Prosocial choices: How do young children evaluate considerate and inconsiderate behavior?

Abstract

Adults often act considerately toward others, for example, by leaving the last cookie on a plate or stepping aside on a busy sidewalk. What do young children infer from observing considerate behavior? In three preregistered studies, we assess how young children evaluate considerate and inconsiderate behavior by showing them animated videos in which targets make decisions that either leave or limit choice options for others. Study 1 (N = 372 6-to 12-year-old children, 170 girls, 187 boys [15 not reported], 84.4% native Dutch) showed that older children, but not younger children (i.e., 6 years), evaluated considerate others (i.e., who leave a choice for others) as nicer than inconsiderate others, and they were also more willing to lend their toys to them. Moreover, children's evaluations were specific to the social domain, as children of all ages evaluated both targets as equally smart. Focusing on younger children (5-7 years), study 2 (N = 99; 57 boys, 42 girls, 78.8% native Dutch) showed that when the consequences of considerate or inconsiderate behavior were made explicit and videos showed one target at a time, children as young as 5 years old evaluated considerate targets as nicer. Study 3 (N = 43; 20 boys, 23 girls, 92.5% native Dutch) showed that young children also evaluated considerate behavior as nicer when the consequences of considerate behavior were not made explicit. These studies extend developmental research on prosocial behavior and suggest that considerate behavior conveys a clear social signal early in life.

Children’s consideration of motivation in evaluations of socially (un)mindful actions

“…Previous research has shown that children around ages 5-6 years, as well as adults, value socially mindful actions where one leaves a choice for others (Van Doesum et al, 2013;Sierksma et al, 2022;Zhao et al, 2021). However, the motivations underlying such actions can vary.…”

“…For each measure, participants were also asked to justify their judgments. These measures have been widely used in previous studies measuring young children's social evaluations of both direct and indirect prosocial actions (Heyman et al, 2016;Sierksma et al, 2022;Zang et al, 2023;Zhao et al, 2021;Zhao & Kushnir, 2023).…”

“…Recent work has shown that adults spontaneously engage in such socially mindful behaviors, and also that they evaluate others' socially mindful behavior positively (Van Doesum et al, 2013). Further, such evaluation of socially mindful actions develops early in childhood; by age five or six, children across cultures (US, China, the Netherlands) evaluate someone leaving a diverse choice for others more positively than someone leaving no choice (Sierksma et al, 2022;Zang et al, 2023;Zhao et al, 2021). Although previous work has revealed children's ability to differentiate and evaluate socially mindful versus socially unmindful actions, less is known about whether and how children consider the underlying motivations behind such actions in evaluating these actions.…”

“…We chose this age range for two reasons. Firstly, previous work has found that children reliably recognize the prosocial nature of socially mindful actions by at least age 6 across cultures (US, China, the Netherlands; Sierksma et al, 2022;Zang et al, 2023;Zhao et al, 2021), so we set our youngest age to be 6 years.…”

Choosing Among Undesirable Options: Children Consider Desirability of Available Choices in Evaluation of Socially Mindful Actions

“…However, if Cindy takes one of the two apples, leaving two different options (i.e., one apple and one pear), then the person waiting behind her will be able to choose their preferred type of fruit. Recent studies have termed such actions that leave a choice for others as “socially mindful actions,” and shown that adults and children by age 5−6 evaluate someone leaving a choice for others as “nicer” than someone leaving no choice for others (Van Doesum, Van Lange, & Van Lange, 2013; Van Lange & Van Doesum, 2015; Zhao et al., 2021; Sierksma, Klootwijk, & Lee, 2022).…”