Answers to Group Questions Brownell, Svetlova, & Nichols (2009)

Group 1 (Introduction) 1) What is the purpose of this study?

Group 1 (Introduction) 1) What is the purpose of this study? A) To investigate the spontaneous sharing preferences of children aged 1 to 2 years.

Group 1 (Introduction) 2) What does this study add to the literature?

Group 1 (Introduction) 2) What does this study add to the literature? A) They are the first to examine very young children’s development of sharing preferences.

Group 1 (Introduction) 3) What, do the researchers note, is an important feature of the procedure?

Group 1 (Introduction) 3) What, do the researchers note, is an important feature of the procedure? A) Sharing did not come at a cost. They received the same amount of snacks themselves, regardless if they shared or not.

Group 2 (Method) 1) How many participants were there, and what were their ages?

Group 2 (Method) 1) How many participants were there, and what were their ages? A) 28 participants -half were 18 months old -half were 25 months old

Group 2 (Method) 2) Describe the apparatus.

Group 2 (Method) 2) Describe the apparatus. A) Child can reach in one of two windows and pull a handle that delivers either: (1) a snack to them and an adult across from them, OR (2) a snack to them and an empty tray to the adult.

Group 2 (Method) 3) Describe the procedure.

Group 2 (Method) 3) Describe the procedure. A) There are 3 blocks of 4 trials (12 trials total): Block 1: Adult sits quietly with pleasant facial expression Block 2: Adult says “I like crackers. I want a cracker”. Block 3: There is no adult present. The blocks are always presented in this order.

Group 3 (Results) 1) There were three different types of trials. According to the findings, which type of trial led to more sharing? Was this true in both age groups?

Group 3 (Results) 1) There were three different types of trials. According to the findings, which type of trial led to more sharing? Was this true in both age groups? A)Trials where the adult vocalized a desire for the snack led to more sharing in 25-month-olds than would be expected due to chance. This was not the case for the 18-month-olds.

Group 3 (Results) 2) Report the percentage of 18-month-olds and 25- month-olds who shared more often than would be expected, due to chance, with the vocal adult.

Group 3 (Results) 2) Report the percentage of 18-month-olds and 25-month-olds who shared more often than would be expected, due to chance, with the vocal adult. A) 14% of 18-mth-olds 57% of 25-mth-olds

Group 4 (Discussion) 1) What development in sharing behaviors was found at the age of two?

Group 4 (Discussion) 1) What development in sharing behaviors was found at the age of two? A) At age 2, in a situation with an unrelated other, and when sharing does not cost them anything, children are more likely to share voluntarily than younger children. -when desires are made explicitly known

Group 4 (Discussion) 2) What development around the age of 2 is likely tied to the observed findings in this age group?

Group 4 (Discussion) 2) What development around the age of 2 is likely tied to the observed findings in this age group? A) Towards the end of the second year, children are gaining the cognitive ability to infer others’ internal and emotional states and to understand that others’ states are separate from the child’s own internal state.

Group 5 (Discussion) 1) How do these results compare to findings with apes?

Group 5 (Discussion) 1) How do these results compare to findings with apes? A) Apes are not found to share, even with familiar others, and even when it is at no cost to themselves. This suggests that other-regarding pro-social behavior may be unique to humans.

Group 5 (Discussion) 2) In their conclusion, the authors speculate as to when in “ontogeny”, (i.e. the development of humans throughout their lifetime) it is adaptive to share at a cost to oneself, even with unrelated individuals. What do they suggest are the reasons we develop such pro- social behaviors?

Group 5 (Discussion) 2) In their conclusion, the authors speculate as to when in “ontogeny” it is adaptive to share at a cost to oneself, even with unrelated individuals. What do they suggest are the reasons we develop such pro-social behaviors? A) –Increased sense of others’ intentions /motivations - Ability to foresee future reciprocity -Increased experience with social norms So: Pro-social behavior may be seen later in childhood, but its roots are in the cognitive developments beginning between 1-2 years

The Development of Sharing

Overall Findings of Brownell et al. (2009) Two-year-olds will share: If an adult expresses desire for the goods If no cost to themselves

Blake & McAuliffe (2011) 4- to 7-year-olds reject disadvantageous inequity (child receives less than unfamiliar peer) and accept advantageous inequity (child receives more than unfamiliar peer) 8-year-olds reject both forms of inequity

Development of Sharing Children’s development of sharing depends on their understanding of others’ intentions and beliefs

Development of Sharing 18-month-olds: have beginning understanding of others’ intentions can imitate others’ intended actions even if the intended actions aren’t seen can understand others’ communication acts (e.g., pointing) However, Possession also becomes important

Development of Sharing 4-5 years: Master the False Belief Task Understand that people’s actions can be caused by their beliefs even if those beliefs are mistaken Where will Maxi look for the chocolate?

Development of Sharing Parallels with the development of lying: Young preschoolers can lie, but aren’t very good at it Lying improves greatly once children have mastered the understanding of False Belief

Distributive Justice The way children make allocations of goods and reason about the allocations Preschool children: Self-interest is prominent. If it costs them something, they are unlikely to share. Young school age children: Understand reciprocity (if I give you something, you are likely to give me something) Around 8 years old: Children begin to distribute goods based on neediness of the recipients

Effect of Social Norms The understanding of social norms plays a role in sharing and can vary with culture

Is Sharing Unique to Humans? Apes do not share with others Even if it would be at no cost to themselves Apes also fail False Belief Tasks

Conclusion Sharing is based on cognitive abilities and influenced by social experience Between ages 1-2, infants are beginning to develop the cognitive abilities that make sharing possible, However, when and how humans share also depends on culture, socialization, and personal experience