Brief ReportYoung children contrast their behavior to that of out-group members
Introduction
Children are prolific imitators. Their inclination to imitate is so powerful that they faithfully reproduce the actions of a demonstrator even when those actions have no apparent purpose or causal function. This phenomenon is known as “overimitation” (Lyons, Young, & Keil, 2007). The tendency to overimitate is so strong that 3- to 5-year-old children copy the actions of a demonstrator even when they have been directly instructed not to do so, when they have been trained to identify irrelevant actions, and when doing so means that they risk losing a competition (Lyons et al., 2011, Lyons et al., 2007). Perhaps just as powerful is the tendency to conform to unanimous majorities. Haun and Tomasello (2011) demonstrated that children sometimes conform to the opinions of a majority even when those opinions are clearly false.
However, children do not always copy so faithfully (Flynn & Whiten, 2008). The social environment is one important factor in modulating the actions that children reproduce (Nielsen, 2009, Over and Carpenter, 2013). For example, 4- and 5-year-olds imitate more faithfully when they have a goal to affiliate (Over & Carpenter, 2009) and when the model is watching their actions (Nielsen & Blank, 2011). Social factors have also been shown to influence how likely children are to copy certain models. For example, young children are more likely to reproduce the actions of in-group members than out-group members (Howard, Henderson, Carrazza, & Woodward, 2015). This has been interpreted as evidence that children ignore behavior modeled by out-group members because it is less relevant to them (Howard et al., 2015).
Here, we investigated whether there are times at which children do not ignore, but actively contrast, their behavior to that of out-group members. Previous research has demonstrated that adults sometimes seek to distance their behavior from that of the out-group (Ruys, Spears, Gordijn, & De Vries, 2007). For example, adults react faster in a lexical decision task when primed with an elderly out-group (Schubert & Hafner, 2003) and alter their preferences toward an object to make them dissimilar to those of an out-group (Izuma & Adolphs, 2013).
We know from previous research that group membership exerts a powerful influence over young children’s behavior and cognition. For example, 5-year-olds prefer members of their own group to members of another group even when these groups are minimal (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011). These preferences influence children’s resource distribution such that children are more generous to in-group members (Buttelmann & Bohm, 2014). Further research has demonstrated that, in addition to preferring in-group members to out-group members, children show signs that they negatively evaluate out-group members. For example, 5-year-olds are more likely to attribute negative traits to the out-group compared to the in-group (Aboud, 2003). Moreover, after their sixth birthday, children give negative resources to out-group members rather than giving them to no one (Buttelmann & Bohm, 2014).
We were interested in whether children actively contrast their behavior to that of out-group members. We showed children two possible ways to operate a novel light box. We then presented children with a video in which three individuals demonstrated one of the ways to operate the light box. In the Out-group condition, the three individuals in the video had been allocated to a different group from the children. We compared children’s performance in this condition to that in a Neutral condition where neither the children nor the three individuals in the video had been allocated to a group. We chose a Neutral condition rather than an in-group comparison condition because we wanted to ensure that any differences between the conditions were driven by children’s responses to the out-group rather than by their preference for their own group. We predicted that children would imitate the actions of the three individuals in the video more often in the Neutral condition than in the Out-group condition.
Demonstrating that children distinguish between out-group members and neutral individuals is a first step toward showing contrast effects. However, assuming that we found this pattern of results, it would be compatible with two different explanations: (a) that children ignore members of their out-group and (b) that children actively contrast their behavior to that of out-groups. Thus, we had a further prediction about performance within the Out-group condition. We reasoned that if children ignore the behavior of the out-group, then they should produce the two possible actions equally often in this condition. If children contrast their behavior to that of the out-group, then they should reproduce the action demonstrated by the out-group significantly less often than the alternative action.
Our main interest was in whether 5-year-olds would show these effects. Previous research has shown that children at this age overimitate (Horner and Whiten, 2005, Lyons et al., 2007) and that they do so more than younger children (McGuigan, Whiten, Flynn, & Horner, 2007). Moreover, their imitation is influenced by social factors (Over & Carpenter, 2009). This age is also important in the development of group membership. Not only are 5-year-olds relatively more positive toward in-group members (Dunham et al., 2011, Kinzler et al., 2007), they also show signs of negatively evaluating out-group members (Aboud, 2003).
We also wanted to explore whether younger children would show these effects. Thus, we later tested a sample of 4-year-olds. Children of this age also imitate faithfully (Lyons et al., 2007) and sometimes conform to unanimous majorities (Haun & Tomasello, 2011), and their imitation also is influenced by social factors. However, previous research has suggested that whereas 5-year-olds show signs of out-group negativity, 4-year-olds do not (Aboud, 2003). Thus, it is possible that these younger children will not show as strong evidence of contrast effects.
