Lecture 11 Flashcards
What is the ‘mean dolls’ experiment?
She started a study about toys that embodied positive (prosocial, helpful, benevolent) or negative (anti-social, unhelpful, malevolent) traits, that helped or obstructed the centre character. She studied how babies made choices in relation to this.
What are the conclusions of the ‘mean dolls’ study?
Infants are making relatively complex and sophisticated social judgments in the first year of life. They not only evaluate others based on the local valence of their behaviour, they are also sensitive to the global context in which these behaviours occur. During the second year, young toddlers direct their own valenced acts toward appropriate targets.
What criticism is brought upon the ‘mean dolls’ study?
It is not objective as the babies were sometimes hesitant to make a choice and when they did show the slightest reaction towards the ‘good’ character, the researcher would immediately remove the ‘bad’ character and would positively respond, along with the parent, in regards to that so-called choice. Hence, the baby made a choice because of how the surrounding individuals reacted. Nonetheless, the ‘baby scientists’ probably were coming from good familial environment, since lower-income families, for example, would not have had the time or the interest to participate in such a study. TV shows also play a critical role in teaching children between good or bad. Hence, we can argue that such themes have already informed the child of what they were about to see/seeing in the experiment, they were slightly biassed.
What is the mini ultimatum game?
In the mini-ultimatum game, players are confronted with situations in which fair does not always mean equal, and so the recipient of an offer needs to take into account the alternatives the proposer had available to her or him. Because of its forced-choice design, the mini-ultimatum game measures sensitivity to unfair intentions in addition to unfair outcomes.
What are the conclusions to the mini ultimatum game?
Responders prefer a fair option, if given. They show punishment if the proposer does not choose the fair offer. They do not care if there was a better option, and/or if the offer was equal and fair. Most do not accept the zero offer, though some do, interestingly.
Proposers always prefer the better option for themselves, even if this leads to an obvious rejection. Children are not aware just yet how to gain someone’s trust.
Responders rejected disadvantageous offers when 50/50 was the alternative. But unlike adults, they did not employ more sophisticated notions of fairness that take into account the choices facing the proposer. Hence, children do understand that equality means fairness but they do not take the social context into account.
In the case of a 4-0 offer, 65% of 5 year old’s accept, whilst only 15% of 9 year old’s. Adults would almost never accept this proposal, which shows that young proposers have a poor understanding of what their partner would find acceptable.
What criticism is brought upon the mini ultimatum game study?
This study does not acknowledge that some children might be more greedy and some might be more prosocial. Furthermore, the gummy bears do not represent an optimal reward as some, including myself, may not find such sugar-based products compelling. Hence, the reward aspect is diminished and that might influence the responder’s behaviour and decision. A lack of account of the social context in which children lived, plus their education. is an issue, too. For example, children that live in scarcity do not tend to share less (teacher’s own study results), but it does for those that do live in wealth. Hence, rich kids are more greedy than poor children. Awareness of being recorded also matters, as some tend to change their behaviours when observed.
What is the connection between TOM and decision making in children?
TOM processes develop around the age 4. When they are evolved, children are more likely to split, since they can mentalise. They look for immediate gratification but they also have TOM and an awareness of long term consequences. Though, they are not very good at accounting for the latter. Hence, the urge for immediate gratification overrides the long-term decision. There is an imbalance.
