The specificity of reciprocity: Young children reciprocate more generously to those who intentionally benefit them
Introduction
Humans are extraordinarily prosocial; we help and share with others, comfort those in distress, and even pay costs to ensure the well-being of others (Tomasello, 2009). Strikingly, these prosocial behaviors are often directed at genetically unrelated individuals. This poses a puzzle: Why do humans provide benefits to others when neither they nor their genetic relations gain from those benefits?
One principal explanation is direct reciprocity wherein favors are exchanged over repeated interactions between the same two individuals (Nowak, 2006, Trivers, 1971). By taking turns paying costs and receiving benefits, both individuals benefit in the long term. Indeed, extensive work demonstrates that adults readily engage in direct reciprocity and that direct reciprocity is an important way in which human cooperation is maintained (e.g., Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004).
Developmental research shows that even young children engage in direct reciprocity. For instance, 3-year-olds share more resources with a partner if that partner had previously shared resources with them than if the partner had not previously shared with them (Warneken & Tomasello, 2013; see also Levitt, Weber, Clark, & McDonnell, 1985). By preschool age, children also expect reciprocity from those they had previously benefited (Paulus, 2016, Sebastián-Enesco and Warneken, 2015). Thus, direct reciprocity is a fundamental part of human cooperation from early in ontogeny.
What remains unclear, however, is why children show reciprocal behavior. One possibility is that children evaluate all generous individuals positively and, thus, act prosocially toward them even if the individuals were generous toward third parties. In line with this, prior work has shown that toddlers and preschoolers prefer and are more prosocial toward individuals who are prosocial rather than antisocial toward third parties (e.g., Dahl et al., 2013, Hamlin et al., 2011, Kenward and Dahl, 2011, Vaish et al., 2010). Thus, it may be that what is interpreted as direct reciprocity in young children is in fact driven by a more general mechanism of rewarding or preferring prosocial individuals.
A second possibility is that children feel happy whenever they receive benefits regardless of whether or not the giver intended to benefit them, and this motivates them to act prosocially. Indeed, a positive mood does promote adults’ prosocial behavior (see Carlson, Charlin, & Miller, 1988), and this may reasonably be true in young children as well (see, e.g., Aknin, Hamlin, & Dunn, 2012). Note that in prior work, 21-month-olds did respond to their benefactors’ intentions and were more likely to help an adult who previously intended but failed to benefit them than an adult who unwillingly benefited them (Dunfield & Kuhlmeier, 2010). However, young children may judge all well-intentioned benefactors more positively than ill-intentioned ones even if the good intentions are directed toward third parties. In line with this, 3-year-olds evaluate positively and are more prosocial toward individuals who have helpful rather than harmful intentions toward third parties (Killen et al., 2011, Nobes et al., 2009, Vaish et al., 2010).
A third, richer possibility is that young children take both of the above factors into account (whether the children received benefits and whether the benefactor intended to benefit the children), such that they are particularly appreciative and prosocial toward benefactors who intended to benefit them. This specificity in children’s reciprocity would indicate that children are particularly motivated to invest in the well-being of those individuals who mean them well, thereby engaging in and helping to sustain cooperation from early in ontogeny.
Strikingly, developmental research has not teased apart these possibilities, leaving unclear what mechanisms underlie young children’s emerging reciprocity. Our aim was to fill this gap in our knowledge. Toward this end, we adapted the contingent reciprocity paradigm used by Warneken and Tomasello (2013). In that study, when 2- and 3-year-olds ran out of items that they needed to play a game, a puppet either shared or did not share its game items with them. Subsequently, the puppet ran out of game items and children could share some of their game items with the puppet. We modified and extended this basic paradigm in order to disentangle the mechanisms described above. Specifically, in the current study, a puppet provided game items either to the child or to another recipient and did so either with the intention of sharing or not. The child then had the opportunity to share game items with the benefactor.
Warneken and Tomasello (2013) found that 3-year-old children were more likely to share with the puppet if the puppet had previously shared with them, whereas 2-year-olds did not show such reciprocal sharing. Based on this finding and the finding that 3-year-olds follow principles of reciprocity in hypothetical sharing situations (Olson & Spelke, 2008), and because we were interested in delving further into the mechanisms underlying reciprocal sharing, in the current study we focused on 3-year-olds. We predicted that if 3-year-olds engage in genuine reciprocity toward their benefactor, then they should be more generous when the benefactor intentionally provided them with benefits than in all other conditions.
