About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 20. Social Cognition

Paper #1
5- to 8-year-olds Expect Parents to Protect Children from Harm
Author information	Role
Brandon Carrillo, Department of Psychology, Yale University, United States	Presenting author
Julian Jara-Ettinger, Department of Psychology, Yale University, United States	Non-presenting author
Julia Anne Leonard, Department of Psychology, Yale University, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Parent-child relationships are inherently unequal, with parents holding greater responsibility and authority than children. This power imbalance has been reflected in psychological research, which has predominantly focused on the parents' perspective of caregiving. Consequently, we know relatively little about how children perceive caregiving and how they might use this understanding to learn about the world. Here, we explore whether young children hold one basic expectation of care – that parents aim to protect their children from harm – and whether children leverage this expectation to learn about harmful objects in their surroundings. In preregistered Study 1 (n = 50 US-based 5- to 8-year-old children on Zoom), participants watched two vignettes where two adults move towards a child. The adult farther from the child ran, while the closer adult walked, such that both adults reached the child at the same time. Children were asked to infer which adult was the parent. If the child in the vignette had just been harmed (“fall” condition), participants inferred that the parent that ran was more likely to be the parent (i.e., running to aid their child; 78% choosing the “run” agent, p < 0.01, binomial test). By contrast, if the child in the vignette was simply selling lemonade, participants inferred that the adult that was nearby (vs. farther away) was the parent (i.e., walking to the child; 68% choosing the “walk” agent, p < 0.05, binomial test). The pattern of results was significantly different across conditions (b = -2.17, p < 0.01; no effect of age). In Study 2 (n = 35 US-based 5- to 8-year-old children on Zoom), we explored whether children use expectations of parental protection to form beliefs about unknown objects in the world. Participants watched two vignettes of a child finding and picking up a novel object. Either the child’s parent or friend arrives and quickly takes the new object away from the child. Participants were more likely to say that the novel object was bad (vs. good) when the parent took it away compared to when the friend took it away (b = -11.87, p < 0.01; no effect of age). When the parent took the toy, participants were more likely than chance to guess that the toy was bad (71% choosing bad, p < 0.05, binomial test). Thus Study 2 suggests that children use their expectation that parents, but not friends, protect children from harm to learn about which objects may be bad. Collectively, these studies show that children expect protection to be a vital part of parenting and this expectation shapes how children learn from their parents’ actions. Perhaps more importantly, these studies begin to show that children are not passive recipients of care. Rather, children hold rich theories about the care they receive from their parents that may allow them to build sophisticated representations about their parents, and in turn, about the world.

Paper #2
The Origins of Moral Evaluations of Protection
Author information	Role
Mr. Rodney Tompkins, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, United States	Presenting author
Lindsey J. Powell, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Research on the origins of human social evaluation indicates that by early childhood, humans positively evaluate those who help others achieve their goals; conversely, young humans negatively evaluate those who hinder agents from achieving their goals. However, sometimes people aim to achieve goals that are unsafe. This raises a dilemma: Do young humans irrevocably favor helpers and disfavor hinderers? Or, do their evaluations integrate information about safety and danger such that they also favor ‘protectors’, who hinder others’ unsafe goals? In Study 1, 4-year-old children (N = 32; tested in person) heard four vignettes, each depicting a parent and their infant. In two vignettes, the infant wanted to play with items explicitly described as “safe” (e.g., stuffed animals); in the other two vignettes, the infant wanted items explicitly described as “not safe” (e.g., sharp scissors). In each vignette, the parent either helped or hindered their infant’s effort to obtain the items. Participants then evaluated how good or bad each parent’s action was using a 6-point scale. If children’s evaluations of helping and hindering are sensitive to the safety of a goal, then their evaluations of the parents should show an interaction between action type (helping v. hindering) and goal safety (safe v. not safe). An analysis of the four primary trials did show this interaction effect, χ² (1, N = 32) = 86.37, p < .001. On “safe” trials, participants positively evaluated helpers and negatively evaluated hinderers. They also negatively evaluated “not safe” helpers (all ps < .001). Surprisingly, evaluations of parents who hindered unsafe goals were no different from chance (p = .101). Study 2 replicates Study 1 with samples of 4-year-old (n = 24) and 5-year-old (n = 23/24) children recruited via Children Helping Science and tested online. Both age groups’ evaluations show the predicted interaction between action type and goal safety (ps < .001). We also find an age-related change in evaluations of protectors: With age, children more positively evaluate parents who hinder unsafe goals (p = .004). Both studies included two final vignettes featuring items of ambiguous safety: balloons. Participants were first asked whether they thought it was safe or not safe for an infant to play with balloons. In both studies, participants who judged the balloons as safe (N = 50) positively and negatively evaluated the helping and hindering parents, respectively (ps < .005). On the other hand, participants who judged the balloons as not safe (N = 29) were no different from chance in their evaluations of the helping and hindering parents (ps > .126). These findings demonstrate that young children’s evaluations of helpful and hindering parents are attuned to the safety of the goal in question. They also indicate that children’s judgments are shaped by their personal beliefs about safety, though they may be more cautious in their own evaluations and interpretations of danger. Lastly, positive evaluations of protectors only emerge later in development, suggesting further cognitive development and learning is necessary in order for children to endorse protection.

Paper #3
Caregiver Presence Promotes Judgments of Exploration
Author information	Role
Annya Dahmani, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, United States	Presenting author
Dorsa Amir, Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, United States	Non-presenting author
Ashley J. Thomas, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, United States	Non-presenting author
Alison Gopnik, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
The decision to explore a novel option or exploit a known one — referred to as the explore-exploit trade-off — has received much attention from diverse fields of research, ranging from computer science to developmental psychology. However, much of the work on this topic has focused exclusively on an individual agent acting alone, a scenario that does not fully capture the rich social dynamics of human decision-making. In particular, the presence and participation of others can theoretically influence the decision to explore or exploit. One factor which may affect how individuals navigate the explore-exploit tradeoff is the presence of caregivers, who can help buffer the downside costs of more exploratory decision making. Across two preregistered studies, we investigated whether children and adults predicted more or less exploratory behavior in the presence of a caregiver. In Study 1, we presented U.S. American children (N = 87, ages 4 to 8) with vignettes of other children faced with the choice of exploring a novel option or exploiting a known one across a range of domains. In the vignettes, the characters either faced these decisions alone or in the presence of a parent. In Study 2, we presented the same vignettes to U.S. American adults (N = 79). Across both studies, and as predicted, we found that both children and adults believed others would be more exploratory in the presence of caregivers. These results add important nuance to our understanding of how individuals navigate the explore-exploit tradeoff, and highlight the role of the social context in shaping these decisions. We are ongoing data collection for a number of follow-up studies, including comparing these results to similar vignettes where the character is with a stranger adult and a peer, and additionally including background context about the environment before proceeding with the vignettes. We aim to build on these results on future work centralizing the role and function of care in decision-making and exploration.

⇦ Back to session