Subtle prosocial choices: Young children evaluate considerate others more positively

• In Event: Prosocial = good? Children’s developing evaluations of prosocial actions

Abstract

Prosocial behavior plays a crucial role in our interpersonal relationships. Developmental research has predominantly focused on overt and explicit forms of prosocial behavior (e.g., instrumental helping, sharing). Less is known about more subtle forms of prosocial behavior, such as being considerate, although they happen frequently and could be important for forming and maintaining social bonds. Through four pre-registered studies, we investigated young children’s (age 5-12 years) evaluations of considerate versus inconsiderate others, focusing on a specific considerate behavior, namely leaving a choice for others (Van Doesum et al., 2013).

Study 1 to 3 tested children’s inferences of considerate and inconsiderate behavior from a third-person perspective. Children watched videos of animated characters who either behaved considerately (i.e., left a choice for another animated character) or inconsiderately (i.e., did not leave a choice; within subjects). When we showed these targets simultaneously (Study 1, N = 372, 6-12 years), only older children evaluated considerate targets as nicer than inconsiderate ones. However, when we used simplified videos showing only one target at a time, children as young as 5 years old evaluated considerate targets as nicer (Study 2: N = 99; Study 3: N = 43).

In Study 4, we tested the impact of (in)considerate behavior when children are themselves involved in these interactions, as third-person evaluations do not always align with first-person reactions (Blake, 2018). Children (N = 54, 4-7 years) were tested online and were led to believe that they were playing a game with two peers who were participating in the same study. Children could pick fun animal videos and the peer they were matched to always picked first. One peer acted considerately (leaving a choice for the participant) and the other inconsiderately (not leaving a choice for the participant; within participants, counterbalanced). We then assessed how nice children thought the peers were and their collaboration preference (see Figure 1). Results showed that children liked both peers equally and that considerate behavior did not impact overall collaboration preferences. However, two interesting exploratory results emerged. First, when including only children who could correctly recall the choices that peers had made (n = 42), we found that they preferred to collaborate with the considerate peer rather than with the inconsiderate peer. Especially young children struggled recalling the choices that the peers made (46% of 4-year-olds failed the memory check), suggesting they did not sufficiently notice (in)considerate choices. Second, children did evaluate considerate peers as nicer when this peer left a choice that was in line with what they wanted to pick. Leaving a choice for others is thus not always seen as considerate but might depend on children’s own preferences.

Taken together, our results suggest that in third-party scenarios, considerate behavior impacts children’s evaluations by age five. When (in)considerate behavior is directed at children themselves, however, the signal that leaving a choice conveys does not seem as salient for young children and might depend on their personal preferences. Study 5 (currently in preparation) aims to better understand these potential boundary conditions.

Authors

• Christel Klootwijk, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  Presenting Author

• Jellie Sierksma, Utrecht University