To further explore the phenomenon, we were interested in children’s prosocial behavior and social decisions outside the immediate context within which they received benefits. It is possible that reciprocity extends beyond the immediate context and continues to influence the beneficiary’s behavior even in novel situations where the beneficiary has the opportunity to benefit the benefactor or to select the benefactor as a social partner. On the other hand, and in line with classic conceptions of direct reciprocity as giving and taking in turns (e.g., Axelrod and Hamilton, 1981, Fehr and Fischbacher, 2004, Trivers, 1971), it is possible that once beneficiaries have reciprocated, they might not continue to bestow favors (assuming that the benefactor provides no additional benefits). To explore these ideas, we conducted three additional secondary tasks after the primary Sharing task. Two tasks assessed children’s prosocial behavior (helping and resource distribution) toward the giver, and a third task assessed children’s preference for the giver as a social partner. Given their exploratory nature, we did not have specific predictions about these secondary tasks.
Section snippets
Participants
A total of 85 3-year-old children were tested, of which 5 were excluded due to equipment failure (n = 4) or unwillingness to participate (n = 1). Thus, the final sample consisted of 80 3-year-olds (40 girls; Mage = 3 years 6 months, SD = 1 month 7 days, range = 3 years 3 months 24 days to 3 years 7 months 30 days). Children were recruited from and tested at their day-care centers in a medium-sized German city. No ethnicity or socioeconomic status data were collected, but approximately 98% of
Sharing test trials
For the sharing test trials, we investigated the statistical significance of the two predictor variables beneficiary and action on the number of items shared as well as on the number of children who shared.
Discussion
We aimed to identify the mechanisms underlying young children’s reciprocity. Specifically, children might reciprocate whenever they receive benefits (regardless of the benefactor’s intentions) or might show prosociality toward all generous individuals (regardless of whom those individuals benefited). A richer possibility is that children show the greatest reciprocity when these two factors interact, that is, toward a benefactor who intentionally benefits them and, thus, demonstrates goodwill
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by a Dilthey Fellowship awarded to Amrisha Vaish by the Volkswagen and Fritz Thyssen Foundations.
References (50)
- et al.
Social norms and human cooperation
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2004) - et al.
The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind
Cognition
(2011) - et al.
The influence of negligence, intention, and outcome on children’s moral judgments
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2009) - et al.
Foundations of cooperation in young children
Cognition
(2008) - et al.
Transmission and development of costly punishment in children
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2015) - et al.
The shadow of the future: 5-year-olds, but not 3-year-olds, adjust their sharing in anticipation of reciprocation
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2015) - et al.
The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2013) - et al.
Giving leads to happiness in young children
PLoS ONE
(2012) Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday relationships
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
(2012)- et al.
The evolution of cooperation
Science
(1981)
Gratitude: Prompting behaviours that build relationships
Cognition and Emotion
Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs you
Psychological Science
Primate social reciprocity and the origin of gratitude
Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses
Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes
Pay it forward: Gratitude in social networks
Journal of Happiness Studies
Selective and contagious prosocial resource donation in capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans
Scientific Reports
Do young toddlers act on their social preferences?
Developmental Psychology
Gratitude as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange
Emotion
Intention-mediated selective helping in infancy
Psychological Science
Five-year-olds, but not chimpanzees, attempt to manage their reputations
PLoS ONE
Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds
A theory of indebtedness
Reciprocating (more) specifically to you: The role of benefactor’s identifiability on direct and upstream reciprocity
Behavioral Decision Making
How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Cited by (45)
Experienced gratitude is a catalyst for upward spirals of perceived partner responsiveness
2024, Current Opinion in PsychologyChildren's understanding of gratitude, generosity, and reciprocity
2023, Cognitive DevelopmentThe development of prosocial behavior—from sympathy to strategy
2022, Current Opinion in PsychologyTaking care of you and me: How choosing for others impacts self-indulgence within family caregiving relationships
2021, International Journal of Research in MarketingChildren show economic trust for both ingroup and outgroup partners
2021, Cognitive Development
- 1
Current address: Department of Research Methods in Early Child Development, Faculty of Education, Leipzig University, 04109 Leipzig, Germany.
- 2
Current address: Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.