幼儿将帮助理解为增加他人的效用。

Q1 Social Sciences
Open Mind Pub Date : 2025-01-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00183
Laura Schlingloff-Nemecz, Barbara Pomiechowska, Denis Tatone, Barbu Revencu, Dorottya Mészégető, Gergely Csibra
{"title":"幼儿将帮助理解为增加他人的效用。","authors":"Laura Schlingloff-Nemecz, Barbara Pomiechowska, Denis Tatone, Barbu Revencu, Dorottya Mészégető, Gergely Csibra","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Instrumental helping is one of the paradigmatic \"prosocial\" behaviors featured in developmental research on sociomoral reasoning, but not much is known about how children recognize instances of helping behaviors or understand the term 'help'. Here, we examined whether young children represent helping as a second-order goal and take it to mean increasing the utility of another agent. In Study 1, we tested whether 12-month-old infants would expect an agent who previously helped to perform an action that reduced the Helpee's action cost. We found that while infants expected agents to act individually efficiently (Experiment 1C), they did not expect the agent to choose the action that maximally reduced the Helpee's cost compared to an action that reduced the cost less (Experiment 1A) or not at all (Experiment 1B). In Study 2, we examined whether three-year-old preschoolers (1) maximize a Helpee's cost reduction when prompted to help in a first-person task, and (2) identify in a third-party context which of two agents, performing superficially similar behaviors with varying effects on the Helpee's action options, actually helped. Contrary to our predictions, preschoolers did not help in a way that maximally reduced the Helpee's cost in (1). In (2), however, they indicated that the agent who reduced the Helpee's action cost was the one who helped. Taken together, these results support the proposal that, at least by preschool age, children possess a second-order utility-based concept of helping, but that they may not exhibit efficiency when choosing their own helping actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"9 ","pages":"169-188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11793198/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Young Children's Understanding of Helping as Increasing Another Agent's Utility.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Schlingloff-Nemecz, Barbara Pomiechowska, Denis Tatone, Barbu Revencu, Dorottya Mészégető, Gergely Csibra\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/opmi_a_00183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Instrumental helping is one of the paradigmatic \\\"prosocial\\\" behaviors featured in developmental research on sociomoral reasoning, but not much is known about how children recognize instances of helping behaviors or understand the term 'help'. Here, we examined whether young children represent helping as a second-order goal and take it to mean increasing the utility of another agent. In Study 1, we tested whether 12-month-old infants would expect an agent who previously helped to perform an action that reduced the Helpee's action cost. We found that while infants expected agents to act individually efficiently (Experiment 1C), they did not expect the agent to choose the action that maximally reduced the Helpee's cost compared to an action that reduced the cost less (Experiment 1A) or not at all (Experiment 1B). In Study 2, we examined whether three-year-old preschoolers (1) maximize a Helpee's cost reduction when prompted to help in a first-person task, and (2) identify in a third-party context which of two agents, performing superficially similar behaviors with varying effects on the Helpee's action options, actually helped. Contrary to our predictions, preschoolers did not help in a way that maximally reduced the Helpee's cost in (1). In (2), however, they indicated that the agent who reduced the Helpee's action cost was the one who helped. Taken together, these results support the proposal that, at least by preschool age, children possess a second-order utility-based concept of helping, but that they may not exhibit efficiency when choosing their own helping actions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Mind\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"169-188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11793198/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工具性帮助是社会道德推理发展研究中典型的 "亲社会 "行为之一,但对于儿童如何识别帮助行为或如何理解 "帮助 "一词却知之甚少。在此,我们研究了幼儿是否将帮助视为二阶目标,并将其理解为增加他人的效用。在研究 1 中,我们测试了 12 个月大的幼儿是否会期望之前帮助过自己的代理做出减少被帮助者行动成本的行为。我们发现,虽然婴儿期望代理人能有效地单独行动(实验 1C),但他们并不期望代理人会选择能最大限度降低被帮助者行动成本的行动,而不是选择降低成本较少的行动(实验 1A)或根本不选择的行动(实验 1B)。在研究 2 中,我们考察了三岁学龄前儿童是否会(1)在第一人称任务中被提示帮助时,最大限度地降低被帮助者的成本;以及(2)在第三方情境中,在两个行为表面上相似、但对被帮助者的行动选择有不同影响的代理人中,辨别出哪一个才是真正的帮助者。与我们的预测相反,在第(1)题中,学龄前儿童并没有以最大限度降低被帮助者成本的方式提供帮助。但在(2)中,他们表示降低被帮助者行动成本的人就是帮助者。综上所述,这些结果支持这样一种观点,即至少在学龄前,儿童已经具备了基于二阶效用的帮助概念,但他们在选择自己的帮助行动时可能并不表现出效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Young Children's Understanding of Helping as Increasing Another Agent's Utility.

Instrumental helping is one of the paradigmatic "prosocial" behaviors featured in developmental research on sociomoral reasoning, but not much is known about how children recognize instances of helping behaviors or understand the term 'help'. Here, we examined whether young children represent helping as a second-order goal and take it to mean increasing the utility of another agent. In Study 1, we tested whether 12-month-old infants would expect an agent who previously helped to perform an action that reduced the Helpee's action cost. We found that while infants expected agents to act individually efficiently (Experiment 1C), they did not expect the agent to choose the action that maximally reduced the Helpee's cost compared to an action that reduced the cost less (Experiment 1A) or not at all (Experiment 1B). In Study 2, we examined whether three-year-old preschoolers (1) maximize a Helpee's cost reduction when prompted to help in a first-person task, and (2) identify in a third-party context which of two agents, performing superficially similar behaviors with varying effects on the Helpee's action options, actually helped. Contrary to our predictions, preschoolers did not help in a way that maximally reduced the Helpee's cost in (1). In (2), however, they indicated that the agent who reduced the Helpee's action cost was the one who helped. Taken together, these results support the proposal that, at least by preschool age, children possess a second-order utility-based concept of helping, but that they may not exhibit efficiency when choosing their own helping actions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信