DOCSLIB.ORG

Moral Babies: Preverbal Infants Know Who and What Is Good and Bad

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Moral Babies: Preverbal Infants Know Who and What Is Good and Bad Moral Babies: Preverbal infants know who and what is good and bad J. Kiley Hamlin UBC Psychology Automatic Evaluation “Big bully” “Blinded by rage and frustration” “The villain” “Sweet circle” “Lovers” “Innocent Young Things” Bad guy. “Our hero” Good guys. Triangles and circles?? Heider & Simmel, 1944 (See also Haidt, 2001 for evidence for “intuitive” moral judgments) AutomaticHow do we Evaluation do this? • Surely some is learned • but which type of experience? • deliberate, slow = result of teaching and cognitive development? • easy, fast = based on every day observations and experiences in the world? resulting automaticity/intuitive nature in adults due to practice (driving) • Perhaps some aspects built-in? My pursuit: • Determine what, if anything, is built-in and/or develops in the absence of candidate required experiences • language, teaching, enculturation • specific personal experience • Examine a population with much less of these • To what extent do infants’ evaluations map onto adult moral judgments? Basic methodology: 3 character puppet shows: Protagonist, Helper, Hinderer Goal: Reach hilltop Obtain object Obtain object Problem: Too steep Someone else has it In box, can’t lift lid Helpful Act: Unhelpful Act: Preference for Helpers over Hinderers? • Depending on age/study, habituate or familiarize infants to helper/hinderer events • We then examine their preference (choice or attention) • moms close eyes • choice experimenter blind to identity Some preference results: Helper Hinderer 100 ** ** ** ** 75 * 50 25 Preference: % Infants 0 Hill: 6 months choice Hill: 3 months looking Box: 5 months choice Ball: 5 months choice Ball: 3 months looking e.g., Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007, Nature; Hamlin, Wynn, in Bloom, 2010, Dev Sci; Hamlin & Wynn, 2011, Cog Dev But how are they doing this? Helper = good because intends to facilitate what another intends Hinderer = bad because intends to block what another intends How are they doing this? • Helping and hindering not differentially familiar or expected • No looking time differences to helpful vs unhelpful events • But they do seem to react positively to helping and negatively to hindering • Blind coders correctly predict what kind of event infants just watched based on their facial expressions (5 & 6 mo conditions) Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, in prep How are they doing this? But perhaps just something inherent to the stimuli? Inanimate control conditions: Pusher-Upper v. Ball-Giver v. Box-Opener v. • Pushing up Pusher-Downer Ball-Taker Box-Closer versus down • Ball leaving versus taking • Box opening versus closing Nope: no preferences in any inanimate conditions: Action must be directed at an agent How are they doing this? • Maybe they like goal-facilitators and Helper of agent = good dislike goal-blockers Hinderer of agent = bad • But adults interpret behavior in context: • e.g., mom blocking baby’s goal to reach light socket • e.g., reward and punishment • A human universal, theorized to stabilize cooperative social systems (Boyd et al, 2003; Fowler, 2005, Hauert et al, 2007; Henrich, 2006; Henrich & Henrich, 2007; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005) Evaluating Rewarders and Punishers • When adults see others as deserving punishment, we may positively evaluate those who perform it...do infants? Protagonist with unfulfilled goal Help act Deserves Reward Hindering act Deserves Punishment Evaluating Rewarders and Punishers Prosocial Antisocial Target Target (2 separate conditions) Helped ? Hindered ? Evaluating Rewarders and Punishers: Results Helper Hinderer ** ** ** NS 100 ** ** ** ** ** ** 75 50 25 Choice - % Infants 0 Prosocial Target Antisocial Target Prosocial Target Antisocial Target Prosocial Target Antisocial Target 19-month-olds 8-month-olds 5-month-olds Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, & Mahajan, 2011, PNAS How are they doing this? By 8 months, Helping good guys = good Hindering bad guys = good • Evaluating in context! • At least resembles adult intuitions of deservedness/reward/punishment • But maybe 8- and 19-month-olds are just valence matching? Valence-matching? Causal role in valenced acts critical for evaluation: Only moral agents deserve punishment, not patients If they’re valence matching, they should also prefer hinderer of hindered target They don’t. (they like the