Social evaluation or simple association? Simple associations may explain moral reasoning in infants

Are we born amoral or do we come into this world with a rudimentary moral compass? Hamlin and colleagues argue that at least one component of our moral system, the ability to evaluate other individuals as good or bad, is present from an early age. In their study, 6- and 10-month-old infants watched...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2012-08, Vol.7 (8), p.e42698-e42698
Main Authors: Scarf, Damian, Imuta, Kana, Colombo, Michael, Hayne, Harlene
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal cognition
Babies
Biology
Child Development
Choice Behavior
Ethical aspects
Experiments
Female
Helping Behavior
Humans
Hypotheses
Infant
Infants
Male
Medicine
Models, Theoretical
Morals
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Social aspects
Social Behavior
Social factors
Social interactions
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Are we born amoral or do we come into this world with a rudimentary moral compass? Hamlin and colleagues argue that at least one component of our moral system, the ability to evaluate other individuals as good or bad, is present from an early age. In their study, 6- and 10-month-old infants watched two social interactions - in one, infants observed the helper assist the climber achieve the goal of ascending a hill, while in the other, infants observed the hinderer prevent the climber from ascending the hill. When given a choice, the vast majority of infants picked the helper over the hinderer, suggesting that infants evaluated the helper as good and the hinderer as bad. Hamlin and colleagues concluded that the ability to evaluate individuals based on social interaction is innate. Here, we provide evidence that their findings reflect simple associations rather than social evaluations.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0042698