It seems they might very well be.


BABIES watching social interaction reach out approvingly to individuals who help others but shun bullies who obstruct someone trying to complete a task, a study released today suggests.

The ability to size people up quickly based on the way they treat each other is an essential skill for adults.

But this is the first study to conclude that pre-verbal infants are able to make similar judgements and act on them.

The experiments at Yale University, involving tots aged six and 10 months, also suggest that this capacity is a survival skill acquired through evolution and may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action.
Link (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22801755-36398,00.html)


Interesting.

After all, a baby would benefit from going to those who have demonstrated the ability and the desire to help others. I wonder how well this will wash with those who are of the belief that morals come from God's teachings? Could it be that morality is not something derived from religion after all? Another topic, yes, but an interesting byproduct from this study.

Anywho..

In the first of three experiments, Kiley Hamlin and two colleagues at Yale showed infants a character made of wood with large eyes glued to it, trying to climb a hill.

After two attempts, one of two other figures either helpfully pushed the character up to the top of the hill or nastily shoved him back to the bottom.

When encouraged to choose between the two figures, some 80 per cent of the infants reached for the helpers, which the researchers say was a "robust" sign of their approval.

The results were confirmed in a second experiment in which researchers measured the reaction of the infants when the climber approached one or the other figure after they had helped or hindered it.

The babies registered surprise when the climber approached the hinderer.
The scientists then took it further by introducing a third and neutral figure. When shown the helper and the neutral figure, the children reached for the helper figure. When the neutral figure was placed near the 'bully' figure, the children appeared to favour the new and neutral figure over the one they perceived as being the 'bully'.

"Infants prefer an individual who helps another to one who hinders another, prefer a helping individual to a neutral individual and prefer a neutral individual to a hindering individual," the paper says.

"These findings constitute evidence that pre-verbal infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others."
These tests were completed with each child sitting on one parents lap and the parents had been instructed to not act or react to any figure, so that the child could select for themselves without any prompting. However to counter this, I have to wonder whether the child might have picked up the parents reaction to the experiment just by the parents physiological reaction. Children, for example, can usually tell when parents are stressed, scared or happy, even if the parent shows no outward sign of such emotions.

Interesting study though.

I wonder if they were to change the situation to a bridge where the person is attempting to jump. Would the baby pick the person aiding in the jump or the person who prevented the jump.

Interesting study, babies aren't as passive as we like to think they are.

My mum always told me that as a baby i would always start screaming and crying whenever my godmother came over. 'Apparently' i would start crying even before she knocked on the door. Anyways turns out she was having an affair with my dad.

This study seems to be valid (in my case anyways)

I can't help but wonder how well baby monkeys or puppies would do on a similar test of judging the character of monkeys or dogs?

We've all seen the PBS shows of little lion cubs playing, then running off to mama when a big male lion comes onto the scene. Are they judging the character of the male lion in the same way the babies judged in this test?

Baron Max

...My mum always told me that as a baby i would always start screaming and crying whenever my godmother came over. 'Apparently' i would start crying even before she knocked on the door. Anyways turns out she was having an affair with my dad....

Isn't her view of it kind of biased?

Isn't her view of it kind of biased?

I guess, but i have heard my older brother tell me the exact thing. But then you always argue that their view could be bias

It seems like this is measuring something a little more self-interested than whether a person is good or not. It could well be that the babies are simply chosing the person who is more likely to do something for them.

I guess, but i have heard my older brother tell me the exact thing. But then you always argue that their view could be bias

I wonder if you were picking up on tension.

I wonder how well this will wash with those who are of the belief that morals come from God's teachings? Could it be that morality is not something derived from religion after all?

i didn't see anything that disproved god or religion.

as a matter of fact the placebo effect seems to prove faith based morality.

It seems like this is measuring something a little more self-interested than whether a person is good or not. It could well be that the babies are simply chosing the person who is more likely to do something for them.

Yeah! The researchers were looking at things from an adult point of view, without any idea about what the baby's point of view was.

Besides, one thing that I didn't like about the tests was that the baby was sitting on the parent's lap ...safe, secure, happy, well-fed, and already burped!

I'd still be highly interested in them doing the same tests using baby monkeys and little puppies. I wonder how they'd react? The same way?

