Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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

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 heroism14. 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 bullies5, and furthermore, not only punish wrongdoers but also give priority to helping the victim6. 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.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Selected frames from the animated scenarios in Experiments 1 to 3.
Figure 2: Results from Experiments 1 to 6.
Figure 3: Selected frames from the animated scenarios in Experiments 4 and 5.
Figure 4: Selected frames from the animated scenarios in Experiment 6.

References

  1. 1

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Darley, J. M. & Pittman, T. S. The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7, 324–336 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T. & Platow, M. J. Retributive and restorative justice. Law Hum. Behav. 32, 375–389 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Kinsella, E. L., Ritchie, T. D. & Igou, E. R. Lay perspectives on the social and psychological functions of heroes. Front. Psychol. 6, 130 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Riedl, K., Jensen, K., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. Restorative justice in children. Curr. Biol. 25, 1–5 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K. & Bloom, P. Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450, 557–559 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P. & Mahajan, N. How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19931–19936 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M. & Carey, S. Big and mighty: preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science 331, 477–480 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Kanakogi, Y., Okumura, Y., Inoue, Y., Kitazaki, M. & Itakura, S. Rudimentary sympathy in preverbal infants: preference for others in distress. PLoS One 8, e65292 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Scarf, D., Imuta, K., Colombo, M. & Hayne, H. Social evaluation or simple association? Simple associations may explain moral reasoning in infants. PLoS One 7, e42698 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Dunfield, K. A. & Kuhlmeier, V. A. Intention-mediated selective helping in infancy. Psychol. Sci. 23, 967–972 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Flack, J. C., de Waal, F. B. M. & Krakauer, D. C. Social structure, robustness, and policing cost in a cognitively sophisticated species. Am. Nat. 165, E126–E139 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Flack, J. C., Girvan, M., de Waal, F. B. M. & Krakauer, D. C. Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates. Nature 439, 426–429 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Kuhlmeier, V., Wynn, K. & Bloom, P. Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychol. Sci. 14, 402–408 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Gergely, G., Nadasdy, Z., Csibra, G. & Biro, S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition 56, 165–193 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

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

Authors

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasuhiro Kanakogi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kanakogi, Y., Inoue, Y., Matsuda, G. et al. Preverbal infants affirm third-party interventions that protect victims from aggressors. Nat Hum Behav 1, 0037 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0037

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links