0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Merit overrules theory of mind when young children share resources with others

      research-article
      1 , * , 2
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Non-windfall approaches to sharing demonstrate pre-schoolers’ sensitivity to merit-based distributions of resources. However, such studies have not considered (1) whether epistemic aspects of task performance, such as the relative accuracy of a co-worker, influences pre-schoolers’ rates of sharing; and (2) how children’s emerging social understanding may impact resource allocations in high- and low-merit situations. These issues are of theoretical importance as they may provide new information about the scope of pre-schooler’s merit-based sharing behaviours. Moreover, as social understanding has been related to both increases and decreases in pre-schoolers’ levels of sharing, providing a merit-based assessment of this relationship would allow for a concurrent assessment of recent conflicting findings. In this study, three- and four-year-olds (N = 131) participated in an unexpected transfer task which was followed by a resource generation picture card naming task with a reliable or unreliable (high- or low-merit) co-worker (a hand puppet). The results showed that children engage in more generous rates of sharing with a high-merit co-worker. This suggests that merit-based sharing is apparent in young children and extends to epistemic aspects of task performance. However, such sharing was constrained by a self-serving bias. Finally, we were not able to detect an effect of children’s performance on the false belief task on sharing behaviours in the high- or low-merit trials, suggesting that these behaviours may not be modulated by social understanding during early childhood.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Do infants have a sense of fairness?

          Two experiments examined infants' expectations about how an experimenter should distribute resources and rewards to other individuals. In Experiment 1, 19-month-olds expected an experimenter to divide two items equally, as opposed to unequally, between two individuals. The infants held no particular expectation when the individuals were replaced with inanimate objects, or when the experimenter simply removed covers in front of the individuals to reveal the items (instead of distributing them). In Experiment 2, 21-month-olds expected an experimenter to give a reward to each of two individuals when both had worked to complete an assigned chore, but not when one of the individuals had done all the work while the other played. The infants held this expectation only when the experimenter could determine through visual inspection who had worked and who had not. Together, these results provide converging evidence that infants in the 2nd year of life already possess context-sensitive expectations relevant to fairness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers.

            Being able to evaluate the accuracy of an informant is essential to communication. Three experiments explored preschoolers' (N=119) understanding that, in cases of conflict, information from reliable informants is preferable to information from unreliable informants. In Experiment 1, children were presented with previously accurate and inaccurate informants who presented conflicting names for novel objects. 4-year-olds-but not 3-year-olds-predicted whether an informant would be accurate in the future, sought, and endorsed information from the accurate over the inaccurate informant. In Experiment 2, both age groups displayed trust in knowledgeable over ignorant speakers. In Experiment 3, children extended selective trust when learning both verbal and nonverbal information. These experiments demonstrate that preschoolers have a key strategy for assessing the reliability of information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              I Should but I Won’t: Why Young Children Endorse Norms of Fair Sharing but Do Not Follow Them

              Young children endorse fairness norms related to sharing, but often act in contradiction to those norms when given a chance to share. This phenomenon has rarely been explored in the context of a single study. Using a novel approach, the research presented here offers clear evidence of this discrepancy and goes on to examine possible explanations for its diminution with age. In Study 1, 3–8-year-old children readily stated that they themselves should share equally, asserted that others should as well, and predicted that others had shared equally with them. Nevertheless, children failed to engage in equal sharing until ages 7–8. In Study 2, 7–8-year-olds correctly predicted that they would share equally, and 3–6-year-olds correctly predicted that they would favor themselves, ruling out a failure-of-willpower explanation for younger children's behavior. Similarly, a test of inhibitory control in Study 1 also failed to explain the shift with age toward adherence to the endorsed norm. The data suggest that, although 3-year-olds know the norm of equal sharing, the weight that children attach to this norm increases with age when sharing involves a cost to the self.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                3 January 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 1
                : e0227375
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Psychology, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Department of Evolutive and Educational Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
                Middlesex University, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7273-3631
                Article
                PONE-D-19-19531
                10.1371/journal.pone.0227375
                6941925
                31899918
                bdd401aa-9591-4c80-8266-9affa9a1f218
                © 2020 Stack, Romero-Rivas

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 11 July 2019
                : 17 December 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Pages: 15
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Age Groups
                Children
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Families
                Children
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Applied Mathematics
                Game Theory
                Dictator Game
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Theory of Mind
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Theory of Mind
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Theory of Mind
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Motivation
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Motivation
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Motivation
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Motivation
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Motivation
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Applied Mathematics
                Game Theory
                Ultimatum Game
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Prosocial Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Prosocial Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Analysis of Variance
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Analysis of Variance
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article