Baron Max

It seems like this is measuring something a little more self-interested than whether a person is good or not. It could well be that the babies are simply chosing the person who is more likely to do something for them.

Yep. Babies, for all intents and purposes, are selfish little beings. They have to be. Nothing you can do can change it.

I am not sure whether the study provides a basis for the moral foundation of a baby. It does show, as you have pointed out, the shrewdness of a baby in being able to determine who is most likely to help them.

Besides, one thing that I didn't like about the tests was that the baby was sitting on the parent's lap ...safe, secure, happy, well-fed, and already burped!

I'd still be highly interested in them doing the same tests using baby monkeys and little puppies. I wonder how they'd react? The same way?

Baron Max

You're right. The child was in a secure environment. However, I doubt any study would wish to inflict stress and pain on a baby to gauge its reaction in such a test. Although I suspect stressing a baby and then showing them the two figures, one helping and the other not helping, the results may still be the same... they will show preference towards the helpful figure because it may be in their own interest to do so.

Children also have a way of picking up how the parents are feeling, even if the parent shows no outside signs of it.

However, I doubt any study would wish to inflict stress and pain on a baby to gauge its reaction in such a test.

Huh? Where do you get the idea of hurting the baby??????

As I read that article, the baby was watching wooden stick figures in a little play ...how in hell would that hurt the baby?

And what would baby monkeys do that would be different? Ditto puppies?

Baron Max

Huh? Where do you get the idea of hurting the baby??????

As I read that article, the baby was watching wooden stick figures in a little play ...how in hell would that hurt the baby?

And what would baby monkeys do that would be different? Ditto puppies?

Baron Max

I meant the pain of stress to the child if it were not sitting on the parent's lap.

Some babies become horribly stressed and upset when separated from their parent(s), even for a few short minutes.

I am not sure about monkeys and puppies. I would imagine they too would wish to avoid the figure or animal they see harming or bullying another. Or they may try to suck up to it to garner favours to ensure their own survival.

I believe babies may be a good judge of emotional states but not necessarily of ones character.

i reckon babies and kids do know what they like and dislike sum like tity milk and sum dont they seem to let us know in there own little way

I meant the pain of stress to the child if it were not sitting on the parent's lap. Some babies become horribly stressed and upset when separated from their parent(s), even for a few short minutes.

I thought that's what you meant, but you know me ...just gotta' know!

But see, that brings up a whole new set of problems with the tests, don't it? I mean, perhaps what the research shows is that babies like to be with mommy when some wooden characters are playacting?! ...LOL!

I am not sure about monkeys and puppies. I would imagine they too would wish to avoid the figure or animal they see harming or bullying another. Or they may try to suck up to it to garner favours to ensure their own survival.

Well, I think it would be a good control for the tests. Ie., if the monkey and puppies reacted the same, we could say "instinct" was the factor. If the monkeys and puppies acted totally differently to the human baby, then perhaps they might have something .....althought I still don't know what.

Having been around babies some over my life, I do know that some babies are actually quite aggressive(not meaning violent!), while others are quite passive. Why? What's the difference? And that also true of puppies, or most animals. Some are inquisitive and active, others are passive and quiet.

Baron Max

Babies can spot nice and nasty characters

Infants as young as six months instinctively prefer helpful characters.

Michael Hopkin

You might scoff at doting parents who proudly tell you that their youngster, even though still in diapers, takes an instant liking to kind-hearted people and shows disdain for less savoury characters. But a new experiment shows that such claims could be more than parental pride.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071121/full/news.2007.278.html






The babies watched some cartoon in which a character was trying to move something to the top of a hill, and there were two other characters, one trying to help, another trying to hinder from doing that. Then toys resembling the characters were shown, and the babies (about 18 months old) preferred the helping character.

Am I getting something wrong or this implies mind theory arising years earlier than usually thought?

I think it smells somewhat like "clever Hans", as someone pointed out in the comments. I've also remembered of a more recent study saying that babies had a mental template of spiders and feared them because it would improve fitness... but if I'm not mistaken, the same study would prove an instinct to fear cars as well, or anything you choose, for that matter.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74209

Oops. Thanks.

Merged the two threads.