource availability is irrelevant, and accounts in which prosocial imitation signals cooperative intent, in which case imitative choices in the context of limited resources would be counterproductive.

Authors

• Madison Pesowski, University of California - San Diego
  Presenting Author

• Lindsey Powell, University of California - San Diego
  Non-Presenting Author

• Mina Cikara, Harvard University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Adena Schachner, University of California - San Diego
  Non-Presenting Author