Preschool Children Fail Primate Prosocial Game Because of Attentional Task Demands

Abstract

Various nonhuman primate species have been tested with prosocial games (i.e. derivates from dictator games) in order to better understand the evolutionary origin of proactive prosociality in humans. Results of these efforts are mixed, and it is difficult to disentangle true species differences from methodological artifacts. We tested 2- to 5-year-old children with a costly and a cost-free version of a prosocial game that differ with regard to the payoff distribution and are widely used with nonhuman primates. Simultaneously, we assessed the subjects’ level of Theory of Mind understanding. Prosocial behavior was demonstrated with the prosocial game, and did not increase with more advanced Theory of Mind understanding. However, prosocial behavior could only be detected with the costly version of the game, whereas the children failed the cost-free version that is most commonly used with nonhuman primates. A detailed comparison of the children’s behavior in the two versions of the game indicates that the failure was due to higher attentional demands of the cost-free version, rather than to a lack of prosociality per se. Our results thus show (i) that subtle differences in prosociality tasks can substantially bias the outcome and thus prevent meaningful species comparisons, and (ii) that like in nonhuman primates, prosocial behavior in human children does not require advanced Theory of Mind understanding in the present context. However, both developmental and comparative psychology accumulate increasing evidence for the multidimensionality of prosocial behaviors, suggesting that different forms of prosociality are also regulated differentially. For future efforts to understand the evolutionary origin of prosociality it is thus crucial to take this heterogeneity into account.

The Influence of Receiver Status on Donor Prosociality in 6‐ to 11‐Year‐Old Children

“…The comparison between donor performance in the receiver‐present/absent conditions was chosen as the key determinant of donor prosociality, as the no receiver control condition allows for a nonsocial bias toward a particular distribution of rewards to be taken into account. This approach is typical of prosociality studies that have included receiver‐absent conditions as their baseline control (e.g., Brownell et al., ; Burkart & Rueth, ; Claidière et al., ; Lakshminarayanan & Santos, ; Silk et al., ; Takimoto, Hika Kuroshima, & Fujita, ). However, as well as comparing the number of high‐value donations made to each receiver to that made in the respective control condition, we also ran a series of Wilcoxon analyses that directly compared the mean number of high‐value rewards allocated to each receiver (e.g., head teacher vs. janitor; class teacher vs. janitor) within each of the three games.…”

Inequity aversion strategies between marmosets are influenced by partner familiarity and sex but not by oxytocin

“…Differences in task and methodological design, such as task complexity and cost, can substantially alter whether and to what degree individuals respond prosocially (Burkart, Rueth, & Stanyon, 2013; House, Henrich, Brosnan, & Silk, 2012; House, Silk, Lambeth, & Schapiro, 2014). For instance, tasks that require greater attentional demand toward others can inhibit prosocial responses (Burkart et al, 2013). Moreover, different reward payouts can also influence prosocial responses consistent with what we found in this study.…”

Diverse ontogenies of reciprocal and prosocial behavior: cooperative development in Fiji and the United States

“…In the fixed-role version of the PCT, a child is always either an Actor or Recipient. Prosocial behavior in this task usually emerges by about 7-8 years of age (Fehr, Bernhard & Rockenbach, 2008;House, Silk, Henrich, Barrett, Scelza et al, 2013b;House, Henrich, Brosnan & Silk, 2012), although this behavior does appear as early as 2-5 years of age when the attentional demands of the task are reduced (Burkart & Rueth, 2013).…”