Machluf, Karin

The ability to exhibit altruistic behaviors is considered as one feature that distinguishes
humans from other species Haviland et al. 2004. A recent surge of studies regarding children’s
altruistic behavior has emerged. Benenson et al. 2007 used a Dictator Game to test 4-, 6-, and 9-
year old’s altruistic behavior towards a classmate and found that even the youngest children
behaved altruistically some of the time. Moore 2009 tested differences in children’s altruistic
behavior using group membership and found that giving depended on group membership. These
findings may have been skewed by the presence of the researcher Fehr, Bernhard, &
Rockenbach, 2008. This study seeks to replicate the findings of Moore 2009 while using a
modified Dictator’s Game and an anonymous design in order to measure 3, 4, 5, and 6-year-old
children’s altruistic giving without the influence of a researcher. We found that a significant
percentage of children did not donate any stickers to any recipient, suggesting that young
children are not as altruistic as they are portrayed. We also found that, amongst those that did
donate, in-group received more than out-group members, but not as much as a genetic relative.

Children exhibit neotenous, or physically immature, features, such as a large
rounded head relative to body size, adult-sized eyes, round cheeks, a small chin, and a
short narrow nose. Bowlby (1969) and others (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; Hrdy, 2005)
propose that, in species whose young depend on care from an adult, these features could enhance offspring survival. Lorenz (1943) argued that adult humans are particularly attracted to these features, and that these characteristics, which he termed
Kindchenschema or “baby schema,” trigger a cognitive system that processes and reacts specifically to infantile features for the purpose of enhancing motivation to engage in caretaking behaviors. The goal of the studies proposed here is to examine the behavioral, attentional, and emotional effects of baby schema.

Prosocial behavior can be defined as any behavior that an individual engages in to
benefit another (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). Prosociality is not one homogenous trait, however, but is made up of three specific types of behavior: helping, cooperating, and sharing (or, more accurately, donating) (Tomasello, 2009). Although helping and cooperating are important to understanding prosocial development, giving behaviors might be particularly informative when trying to understand prosociality in young children as it poses a distinct problem for younger children (Tomasello, 1998). Research on proximate causes of prosocial behavior state that these behaviors are influenced by emotions of empathy (Batson, 1991), theory of mind, or understanding of social norms of ownership (Blake & Rand, 2010). Research on more ultimate causes of prosociality suggest that these behaviors evolved due to mechanisms or kin selection (Hamilton, 1964) and inclusive fitness (Trivers, 1971), and is evident by the effect of social category and relatedness on donations in resource- allocation games (Gummerum et al., 2009). Research with children using resource- allocations games, such as the dictator game, are sparse, but typically find that children donate more as they get older, and that out-group receive fewer allocations than in-group members (Moore, 2009). This research also highlight the importance of anonymity and its effect on prosociality. When tested using an anonymous design, children donate less and some children don’t donate at all (Benenson et al., 2007).
Using an anonymous dictator game, children’s giving behaviors were examined
across in- group, out-group, and family members. Thirty-five children (12 3-year-olds (7
male), 13 4-year-olds (8 male), and 10 5-year-olds (7 male) completed the experiment.
Each child participated in each condition, as well as measures of theory of mind and
ownership understanding. Children’s empathy scores were attained from a parent questionnaire regarding children’s empathic behaviors. Results revealed that some children did not donate any stickers at all; seven in total, and that these children differed significantly from those that gave on measures of empathy. Of those that donated, 3-year-old children donated significantly more than 5-year-old children (F(1,3) =3.64, p < .05). This is contrary to previous findings which find that giving increases across age., The was no main effect for Recipient, and no significant interaction between Age and Recipient. Five-year-olds scored significantly higher on measures of ownership understanding (F(2, 25) = 4.36, p< .05), suggesting that understanding of social norms of ownership may be partially responsible for their decrease in overall giving.