Letter

Preverbal infants affirm third-party interventions that protect victims from aggressors

  • Nature Human Behaviour 1, Article number: 0037 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0037
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Protective interventions by a third party on the behalf of others are generally admired, and as such are associated with our notions of morality, justice and heroism 1,​2,​3,​4 . Indeed, stories involving such third-party interventions have pervaded popular culture throughout recorded human history, in myths, books and movies. The current developmental picture is that we begin to engage in this type of intervention by preschool age. For instance, 3-year-old children intervene in harmful interactions to protect victims from bullies 5 , and furthermore, not only punish wrongdoers but also give priority to helping the victim 6 . It remains unknown, however, when we begin to affirm such interventions performed by others. Here we reveal these developmental origins in 6- and 10-month old infants (N = 132). After watching aggressive interactions involving a third-party agent who either interfered or did not, 6-month-old infants preferred the former. Subsequent experiments confirmed the psychological processes underlying such choices: 6-month-olds regarded the interfering agent to be protecting the victim from the aggressor, but only older infants affirmed such an intervention after considering the intentions of the interfering agent. These findings shed light upon the developmental trajectory of perceiving, understanding and performing protective third-party interventions, suggesting that our admiration for and emphasis upon such acts — so prevalent in thousands of stories across human cultures — is rooted within the preverbal infant’s mind.

  • Subscribe to Nature Human Behaviour for full access:

    $99

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    & Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: just, brave, and caring. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 629–647 (2004).

  2. 2.

    & The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7, 324–336 (2003).

  3. 3.

    , , & Retributive and restorative justice. Law Hum. Behav. 32, 375–389 (2008).

  4. 4.

    , & Lay perspectives on the social and psychological functions of heroes. Front. Psychol. 6, 130 (2014).

  5. 5.

    , & Three-year-old children intervene in third-party moral transgressions. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 29, 124–130 (2011).

  6. 6.

    , , & Restorative justice in children. Curr. Biol. 25, 1–5 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition 69, 1–34 (1998).

  8. 8.

    & Developmental correspondence between action prediction and motor ability in early infancy. Nat. Commun. 2, 341 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Goal attribution to inanimate agents by 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition 107, 705–717 (2008).

  10. 10.

    & Infants attribute value ± to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 9, 848–856 (1997).

  11. 11.

    , & Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450, 557–559 (2007).

  12. 12.

    , , & How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19931–19936 (2011).

  13. 13.

    , , & Big and mighty: preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science 331, 477–480 (2011).

  14. 14.

    & Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6862–6867 (2012).

  15. 15.

    , , , & Rudimentary sympathy in preverbal infants: preference for others in distress. PLoS One 8, e65292 (2013).

  16. 16.

    , , & Social evaluation or simple association? Simple associations may explain moral reasoning in infants. PLoS One 7, e42698 (2012).

  17. 17.

    & Intention-mediated selective helping in infancy. Psychol. Sci. 23, 967–972 (2010).

  18. 18.

    Failed attempts to help and harm: intention versus outcome in preverbal infants’ social evaluations. Cognition 128, 451–474 (2013).

  19. 19.

    , & Social structure, robustness, and policing cost in a cognitively sophisticated species. Am. Nat. 165, E126–E139 (2005).

  20. 20.

    et al. Impartial third-party interventions in captive chimpanzees: a reflection of community concern. PLoS One 7, e32494 (2012).

  21. 21.

    , , & Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439, 426–429 (2006).

  22. 22.

    & Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 218–226 (2011).

  23. 23.

    & Precursors to morality in development as a complex interplay between neural, socioenvironmental, and behavioral facets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 12657–12662 (2015).

  24. 24.

    & Preverbal infants expect members of social groups to act alike. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 23, E3965–E3972 (2013).

  25. 25.

    & Infants distinguish antisocial actions directed towards fair and unfair agents. PLoS One 9, e110553 (2014).

  26. 26.

    , & Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychol. Sci. 14, 402–408 (2003).

  27. 27.

    , , & Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56, 165–193 (1995).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST) CREST program for K.H., the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for K.H. (no. 16H01482), a MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas “Constructive Developmental Science” to M.M-Y. (no. 24119005) and the Mayekawa Houonkai Foundation to M.M-Y. (2015–2016). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We thank N. Nakao for his comments on an early draft and H. Fukuyama, M. Imafuku, Y. Nishimura, N. Kawahara and Y. Tanaka for their assistance with data collection.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University, Yoshida-honmachi, Sakyoku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

    • Yasuhiro Kanakogi
    • , David Butler
    •  & Masako Myowa-Yamakoshi
  2. Institute of Gerontology, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyoku, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan

    • Yasuyuki Inoue
  3. Department of General Medicine and Medical Education, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, 465 Kajiicho, Kamigyoku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan

    • Goh Matsuda
  4. Department of General Systems Studies, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguroku, Tokyo, 153-8902, Japan

    • Kazuo Hiraki

Authors

  1. Search for Yasuhiro Kanakogi in:

  2. Search for Yasuyuki Inoue in:

  3. Search for Goh Matsuda in:

  4. Search for David Butler in:

  5. Search for Kazuo Hiraki in:

  6. Search for Masako Myowa-Yamakoshi in:

Contributions

Y.K., Y.I. and G.M. designed the study, supervised by K.H and M.M-Y. Y.K. performed the experiments. Y.K. analysed the data. Y.K. and D.B. drafted the paper, and all authors discussed the results and commented on the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasuhiro Kanakogi.

Supplementary information