helper) Receives bad Does bad behavior; behavior; does not deserve deserves punishment punishment So...how are they doing this? By 8 months, Helping • Resembles adult intuitions of good guys = good deservedness/reward/punishment Hindering bad guys = • But maybe evaluations based on good analyzing outcomes only • A first-order goal account: infants analyze the goal of the Protagonist only; like those who bring it about (if P = good) and dislike those who prevent it (if P=bad) • In particular, no intention to help/ harm on the part of the Helper/ Hinderer Intention v Outcome? • Even within a social analysis that incorporates contextual info, infants could evaluate: • The outcome only (causes Protagonist to get goal (+) or not (-)) • The intention only (intends to be nice (+); or mean (-)) • Adults’ judgments incorporate both; kids tend to rely on outcome (e.g., Piaget, 1932, a zillion others) • Some evidence infants capable of distinguishing intention from outcome: • in analysis of others’ goal-directed acts (e.g. Brandone & Wellman, 2009; Carpenter et al, 1998; Hamlin et al, 2008, 2009; Meltzoff, 1995) • in evaluations of first-party interactions • Failed attempts to help (Behne et al, 2005, Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2010) Failed Attempts: Puppet Shows Failed Helper Failed Hinderer Failed Attempts: Design • 5- and 8-month-olds • Set 1: Can they use intention only? (Outcomes equal, intentions differ) Failed Helper versus Hinderer Failed Hinderer versus Helper • Set 2: Intention versus outcome? (Intention pitted against outcome) Failed Helper versus Failed Hinderer • Set 3: Do they use outcome only? (Outcomes differ, intentions equal) Failed Helper versus Helper Failed Hinderer versus Hinderer Failed Attempts: Results; 8-mo-olds * Nicer/Better Response Meaner/Worse Response 100 ** ** ** 75 Using Intention NS NS Privileging Intention 50 25 Not Using Outcome Choice - Percent Infants Choice - Percent (H+) (FH-) (FH+) (H-) (FH+)(FH-) (H+) (FH+) (FH-) (H-) 0 [Help v Failed Hinder] [Failed Help v Hinder] [Failed Help v Failed Hinder] [Help v Failed Help] [Failed Hinder v Hinder] Outcomes both good Outcomes both bad Outcomes oppose Intention Intentions both good Intentions both bad 8-month-olds, n=16 per condition Hamlin, under review Failed Attempts: Results; 5- and 8-mo-olds Nicer/Better 100 Meaner/Worse (replicated 5-month-old success with * * * Successful Helper v Successful Hinderer) 75 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 50 Choice - Percent Infants Choice - Percent 25 0 [Help v Failed Hinder] [Failed Help v Hinder][Failed Help v Failed Hinder] [Help v Failed Help] [Failed Hinder v Hinder] Outcomes both good Outcomes both bad Outcome opposes Intention Intentions both good Intentions both bad n=16 per condition Hamlin, under review Failed Attempts: Conclusions • (Also have a control for movement - you can ask me later) Positive intention = good Negative intention = bad • 8-month-olds uniquely use intention • 5-month-olds need both • Neither uniquely utilize outcome • although characters didn’t play a direct 8-month-old causal role in outcomes here - that would be accidental help/harm • But they are definitely not only going with outcome, nor merely evaluating goal blocking/facilitating But...adults are still more mentalistic! • Giving Brussels Sprouts = Good? • Depends who you ask. • Prosocial/Antisocial acts don’t have to look any different • So, you need to know something about the mental states of the target (like their preferences) to know what is helpful/unhelpful for him/her • If you don’t know, you can’t really be praised/blamed • AND preferences tend to be relative: I like brussels sprouts, but I LOVE chocolate Preference Facilitation Study: Methods • 10-month-olds • Phase 1: 2 elephants watch as Protagonist grasps the same toy 4X (which one counterbalanced) • Phase 2: Protagonist loses access to toys • Phase 3: One puppet gives access to toy previously grasped, other gives access to toy previously ungrasped Preference Facilitation Study: Puppet Shows Preference Events repeated 4 times; objects switch each time Preference Facilitation Study: Puppet Shows Lost Access Event For half the babies the previously-grasped object switches sides, for half it stays Preference Facilitation Study: Puppet Shows Door-opening events Grasped object always where was during the Lost Access Event, only one puppet on stage at a time Preference Facilitation Study: Design • Preference-Knowledge (previously shown) • Grasping one toy and not other (preference inferrable) • Door-Lifters watch (have knowledge