Print
Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates
by CNN, AP
Thanks to Chris Way for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/21/infant.judging.ap/index.html
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Study: Babies 6 to 10 months demonstrate crucial social judging skills
- Finding follows theory that some human social abilities are innate, not just learned
- Researcher: "Incredibly impressive that babies can do this"
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even infants can tell the difference between naughty and nice playmates, and know which to choose, a new study finds.
Babies as young as 6 to 10 months old showed crucial social judging skills before they could talk, according to a study by researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center published in Thursday's journal Nature.
The infants watched a googly eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.
Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.
The babies also chose neutral toys -- ones that didn't help or hinder -- over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones.
"It's incredibly impressive that babies can do this," said study lead author Kiley Hamlin, a Yale psychology researcher. "It shows that we have these essential social skills occurring without much explicit teaching."
There was no difference in reaction between the boys and girls, but when the researchers took away the large eyes that made the toys somewhat lifelike, the babies didn't show the same social judging skills, Hamlin said.
The choice of nice over naughty follows a school of thought that humans have some innate social abilities, not just those learned from their parents.
"We know that they're very, very social beings from very, very early on," Hamlin said.
A study last year out of Germany showed that babies as young as 18 months old overwhelmingly helped out when they could, such as by picking up toys that researchers dropped.
David Lewkowicz, a psychology professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton who wasn't part of the study, said the Yale research was intriguing. But he doesn't buy into the natural ability part. He said that the behavior was learned and that the new research doesn't prove otherwise.
"Infants acquire a great deal of social experience between birth and 6 months of age and thus the assumption that this kind of capacity does not require experience is simply unwarranted," Lewkowicz told The Associated Press in an e-mail.
But the Yale team has other preliminary research that shows similar responses even in 3-month-olds, Hamlin said.
Researchers also want to know if the behavior is limited to human infants. The Yale team is starting tests with monkeys, but has no results yet, Hamlin said.
Reposted from:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/21/infant.judging.ap/index.html
STORY HIGHLIGHTS- Study: Babies 6 to 10 months demonstrate crucial social judging skills
- Finding follows theory that some human social abilities are innate, not just learned
- Researcher: "Incredibly impressive that babies can do this"
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even infants can tell the difference between naughty and nice playmates, and know which to choose, a new study finds.
Babies as young as 6 to 10 months old showed crucial social judging skills before they could talk, according to a study by researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center published in Thursday's journal Nature.
The infants watched a googly eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.
Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.
The babies also chose neutral toys -- ones that didn't help or hinder -- over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones.
"It's incredibly impressive that babies can do this," said study lead author Kiley Hamlin, a Yale psychology researcher. "It shows that we have these essential social skills occurring without much explicit teaching."
There was no difference in reaction between the boys and girls, but when the researchers took away the large eyes that made the toys somewhat lifelike, the babies didn't show the same social judging skills, Hamlin said.
The choice of nice over naughty follows a school of thought that humans have some innate social abilities, not just those learned from their parents.
"We know that they're very, very social beings from very, very early on," Hamlin said.
A study last year out of Germany showed that babies as young as 18 months old overwhelmingly helped out when they could, such as by picking up toys that researchers dropped.
David Lewkowicz, a psychology professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton who wasn't part of the study, said the Yale research was intriguing. But he doesn't buy into the natural ability part. He said that the behavior was learned and that the new research doesn't prove otherwise.
"Infants acquire a great deal of social experience between birth and 6 months of age and thus the assumption that this kind of capacity does not require experience is simply unwarranted," Lewkowicz told The Associated Press in an e-mail.
But the Yale team has other preliminary research that shows similar responses even in 3-month-olds, Hamlin said.
Researchers also want to know if the behavior is limited to human infants. The Yale team is starting tests with monkeys, but has no results yet, Hamlin said.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, November 22, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 35 of 35 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #90019 by shemp333 on November 22, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I have a nephew 19 months old, and it is very clear that he responds to me better than anyone in the family. I don't talk goo goo gaa gaa to him. I talk to him as if he was an adult, without modern knowledge. The response has been amazing. He seems to respect me and responds in kind. Just a tip. Maybe he's just good stock, but he does not appreciate being patronized. I will have a real influence on his development, I'm sure. And I sure hope to! Other Comments by shemp333
3. Comment #90022 by GodlessHeathen on November 22, 2007 at 12:24 pm
So much for "Tabula Raza". =^_^= Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
4. Comment #90026 by tieInterceptor on November 22, 2007 at 12:35 pm
lol, the one that picked the BAD toy must be checked for the mark of the beast :)oops forgot to take my christian fundi hat off.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
5. Comment #90027 by Bonzai on November 22, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Interesting.Babies who choose the helping toy will grow up to be socialists, those who choose the neutral ones will become libertarians and those who choose the naughty ones would become business majors.
Other Comments by Bonzai
6. Comment #90029 by Goldy on November 22, 2007 at 12:43 pm
My daughter is like her mother. Loves me - wants me to do everything with her - but damn is she bossy! Shouts at her boyfriend (well, that's what we call him - they're only 2) for tiny transgressions, but at least she does it in German so he can understand :-)Oddly, at the day care she goes to, they say there are pairings - babies know who they will hang out with.
