Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Infants are born into rich social networks and are faced with the challenge of learning about them. When infants observe social interactions, they make predictions about future behavior, but it is not clear whether these predictions are based on social dispositions, social relationships, or both. The current studies (N = 188, N = 90 males) address this question in 12-month-old infants and 16- to 18-month-old toddlers who observe social interactions involving imitation. In Studies 1 and 3, infants and toddlers expected that imitators, compared to non-imitators, would respond to their social partners' distress. Likewise, they expected the targets of imitation, compared to non-targets, to respond to their partner's distress. In Study 2, these expectations did not generalize to interactions with a new partner, providing evidence that infants learned about the relationships between individuals as opposed to their dispositions. In Study 3, infants did not make predictions about responses to laughter, suggesting that infants see imitation as indicative of a specific kind of social relationship. Together, these results provide evidence that imitative interactions support infants' and toddlers' learning about the social relationships connecting unknown individuals.

Abstract
From an early age, children recognize that people belong to social groups. However, not all groups are structured in the same way. The current study asked whether children recognize and distinguish among different decision-making structures. If so, do they prefer some decision-making structures over others? In these studies, children were told stories about two groups that went camping. In the hierarchical group, one character made all the decisions; in the egalitarian group, each group member made one decision. Without being given explicit information about the group's structures, 6- to 8-year-old children, but not 4- and 5-year-old children, recognized that the two groups had different decision-making structures and preferred to interact with the group where decision-making was shared. Children also inferred that a new member of the egalitarian group would be more generous than a new member of the hierarchical group. Thus, from an early age, children's social reasoning includes the ability to compare social structures, which may be foundational for later complex political and moral reasoning.

We live in an era of extreme claims versus weak consensus on issues critical to the public. Is climate change a hoax, or is it destroying our planet? Were the vaccines and social distancing measures of COVID-19 designed to protect us, or were they an invasion of our liberty? How do we determine the validity of these claims and others like them? Can we find a reliable middle ground leading to policies that help everyone? How Science Engages with Ethics and Why It Should makes an impassioned plea for a scientific analysis of ethics, discussing what such a method is, why we need it, and what it can offer that other methods cannot. With contributions from leading thinkers across a range of disciplines, Part 1 explores the challenges facing scientists and how to establish ground rules that will both protect human subjects and guide researchers in the future. Part 2 explores the importance of evidence-based science for topics such as climate change, social care, political polarization and rational decision-making, showing how even good science can go wrong, at times contributing to disastrous effects. At the cutting edge of its discipline, How Science Engages with Ethics and Why It Should provides a compelling case for demanding evidence-based analysis to form the foundation of the discussions and policies that affect our very lives. With contributions by: Jeffrey Barratt, Peter Ditto, Jessica Maria Gonzalez, James W. Hicks, Mahtab Jafari, Rose McDermott, B.W. Sarnecka, Roxane Cohen Silver, Brian Skyrms, Teresa Sabol Spezio, Lawrence Sporty, Kyle Stanford, Ashley J. Thomas, James Tran, and the assistance of Ali Ansari, Kendrick Choi, Hannah Dastgheib, David Han, Nate Kang, Alexis Kim, Connor Lee, Michelle Lee, Lauren O'Neill, Samuel Shih, and Anqi Wang