of preference) • Preference-NoKnowledge • Grasping one toy and not other (preference inferrable) • Door-Lifters absent (no knowledge of preference) • NoPreference-Knowledge • Grasping only toy available (preference not inferrable) • Door-Lifters watch (have knowledge of (lack of) preference) Preference Facilitation Study: Design Different accounts make different predictions: • Lowest-level (brute physical cues present in stimuli): • Prefer Grasped-Door-Lifter in none (because actions same) or all 3 (if there’s something we’re missing) • Low-level (end-state facilitation w/o mental states): • Prefer Grasped-Door-Lifter in all 3 • Low-Mid-level: First-order goal attribution: • Prefer Grasped-Door-Lifter in Preference-Knowledge and Preference-NoKnowledge • High-Mid-level:
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Findings of Addition and Subtraction in Infants Are Robust and Consistent: Reply to Wakeley, Rivera, and Langer
    Child Development, November/December 2000, Volume 71, Number 6, Pages 1535–1536 Findings of Addition and Subtraction in Infants Are Robust and Consistent: Reply to Wakeley, Rivera, and Langer Karen Wynn Findings showing numerical computation abilities in infants are considerably more robust and consistent than Wakeley, Rivera, and Langer suggest. All the interim replication attempts have successfully replicated my orig- inal findings. Possible reasons for Wakeley et al.’s failure to replicate are discussed. INTRODUCTION findings—which were themselves obtained across three experiments in the original report. In Wynn (1992a), I reported findings that young in- As Wakeley et al. (2000) discuss, some studies have fants could determine the outcomes of simple addi- reported failures of infants to discriminate numeri- tion and subtraction operations; across three experi- cally correct from incorrect outcomes to addition and ments, 5-month-olds looked longer at numerically subtraction events, but these studies have tested other incorrect than correct outcomes of addition (1 1 1) abilities, presenting infants with different events from and subtraction (2 2 1) situations. In their article in those in the above experiments. The failures reported this issue, Wakeley, Rivera, and Langer present a suggest possible limitations to (1) the set sizes that in- failure to replicate these findings. Based on these re- fants can accurately operate over (Baillargeon, 1994; sults as well as those of other experiments, they Wynn, 1995), (2) the number of mental “updates” in- conclude that infants’ ability to compute results of fants can perform on an unseen set (Baillargeon, 1994; simple additions and subtractions is fragile and Uller et al., 1999), and (3) the numerical values that in- inconsistent.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Philippe Rochat Was Born and Raised in Geneva, Spring 2013 Switzerland
    Emory Infant and Child Meet the Lab: Development Research Laboratory Philippe Rochat Newsletter Philippe Rochat was born and raised in Geneva, Spring 2013 Switzerland. He was trained by Jean Piaget understand prejudice and minority and his close psychology, Bentley Gibson is now testing the collaborators, and implicit and explicit social attitudes of African received his Ph.D. from Letter to Parents: American adults and children toward other the University of Geneva, and own racial groups. This is something that Switzerland in 1984. He is not well documented and should yield Article by: Philippe Rochat Ph.D. then began a series of Head of the Emory Infant and Child Lab important information. We will be able to report new findings in the next Newsletter. Post Doctoral internships Our mission at the Infant and Child Lab is Supervised and spearheaded by Theresa at Brown University, the to contribute to the understanding of how Moehrle (Lab coordinator), we also finished University of children develop. Ultimately, all research investigating the propensity of 3-7 year-old Pennsylvania, and Johns conducted at the Lab is geared toward a children from various ethnic origins to engage better approximation of what seems to drive in so-called “stigma by association” based on Hopkins. The main focus our psychology, one that begins to prior to skin color. For example, does a child prefer a of his research is the birth and continues to develop all through black doll that is depicted as being friends early sense of self, the lifespan. with a white doll rather than a black doll? emerging self-concept, The past year has been particularly The data we analyzed yielded little evidence the development of fruitful.