My daughter also like role playng with kitchen things - looks like I shall not worry about being fed later in life :-) As long as she doesn't try my Szichuan pepper steak recipe....
Other Comments by Goldy
7. Comment #90031 by steve99 on November 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I read about this in The Times earlier today. Its a fantastic new discovery, and its also another piece of evidence to add to the already substantially large pile that indicates morality is indeed an evolutionary trait, or at least partially.
Just not possible. They must have overheard Bible readings while in the womb.
Other Comments by steve99
8. Comment #90032 by notsobad on November 22, 2007 at 12:48 pm
"Its a fantastic new discovery, and its also another piece of evidence to add to the already substantially large pile that indicates morality is indeed an evolutionary trait, or at least partially."Social skills, not necessarily morality.
Bonzai, that wasn't funny, nor logical. All 3 adult "classes" you picked prefer the helping ones even though maybe for different reasons.
Other Comments by notsobad
9. Comment #90033 by Mango on November 22, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Psychologists have plenty of high-tech machines for peering into the mind yet all these researchers did was *ask the right question* and use wooden toys. Other Comments by Mango
10. Comment #90038 by dialector on November 22, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Here is a link to a video of the experiement.http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=jgxMbx6RP0E
Other Comments by dialector
11. Comment #90058 by aquilacane on November 22, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Aligning ourselves with helpful people could be very advantageous. Not sure what it has to do with morality, other than recognizing it in others. Could it not just be a selfish trait that raises our chances of being amongst helpful people, so each member of the group has less work to do. Perhaps helpful people are easier to control, and boss around, looking for them as friends would make the power struggle easier. Other Comments by aquilacane
12. Comment #90070 by black wolf on November 22, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Psychologists have plenty of high-tech machines for peering into the mind yet all these researchers did was *ask the right question* and use wooden toys.
But they can never be sure until they've brought in the machine with the 'Ping!'.
Other Comments by black wolf
13. Comment #90073 by BAEOZ on November 22, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Is that why babies start fretting and wailing when I'm near? Other Comments by BAEOZ
14. Comment #90078 by WalkingARazor on November 22, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Neat article. I was excited that they quoted a professor from FAU, Boca Raton - my school. Other Comments by WalkingARazor
15. Comment #90091 by dsainty on November 22, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Lewkowicz seems to come across as surprisingly hostile to the idea that "we have these essential social skills occurring without much explicit teaching". Of course the study might have been misrepresented to him, but I wonder what life experiences he thinks the infants are calling on to aid them in their toy selection at ages of 3 and 6 months.Other Comments by dsainty
16. Comment #90104 by SilentMike on November 23, 2007 at 1:15 am
Hate to be the party pooper but how sure are that this was properly controlled? It could be one of those social science "experiments" where the over eager researcher sort of gives the answer away non-verbally. Maybe the babies felt that they were expected to choose a certain shape.Other Comments by SilentMike
17. Comment #90105 by Shuggy on November 23, 2007 at 1:28 am
...how sure are that this was properly controlled? It could be one of those social science "experiments" where the over eager researcher sort of gives the answer away non-verbally. Maybe the babies felt that they were expected to choose a certain shape.Indeed, it could be like ape "language", that was much less impressive than the experimenters would have liked. How could you rule out the experimenter effects?
Other Comments by Shuggy
18. Comment #90107 by irate_atheist on November 23, 2007 at 1:58 am
7. Comment #90031 by steve99 -They must have overheard Bible readings while in the womb.
No. Goddidit.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
19. Comment #90119 by MagratGarlick on November 23, 2007 at 4:33 am
"How could you rule out the experimenter effects?"You'd have to read the original paper to find out how they ruled them out, but do you really think that they did nothing? Nature would hardly have published the paper if they had failed to apply adequate controls. It's one of the first things undergraduates learn, let alone the kind of researchers who do studies like this.
Other Comments by MagratGarlick
20. Comment #90173 by Rob3fm on November 23, 2007 at 8:58 am
"...how sure are that this was properly controlled? It could be one of those social science "experiments" where the over eager researcher sort of gives the answer away non-verbally. Maybe the babies felt that they were expected to choose a certain shape."I m a sientist who wurkd on the studee. Dont wurry, I am super smart. But wut exactlee do you meen by "controlled" now? We were definitly in control if thats wut you meen.
Other Comments by Rob3fm
21. Comment #90180 by Kakashi_monkey on November 23, 2007 at 9:12 am
Looks like humans are good from the start. Seems like we have a "nice" default setting that winds up being continued or changed into "mean" later in life. So much for the Puritan idea of "humans are born bad". Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey
22. Comment #90188 by 42nd on November 23, 2007 at 10:41 am
Well, if I were you, I wouldn't put so much trust in this whole noble savage thing, it's been thoroughly debunked (watch some lectures by Steven Pinker, for example). And this whole experiment can be interpreted as the proof that people are just looking for the most useful person. I think that all actions are selfish when viewed from right angle (although I am not a libertarian). Other Comments by 42nd
23. Comment #90190 by Flagellant on November 23, 2007 at 11:20 am
(I was going to suggest that God provided this extraordinary discriminating ability but someone (irate_atheist) beat me to it.) So, please note that this interesting piece of research was originally published in 'Nature'. I've just been listening to The News Quiz. I know Pinker wouldn't like to hear Sandi Toskvig's suggestion that perhaps it should have appeared, instead, in 'Nurture'.
