Reciprocity of exchange in toddler sharing behavior.

Levitt, Morton; Weber, Ruth; Clark, MaryAnn; McDonnell, Patricia A.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.1.122

Cited by 72 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, the comparison of direct givers and non-givers was tested, to confirm that young children will guide a protagonist to give more to direct givers than to non-givers using our method. This latter case provided us with an opportunity to test whether children's responses on our third-person task accorded with previous reports of children's actual behavior when interacting with a peer who either did or did not share with them (Levitt, et al, 1985;Staub & Sherk, 1970).…”

Section: Study 3: Indirect Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Prior research provides some evidence for reciprocity effects in children's acts of giving in elementary school (Harris, 1970;Staub & Sherk, 1970) and, more weakly, at younger ages (Levitt, Weber, Clark, & McDonnell, 1985). Because these studies involved first-person giving in which the child was a recipient as well as a potential donor, however, they do not reveal whether children's giving depended on a principle of reciprocity or on positive or negative emotional states caused by receiving, or not receiving, a prior benefit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Foundations of cooperation in young children

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observations and experiments show that human adults preferentially share resources with close relations, with people who have shared with them (reciprocity), and with people who have shared with others (indirect reciprocity). These tendencies are consistent with evolutionary theory but could also reflect the shaping effects of experience or instruction in complex, cooperative and competitive societies. Here we report evidence for these three tendencies in 3.5 year old children, despite their limited experience with complex cooperative networks. Three pillars of mature cooperative behavior therefore appear to have roots extending deep into human development.A central problem for biology and social science concerns the development of cooperation

show abstract

Section: Study 3: Indirect Reciprocitymentioning

confidence: 61%

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Foundations of cooperation in young children

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Levitt, Weber, Clark, and McDonnell (1985) observed that preschool children (29-36 months) were more willing to share a toy with a child who had previously shared with them. In addition, Berndt (1977) found that 6-year-olds judged the reciprocation of a favor to be less worthy of exceptional praise than spontaneous helping.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Let’s swap: Early understanding of social exchange by British and Nepali children

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research with adults has suggested that they readily understand conditional rules that include a deontic or prescriptive element. The possibility that young children might also understand such conditional rules when they are embedded in the context of an exchange agreement was explored in three studies. Children 3-7 years of age listened to stories in which two protagonists agreed to an exchange of mutual benefit. Children tested both in Britain and Nepal were accurate in identifying (1) when either protagonist had reneged on the agreement and (2) when both protagonists had kept the agreement. The findings indicate that young children are sensitive to the obligations that stem from an exchange agreement even if it is made between equals rather than imposed by adult authority.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, young children do share their resources under some conditions: for example, if their mother instructs them to do so, or if their partner explicitly requests resources (e.g., Dunfield, Kuhlmeier, O'Connell, & Kelley, 2011;Hay, Caplan, Castle, & Stimson, 1991;Levitt, Weber, Clark, & McDonnell, 1985).…”

Section: B Do Infants Show Sensitivity To Ingroup Support?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological and sociomoral reasoning in infancy.

Baillargeon¹,

Scott²,

He³

et al. 2015

APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 1: Attitudes and Social Cognition.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionConsider the following scene: A man wearing a backpack is pacing leisurely back and forth in a large airport room. As he strolls, he occasionally crosses his arms, twirls the dangling straps of his backpack, or stuffs his hands in his pant pockets. At one point, he sits down, takes off his backpack, and removes from it a bag filled with assorted gummy bears; as he peers intently inside the bag, he selects and eats, one at a time, five red gummy bears.As adults, we would have no difficulty interpreting the man's actions. We might view his initial actions-pacing, crossing his arms, and so on-as intentional (as opposed to accidental) though not as directed toward any particular goal. In contrast, we might perceive his subsequent actions-removing the bag of gummy bears from his backpack and eating five red ones in succession-as both intentional and goal-directed. In analyzing these actions, we might build an explanation that attributes to the man a causally coherent set of motivational and epistemic mental states: He wants to eat gummy bears, he is particularly fond of red ones, and so when he spies one in the bag, he removes it and eats it.Next, consider a new scene: As the man is happily chewing on red gummy bears, he notices a second man approaching who is carrying two heavy suitcases. At this point, our scene might unfold according to different scenarios. In one, the first man greets the second man, offers to carry one of the suitcases, and holds out his bag of gummy bears. In another scenario, the first man continues to watch the second man but makes no move to approach him. In yet another scenario, the first man sticks out a leg to trip the second man, causing him to fall heavily.As adults, we would interpret and evaluate the first man's actions in the three scenarios very differently. In the first scenario, we might infer that the two men have a social group in common: They might be friends, coworkers, or relatives, for example. In the second scenario, we 3 would conclude that the two men are strangers. In both the first and second scenarios, we would view the first man's behavior as acceptable: Offering help and sharing food are expected prosocial behaviors in interactions with ingroup, but not outgroup, individuals. In contrast, the first man's behavior in the third scenario would seem to us beyond the pale: Unprovoked harmful actions, even against outgroup individuals, are generally viewed as unacceptable. We would categorize the first man as an antisocial lout, and we might file away distinctive characteristics as possible markers of a social group to be avoided in the future.Our discussion of the two scenes above illustrates the rich analyses that adults spontaneously engage in when watching others act. What are the developmental origins of these interpretations? Over the past 25 years, there has been a great deal of research on social cognition in infancy. This research can be roughly organized into two sets of questions that map neatly onto the two scenes above. First, when watching an agen...

show abstract

Reciprocity of exchange in toddler sharing behavior.

Cited by 72 publications

References 5 publications

Foundations of cooperation in young children

Foundations of cooperation in young children

Let’s swap: Early understanding of social exchange by British and Nepali children

Psychological and sociomoral reasoning in infancy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About