    [Show full text]
  • Still Measuring up the Remarkable Story of René Syler in Her Own Words
    Still Measuring Up The remarkable story of René Syler in her own words Presort Standard US Postage PAID Permit No. 161 Journal, Spring 2008Harrisonburg, | www.nabj.org VA | National Association of Black Journalists | 1 2 | National Association of Black Journalists | www.nabj.org | Journal, Spring 2008 Features 8 – Thomas Morgan III: A life remembered. 18 – Out of the Mainstream: TV One’s Cathy Hughes on race, presidential politics, and oh yeah, dominating the airwaves. 20 – Fade to white: In a revealing, personal memoir, Lee Thomas takes readers on a journey of change. 33 – Internships: Now that you have one, here is how to keep it and succeed. Africa 22 – Back to Africa: Seven NABJ members traveled to Senegal late last year to tell the stories of climate change, HIV/AIDS, disease and education. Here are their stories. 26 – Ghana: Bonnie Newman Davis, one of NABJ’s Ethel Payne Fellows explores why Ghana is everything she thought it would be. Digital Journalism Three veteran digital journalists, Andrew Humphrey, Ju-Don Marshall Rob- erts and Mara Schiavocampo, dig through the jargon to decode the digital revolution. 28 – The Future is Here 30 – Tips for Media Newbies 30 – As newsrooms change, journalists adjust Cover Story The NABJ Journal looks at the issue of breast cancer through the eyes of our members. 10 – New Year’s Resolutions: René Syler goes first person to discuss her difficult year and her prospects for the future. 15 – No fear: NBC’s Hoda Kotb gains strength in battle against cancer. 16 – Out in the open: Atlanta’s JaQuitta Williams on why it was important to share her story with others.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Baby
    20 The Moral Baby Karen Wynn and Paul Bloom Most developmental research into morality so far has focused on children and adolescents, as can be seen in the contributions of this current volume. We think that the time is ripe to take a serious look at the moral lives of babies. One motivation for this comes from evolutionary theory. Biologists have long been interested in how a species like ours—in which large groups of nonkin work together on projects of mutual benefit—could come to exist. This was largely a mystery at the time of Darwin, but there are by now several candidate theories for how our complex social structures can arise. These include the accounts developed in the 1970s and 1980s based on kin selection and reciprocal altruism (e.g., Axelrod, 1984; Trivers, 1971, 1985), as well as theories based on group selection—a proposal once derided by biologists, but now returning as a serious contender (see Nowak & Highfield, 2011, for an accessible review). Such theories explain our complex social structures as grounded in certain propensities that we can view as moral, including altruism to nonkin, guilt at betraying another, and righteous anger toward cheaters. While the details are a matter of considerable debate, the notion of unlearned moral universals is consistent with what we now know about bio- logical evolution. And one way to explore the nature of such universals is to look at babies. The second motivation comes from developmental psychology. Over the last 30 or so years, findings based on looking-time methods set off a revolution in how we think about the minds of babies.