Section snippets
Participants
A sample of 48 5-year-olds (M = 5;6 [years;months], range = 5;0–5;11, 24 girls) and 48 4-year-olds (M = 4;7, range = 4;0–4;11, 23 girls) participated. An additional 3 children were excluded: 2 5-year-olds (1 due to parental interference and 1 due to experimenter error) and 1 4-year-old (for failing to complete the experiment).
Materials
The novel light box was made up of a blue touch lamp mounted on a wooden block that was approximately 25 × 25 × 3 cm in size. The lamp could be turned on or off by pressing the top.
The 5-year-olds
Preliminary analyses revealed no effect of the counterbalancing variables on performance, so we collapsed across them and do not consider them further. As predicted, a chi-square test of independence revealed a significant difference between the two conditions, χ2(1, N = 33) = 13.60, p < .001, φ = .64, suggesting that more children matched the actions of individuals in the Neutral condition than matched the actions of individuals in the Out-group condition (see Fig. 2A). Within the Out-group condition,
Discussion
We investigated whether 5-year-old children contrast their behavior to that of out-group members. The comparison between the Out-group condition and the Neutral condition demonstrated that children treat out-group members differently from neutral individuals within a social learning context. Children matched the behavior of individuals in the Neutral condition more often than they matched the behavior of individuals in the Out-group condition. The results of the Out-group condition further
Acknowledgments
We thank Steven Tipper and the Minerva Research Group on Cultural Cognition for advice; Saana Korki for data collection; Charlotte Murphy, Christopher Pease, and Emma Holmes for stimuli creation; and Matthew Leonard for coding. This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant ES/K006702/1).
References (21)
- et al.
Culture–gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2011) - et al.
Social manipulation of preference in the human brain
Neuron
(2013) - et al.
Imitation of causally opaque versus causally transparent tool use by 3- and 5-year-old children
Cognitive Development
(2007) - et al.
Contrast from social stereotypes in automatic behavior
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2003) The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes?
Developmental Psychology
(2003)- et al.
Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children
Child Development
(1997) - et al.
The ontogeny of the motivation that underlies in-group bias
Psychological Science
(2014) - et al.
Consequences of “minimal” group affiliations in children
Child Development
(2011) - et al.
Cultural transmission of tool use in young children: A diffusion chain study
Social Development
(2008) - et al.
Rational imitation in preverbal infants
Nature
(2002)
Cited by (18)
When does it pay to follow the crowd? Children optimize imitation of causally irrelevant actions performed by a majority
2021, Journal of Experimental Child PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Future research could further investigate whether the composition of the majority/minority, as well as the composition of the observers, influences children’s copying. For example, Oostenbroek and Over (2015) showed that 5-year-old children contrast their behavior with that of out-group members, so it is likely that if the majority and/or the approving observers were clear out-group members, children might behave differently. Future work is also needed to understand the impact that social approval has on the longevity of learned behavioral traits.
(Peer) Group influence on children's prosocial and antisocial behavior
2021, Journal of Experimental Child PsychologyCitation Excerpt :It is possible that in the absence of ingroup information, they might copy the only available (and thus their outgroup’s) behavior. Other research suggests that in the absence of ingroup behavior, children might actually be inclined to contrast their own behavior with that of the outgroup (Oostenbroek & Over, 2015), for example, by engaging in the opposite behavior of what they observed the outgroup members do. In the context of moral behavior in this current study, children might also be motivated to contrast their outgroup’s behavior, especially when it conflicts with their desire to behave prosocially.
The automaticity of children's imitative group bias
2019, Cognitive DevelopmentCitation Excerpt :Recently, it has been shown that even toddlers show selective imitation based on the group membership of actions' models. Namely, toddlers imitated seemingly odd actions of models who spoke their language with greater fidelity than the actions of models who spoke a foreign language (Buttelmann, Zmyj, Daum, & Carpenter, 2013; Howard, Henderson, Carrazza, & Woodward, 2015), a bias that seems to be held by 5-year-olds when groups are marked by accent (Kinzler, Corriveau, & Harris, 2011), but even when groups are minimally defined (Oostenbroek & Over, 2015; Plötner, Over, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2015). These findings indicate that from a young age, children privilege in-group members as models, arguably recognizing such models as reliable purveyors of relevant cultural knowledge.
Minimal group formation influences on over-imitation
2019, Cognitive DevelopmentCitation Excerpt :Both increase significantly between 3 and 5 years of age. By the age of 5, over-imitation is a robust phenomenon (McGuigan, Whiten, Flynn, & Horner, 2007), and both ingroup bias and outgroup derogation have been reported in this age group (e.g., Howard et al., 2015; Oostenbroek & Over, 2015; Richter et al., 2016). Thus, in the current study we tested 5- to 6-year-old children.