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edit: I was going to ask where all the avatars have gone but, oooh look... bloody hell: gone again. I saw it, honest]
Other Comments by Flagellant
24. Comment #90309 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 8:03 am
A fascinating piece of research echoing The Holy Father's teaching in 'Veritas Splendor' when he pointed out that, 'In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil.'Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
25. Comment #90310 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 8:17 am
A fascinating piece of research echoing The Holy Father's teaching in 'Veritas Splendor' when he pointed out that, 'In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil.'
Interesting. I would be curious to read The Holy Father's teachings about great apes, which also show moral behaviour. I am sure his expertise in primate behavour matches his undoubted deep understanding of child development.
Other Comments by steve99
26. Comment #90311 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 8:35 am
I'm not aware of His Holiness' teaching on great ape research. It's great that his insight into human nature is further illuminated by this small study though. Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
27. Comment #90313 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 8:48 am
Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.
If it were anyone else, I would assume this was ironic. This is the same Catholic Church that rejected the works of Galileo until 1992.
Other Comments by steve99
28. Comment #90318 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 9:42 am
Galileo, as a Catholic, was a member of the Church (a term you seem to have a partial understanding of). You might also find this article written in the conservative Catholic publication, The Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1909, if not interesting then maybe informative.Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
29. Comment #90319 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 9:50 am
Galileo, as a Catholic, was a member of the Church (a term you seem to have a partial understanding of). You might also find this article written in the conservative Catholic publication, The Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1909, if not interesting then maybe informative.
His membership of the Church is irrelevant. If you study the history if his ideas it will show that your cosy image of the Catholic Church walking hand-in-hand with science is somewhat naive.
If you persist I shall simply have to mention Giordano Bruno; appropriately, as it is 400 years since the Catholic Church burned him for his ideas.
Other Comments by steve99
30. Comment #90344 by fides_et_ratio on November 24, 2007 at 12:02 pm
It seems to me very relevant. Anyway, presumably if this discussion continues you'll continue erecting mobile goal-posts, so I guess that's that.Other Comments by fides_et_ratio
31. Comment #90345 by Dr Benway on November 24, 2007 at 12:06 pm
fides: Another example of science and religion, faith and reason, walking hand-in-hand on the journey of truth.Fair weather friends at best. The two have had their ugly quarrels.
Where faith and reason agree, faith is redundant. Where they disagree, well...
Other Comments by Dr Benway
32. Comment #90346 by steve99 on November 24, 2007 at 12:16 pm
It seems to me very relevant.
The Church rejected Gallileo's ideas. Whether or not he was a believer is irrelevant. They actively worked to supress scientific ideas. They still do. So putting up some kind of vague 'people are nice because it is nice to be nice' statement from Pope John Paul II and claiming it shows how cosy faith and science can be just won't work.
Other Comments by steve99
33. Comment #91319 by irate_atheist on November 28, 2007 at 3:16 am
30. Comment #90344 by fides_et_ratio -Anyway, presumably if this discussion continues you'll continue erecting mobile goal-posts,No. We tend to leave such obfuscation to the experts in the field, as it were.
Perhaps you'd like to engage us in a game of Mornington Crescent?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A769395
Personally, I like to play a recent variation of the game known as 'American Rules'. In this case, the winner is the player that turns up three years late and declares himself the winner. Leicester Square cannot be crossed on the diagonal.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
34. Comment #91478 by arogop on November 28, 2007 at 12:23 pm
2. Comment #90019 by shemp333 Absolutely. We never talked "baby talk" to our two children and they both learned language and developed at astounding rates. Our oldest was speaking in complete sentences with pronouns and contractions when her peers were struggling with putting two words together.
Other Comments by arogop
35. Comment #91481 by arogop on November 28, 2007 at 12:30 pm
15. Comment #90091 by dsainty People who underestimate what a child under the age of 6 months can understand and do are selling the child short. Children are capable of very advavced thinking when you provide an enviroment conducive to learning.
Try turning off the TV and reading to this child. You will be suprised what the result is.
Other Comments by arogop
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
Christopher Hitchens
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Bertrand Russell
"The objections to religion are of two sorts - intellectual and moral. The intellectual objection is that there is no reason to suppose any religion true; the moral objection is that religious precepts date from a time when men were more cruel than they are and therefore tend to perpetuate inhumanities which the moral conscience of the age would otherwise outgrow."
Bertrand Russell
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart"
H.L. Mencken
"Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?"
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Kluge
Gary Marcus
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #90018 by Matt7895 on November 22, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Other Comments by Matt7895