    [Show full text]
  • FAST-TRACK REPORT Interrupting Infants' Persisting Object
    Developmental Science 9:5 (2006), pp F50–F58 FAST-TRACKBlackwell Publishing Ltd REPORT Interrupting infants’ persisting object representations: an object-based limit? Erik W. Cheries, Karen Wynn and Brian J. Scholl Department of Psychology, Yale University, USA Abstract Making sense of the visual world requires keeping track of objects as the same persisting individuals over time and occlusion. Here we implement a new paradigm using 10-month-old infants to explore the processes and representations that support this ability in two ways. First, we demonstrate that persisting object representations can be maintained over brief interruptions from additional independent events – just as a memory of a traffic scene may be maintained through a brief glance in the rearview mirror. Second, we demonstrate that this ability is nevertheless subject to an object-based limit: if an interrupting event involves enough objects (carefully controlling for overall salience), then it will impair the maintenance of other persisting object representations even though it is an independent event. These experiments demonstrate how object representations can be studied via their ‘interruptibility’, and the results are consistent with the idea that infants’ persisting object representations are constructed and maintained by capacity-limited mid-level ‘object-files’. Introduction individuals, objects must: (1) trace spatiotemporally continuous paths through space and time (Aguiar & Coherent visual experience depends not only on our Baillargeon, 1999, 2002; Bremner, Johnson, Slater, ability to bind individual visual features into discrete Mason, Foster, Cheshire & Spring, 2005; Flombaum, object representations, but also on our ability to bind Kundey, Santos & Scholl, 2004; Flombaum & Scholl, multiple views of objects over time and motion into the in press; Michotte, Thinès & Crabbé, 1964/1991; Scholl same persisting object representations.
    [Show full text]
  • Infants Fail to Match the Food Preferences of Antisocial Others
    Cognitive Development 27 (2012) 227–239 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Cognitive Development Who knows what’s good to eat? Infants fail to match the food preferences of antisocial others a,∗ b J. Kiley Hamlin , Karen Wynn a Department of Psychology, The University of British Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada b Department of Psychology, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Ave, New Haven, CT 06511, United States a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Keywords: Humans gather most of their knowledge about the world, includ- Social evaluation ing objectively true facts and specific cultural norms, by observing Social learning/imitation and being taught by others. Some individuals are worthy teach- Negativity bias ers and objects of imitation, having knowledge of cultural practices and positive intentions to inform. Others are better ignored because they are ignorant, because they mean us harm, or simply because we do not wish to be “like them.” This study examines whether 16-month-olds are sensitive to the pro- or antisocial behavior of a source that demonstrates preference for two novel foods. Infants took the emotional reactions displayed by novel and previously prosocial sources, but not antisocial sources, into account when deciding what to eat. These results suggest that others’ social behavior influences infants’ likelihood to match their preferences, illustrating the influence of social evaluation on social learning. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Most of what we know comes from others. By observing and interacting with others socially, we gain a wealth of information required for successful existence, from the language and cultural practices of our social group to the workings of a particular piece of complex machinery.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Yuko Munakata
    Curriculum Vitae Yuko Munakata Business Address: Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, 345 UCB University of Colorado Boulder Boulder, CO 80309-0345 (303)735-5499 (voice)/492-2967 (fax) [email protected] www.colorado.edu/munakata Employment Professor, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, 2007-present. Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Boulder, 2002-2007. Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2001-2002. Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 1997-2001. Degrees Ph.D., Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996. Thesis: “Adaptive Processes in Cognitive Change: A Unified Framework for Understanding Infants’ Successes and Failures in Object Permanence Tasks”. James L. McClelland advisor. M.S., Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, 1993. B.A. with Honors, with Distinction, Psychology, Stanford University, 1991. B.S., Symbolic Systems, Stanford University, 1991. Additional education McDonnell-Pew Program in Cognitive Neuroscience Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sci- ences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996-1997. Interdisciplinary program in Neural Processes in Cognition, University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, 1992-1996. McDonnell Summer Institute in Cognitive Neuroscience, Dartmouth College, 1992. Research interests Executive functions and their development Social and environmental influences on cognition Implications for intervention Yuko Munakata 2 Honors and awards Faculty Research Award, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, 2017. Outstanding Mentor Award, University of Colorado Boulder Office of Postdoctoral Affairs, 2016. Faculty Teaching Award, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, 2015. Best Digital Management Plans and Practices Award, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Colorado Boulder, 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 State of the News Media Report
    Overview By Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell of the Project for Excellence in Journalism By several measures, the state of the American news media improved in 2010. After two dreadful years, most sectors of the industry saw revenue begin to recover. With some notable exceptions, cutbacks in newsrooms eased. And while still more talk than action, some experiments with new revenue models began to show signs of blossoming. Among the major sectors, only newspapers suffered continued revenue declines last year—an unmistakable sign that the structural economic problems facing newspapers are more severe than those of other media. When the final tallies are in, we estimate 1,000 to 1,500 more newsroom jobs will have been lost—meaning newspaper newsrooms are 30% smaller than in 2000. Beneath all this, however, a more fundamental challenge to journalism became clearer in the last year. The biggest issue ahead may not be lack of audience or even lack of new revenue experiments. It may be that in the digital realm the news industry is no longer in control of its own future. News organizations — old and new — still produce most of the content audiences consume. But each technological advance has added a new layer of complexity—and a new set of players—in connecting that content to consumers and advertisers. In the digital space, the organizations that produce the news increasingly rely on independent networks to sell their ads. They depend on aggregators (such as Google) and social networks (such as Facebook) to bring them a substantial portion of their audience. And now, as news consumption becomes more mobile, news companies must follow the rules of device makers (such as Apple) and software developers (Google again) to deliver their content.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMENTARIES Evidence for Numerical Abilities in Young Infants
    202 Commentaries COMMENTARIESBlackwell Publishers Ltd EvidenceCommentaries for numerical abilities in young infants: a fatal flaw? Susan Carey Harvard University, USA Wynn’s (1992) well-known and oft-replicated1 Nature tion when attributing sophisticated abilities, such as the paper established that 4-month-old infants look longer capacity to add and subtract, to very young infants. at impossible than at possible outcomes in ‘addition’ and Although Cohen and Marks’ remarks are aimed at ‘subtraction’ events. In a 1 + 1 addition event, for Wynn’s proposals, their data bear equally on the other instance, the infant was shown a single object on a stage, major interpretation of the infant addition/subtraction which was then covered by a screen. A second object was data, called the ‘object file’ model by Uller, Huntley- then introduced behind the screen and the screen then Fenner, Carey and Klatt (1999). According to the object was lowered, revealing either the possible outcome of 2 file model, infants establish a representation of each objects or an impossible outcome of 1 object. In this individual object behind the screen, updating these rep- 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 event, infants looked longer at the imposs- resentations as objects are added to or subtracted from ible outcome of 1 object. Similarly, infants look longer the set (see also Scholl & Leslie, 1999; Simon, 1997). The at the impossible outcome in a 2 − 1 = 2 or 1 subtraction representation of the updated hidden set is compared to event or a 1 + 1 = 2 or 3 addition event. the set of objects revealed when the screen is removed on Wynn took these findings to show that very young the basis of 1–1 correspondence, a computation that infants symbolically represent the number of hidden established numerical equivalence (but see Feigenson, objects behind screens, and can operate on symbolic rep- Carey & Spelke, in press, and Feigenson, Carey & resentations of number by adding or subtracting 1, Hauser, in press).
