1. Effects of Intent and Effectiveness on Responses after Collaboration in
Preschoolers
Abstract
Presented at the Georgia State Undergraduate Research Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, October 2014
Please contact Mary Whatley at mcwhatle@live.unc.edu for more information.
We thank the parents and children who participated in this
research.
Mary C. Whatleyab, Bethany MacDonaldb, and Rebecca A. Williamsonb
Department of Psychology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hilla, Georgia State Universityb
Introduction
Discussion
References
Results
Contrary to our hypothesis, partner effectiveness was related
to the valence of the comments 4- or 5-year-olds made, while
partner intent was not. This indicates that children monitor
and react to the result of a partner’s behavior in a cooperative
task, which supports the findings of Melis, Altrichter, and
Tomasello (2012), but can now be seen not only in sharing
behaviors, but also vocalizations. It could indicate that
effectiveness is a more salient variable than intent in children
this age.
Children may have a difficult time determining another’s
intent, and thus may be unlikely to react with the same
valence. In support of this proposal, although a majority did
not make negative comments to negative intending partners,
many of the ones who did spoke specifically about intent or
asked why Dot did not want to help. This indicates some
confusion in the negative intent conditions.
One limit of this analysis is that only 24 of the participants
spoke at all, which suggests this task was not ideal for
generating verbal responses.
One future direction is to examine the age at which the ability
to distinguish positive and negative intent arises and if it ever
becomes a more salient variable than effectiveness.
Children are likely to share obtained rewards with a cooperative
partner (Melis, Altrichter, & Tomasello, 2012), but partners are
not always helpful. This study examines both intent and
effectiveness on children’s feelings about sharing. Children
performed a task and were assisted by a helpful or non-helpful
puppet with positive or negative intent. We transcribed
vocalizations during the task, and identified positive and
negative comments. Children were more likely to say positive
things when the puppet was effective and negative things when
she was not effective. However, their responses did not vary
with intent. These results suggest that 4-year-olds’ responses
reflect a partner’s actions, but not intentions.
Melis, A. P., Altrichter, K., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Allocation of resources to
collaborators and free-riders in 3-year-olds. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 114, 364-370
Weneken, F., Lohse, K., Melis, A. P., Tomasello, M. (2011). Young children share the
spoils after collaboration. Psychological Science, 22(2), 267-273
Participants
There were 53 participants: 45 4-
year-olds, 8 5-year-olds, 25 females.
Acknowledgements
Procedure
Explanation: The experimenter told the child
to put coins in the box. She said the box was
hard to open but the child would get help from
a stuffed animal weasel named Dot (controlled
by the experimenter). If Dot did not open the
box, the child would have to put the coins in
one at a time through the slot in the front, but
if Dot did help, the child could simply pour the
coins in from the cup. The experimenter showed the child six
stickers to be received upon completing the task.
Positive Intent, Effective Condition: Dot said, “I want to help.
It isn’t heavy. I can open it,” and proceeded to open the box.
Positive Intent, Non-effective Condition: Dot said, “I want to
help, but it’s too heavy. I can’t open it,” and demonstrated pulling on
the rope to try to open the box. The box stayed closed.
Negative Intent, Effective Condition: Dot said, “I don’t want to
help. I don’t feel like it,” and did not open the box. Instead, the
experimenter opened the box.
Negative Intent, Non-effective Condition: Dot said, “I don’t
want to help. I don’t feel like it,” and the box stayed closed.
Test Phase: When the coins were all in the box, the experimenter
gave the child six stickers as a reward for helping, and then, Dot said,
“I would like some stickers, too,” and waited for the child to share.
Each child received two trials of the same condition. After both
trials, the experimenter asked the child whether Dot wanted to help
and if she did a good job helping and recorded the responses.
Figure 2. Materials and rewards
Collaboration is much more likely to occur if resources can be
expected to be shared. Previous studies have found that children
as young as three years old participate in egalitarian sharing
(Warneken, Lohse, Melis, & Tomasello, 2011), and that they are
more likely to share with a helpful partner than a free rider (Melis,
Altrichter, & Tomasello, 2012). In this study, we delved deeper
into the thought process behind sharing after collaboration and
attempted to examine the effects of both intent and effectiveness.
Intent involved wanting to help, while effectiveness involved
actually helping. Since it is possible for these to be incongruent, it
is also possible that one can have a stronger influence than the
other on children’s feelings about sharing with a partner. We
recorded speech and looked for positive and negative comments to
measure effects.
Hypothesis: We predicted that children’s comments would be
more strongly associated with intent than effectiveness. Therefore,
they would be more likely to make positive comments to a partner
with positive intent and more likely to make negative comments to
a partner with negative intent, regardless of her effectiveness.
Figure 3. Number of children making
comments of each valence as a
function of partner effectiveness
Figure 4. Number of children making
comments of each valence as a function
of partner’s intent.
Figure 1. Dot and the coin box
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Effective (C1,
C3)
Not Effective
(C2, C4)
Positive
Responses
Negative
Responses
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Positive Intent
(C1, C2)
Negative
Intent (C3,
C4)
Positive
Responses
Negative
Responses
Of the 53 participants, 24
made a comment relevant to
the task (e.g., about
helpfulness, intent, or
willingness to share.) These
comments were scored as
positive or negative. Positive
comments indicated
willingness to share or noting
that the puppet wanted to
help (e.g., “Sure, you can have
Method
Materials
Materials consisted of a box with a
slot in the front, an L-shaped pipe,
a rope that could be used to open the box, two plastic cups,
wooden “coins,” a puppet named Dot, and 12 stickers.
the experimenter, while
the children in the non-
effective conditions
(conditions 2 and 4)
were significantly more
likely to say negative
things (Fisher’s exact
test; p=.01). Partner
intent did not predict
the responses made by
children (p = 1).
some stickers”). Negative comments indicated unwillingness to share
or something related to a negative intent or effectiveness (e.g., “You
didn’t help”). The children in the effective conditions (conditions 1
and 3) were significantly more likely to say positive things to Dot or