    [Show full text]
  • Limits to Early Altruism
    CDPXXX10.1177/0963721417734875Wynn et al.Not Noble Savages After All 734875research-article2017 Current Directions in Psychological Science Not Noble Savages After All: Limits 1 –6 © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: to Early Altruism sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417734875 10.1177/0963721417734875 www.psychologicalscience.org/CDPS Karen Wynn, Paul Bloom, Ashley Jordan, Julia Marshall, and Mark Sheskin Department of Psychology, Yale University Abstract Many scholars draw on evidence from evolutionary biology, behavioral economics, and infant research to argue that humans are “noble savages,” endowed with indiscriminate kindness. We believe this is mistaken. While there is evidence for an early-emerging moral sense—even infants recognize and favor instances of fairness and kindness among third parties—altruistic behaviors are selective from the start. Babies and young children favor people who have been kind to them in the past and favor familiar individuals over strangers. They hold strong biases for in-group over out-group members and for themselves over others, and indeed are more unequivocally selfish than older children and adults. Much of what is most impressive about adult morality arises not through inborn capacities but through a fraught developmental process that involves exposure to culture and the exercise of rationality. Keywords morality, development, altruism In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes (1651/2006) famously concerns such as fairness and reciprocity (see Starmans, claimed that humans are born selfish and vicious—in Sheskin, & Bloom, 2017, for a review). the absence of cultural rules and societal restraints, life Much of the swing from Hobbes to Rousseau has is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashley Eliza Jordan Curriculum Vitae
    Jordan CV Sept. 2020 p.1 Ashley Eliza Jordan Curriculum Vitae Contact Information Princeton University E-mail: [email protected] Department of Psychology Web: ashleyelizajordan.com Peretsman Scully Hall, Rm 110 Phone: 609-258-4442 Princeton, NJ 08540 Education 2015 – 2020 Ph.D., Developmental Psychology Yale University, New Haven, CT (Advisors: Karen Wynn, Yarrow Dunham) 2008 – 2011 B.A., Psychology University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 2006 – 2008 Madison College, Madison, WI Academic Appointments Fall 2020 – Postdoctoral Fellow, Human Diversity Lab, Dept. of Psychology Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (PI: Kristina Olson) Selected Fellowships & Awards Samuel K. Bushnell Graduate Fellowship, Yale University, 2019-2020 Conference Travel Award, Graduate Student Assembly, Yale University, 2019 Helen Peak Graduate Fellowship, Yale University, 2018 – 2019 Travel Award, Cognitive Development Society, 2017 Ford Foundation, Predoctoral Fellowship Program, Honorable Mention, 2016, 2017 National Science Foundation, Graduate Research Fellowship, Honorable Mention, 2016, 2017 Travel Award, Cognitive Development Society, 2015 Jordan CV Sept. 2020 p.2 Manuscripts Jordan, A.E., & Wynn, K. Adults’ pedagogical messages engender children’s preference for self-resembling others (under review). Jordan, A.E., Kalish, C., Brey, E., & Shutts, K. Detecting social groups: How visual cues acquire social meaning (under revision). Jordan, A.E., & Dunham, Y. Children’s affiliation inferences when group membership and shared preferences conflict (in prep). Publications Jordan, A.E., & Dunham, Y. (in press). Are category labels primary? Children use similarities to reason about social groups. Developmental science. Wynn, K., Bloom, P., Jordan, A., Marshall, J., & Sheskin, M. (2018). Not noble savages after all: Limits to early altruism. Current directions in psychological science, 27(1), 3-8.
    [Show full text]
  • The Moral Life of Babies by PAUL BLOOM
    The New York Times 1 May 5, 2010 The Moral Life of Babies By PAUL BLOOM Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head. This incident occurred in one of several psychology studies that I have been involved with at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale University in collaboration with my colleague (and wife), Karen Wynn, who runs the lab, and a graduate student, Kiley Hamlin, who is the lead author of the studies. We are one of a handful of research teams around the world exploring the moral life of babies. Like many scientists and humanists, I have long been fascinated by the capacities and inclinations of babies and children. The mental life of young humans not only is an interesting topic in its own right; it also raises — and can help answer — fundamental questions of philosophy and psychology, including how biological evolution and cultural experience conspire to shape human nature.
    [Show full text]