Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Infants’ performance on sociomoral evaluation tasks predicts parent report of preschool social functioning Tan, Enda 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_september_tan_enda.pdf [ 1.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166491.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166491-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166491-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166491-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166491-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166491-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166491-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166491-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166491.ris

Full Text

     INFANTS’ PERFORMANCE ON SOCIOMORAL EVALUATION TASKS PREDICTS PARENT REPORT OF PRESCHOOL SOCIAL FUNCTIONING by Enda Tan  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2015 © Enda Tan, 2015  ii  Abstract  The present study examined developmental continuity in social functioning from infancy to preschool. Specifically, we examined the relationships between infants’ performance on sociomoral evaluation studies and parent report of their preschool social functioning. Infants’ performance, emotional stability (fuss-out rate), and average habituation rate in moral evaluation tasks were collected. Preschool social functioning was measured through parent-report online scales. The results showed 1) that better performance on infant moral evaluation studies was associated with lower rates of parent report of preschool attention problems, social responsiveness problems, and callousness-unemotional traits, as well as higher rates of parent report of adaptive social skills, 2) that fuss-out rate across infant moral evaluation studies was positively associated with parent report of preschool anxiety, depression, and withdrawal, 3) that the relationships between the performance on infant moral evaluation studies and parent-report preschool functioning were stronger for males than for females, and that 4) these relationships were domain-specific. Together these findings provide preliminary evidence for longitudinal continuity in social functioning from infancy to preschool.     iii  Preface  The study included in this thesis contains original, unpublished work by the author, E. Tan. The research presented here was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board (Project Title: “Early Understanding of the Physical and Social Worlds”, H10-01808).              iv  Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Preface................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ vi Dedication ......................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Infant sociomoral evaluation ........................................................................................... 1 Developmental continuity ............................................................................................... 3 The present study ............................................................................................................ 4 Method ................................................................................................................................ 8 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 8 Infant sociomoral evaluation tasks .................................................................................. 8 Weighted with hypothesis rate ........................................................................................ 9 Average study complexity ............................................................................................. 10 Average habituation rate ............................................................................................... 12 Fuss-out rate .................................................................................................................. 13 Preschool social functioning ......................................................................................... 13 Results ............................................................................................................................... 18 Data preparation ............................................................................................................ 18 Correlation analyses ...................................................................................................... 18 Hierarchical regressions ................................................................................................ 21 General Discussion ........................................................................................................... 31 References ......................................................................................................................... 37 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 44 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................... 61   v  List of Tables  Table 1.  Descriptive statistics and correlations between WWHR, Average Study Complexity, Average Habituation Rate, Fuss out Rate, and preschool social functioning measures…………………………………………….19  Table 2.  Hierarchical regression with Average CBCL as the dependent variable…………………………………….……………………………22  Table 3.  Hierarchical regression with SRS Total as the dependent variable…………………………………………………………...……..23  Table 4.  Hierarchical regression with ICU Total as the dependent variable..........24  Table 5.  Hierarchical regression with Average Vineland as the dependent variable………………………………………………………………….26  Table 6.  Hierarchical regression with CBCL Attention Problems as the dependent variable………………………………………………………………….28  Table 7.  Hierarchical regression with Vineland Communication as the dependent variable……..……....…………………………………………………...29            vi  Acknowledgements  I would like to take this opportunity to express the deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Kiley Hamlin, for her excellent guidance, patience, and encouragement through my graduate program. This thesis would not have been possible without her support. My sincere thanks also goes to Dr. Amori Mikami, who helped me develop my background in child psychopathology and overcome challenges at different stages of this research project. I would also like to thank Dr. Susan Birch, for her inspiration, insightful comments, and continued support. Special thanks goes to the lab managers and research assistants, for their hard work and for creating tons of laughter every day.               vii  Dedication             To my parents       1  Introduction Human beings show a pervasive tendency to engage in moral evaluation, judging others and their actions as right and good or as wrong and bad.  Since the groundbreaking work of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg (Kohlberg, 1958, 1973, 1984; Kohlberg & Kramer, 1969; Piaget, 1932/1965; Piaget & Inhelder, 1962), there has been a growing interest in the developmental trajectory of moral judgment. In particular, researchers have examined the longitudinal changes in children’s modes of moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1958), understanding of fairness (Eisenberg, 1989), and conceptions of morality and convention (Turiel, 1983). Recently, a number of studies have begun to explore whether certain aspects of moral understanding and evaluation are present from very early in life (Behne, Carpenter, Call, & Tomasello, 2005; Bloom, 2012; Buon et al., 2014; Geraci & Surian, 2011; Hamlin, 2013a; Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007; Premack & Premack, 1997; Schmidt & Sommerville, 2011; Sloane, Baillargeon, & Premack, 2012); these studies suggest that even human infants are sensitive to morally relevant behaviors including those that are helpful versus unhelpful or fair versus unfair. The present study examines whether performance on studies of moral understanding and evaluation is associated with parent report of children’s preschool social functioning. Infant sociomoral evaluation Past research has demonstrated that preverbal infants evaluate individuals on the basis of the actions they direct toward third parties, and prefer agents who assist others over agents who hinder others (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin et al., 2007; Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2010) as well as those who treat others fairly versus unfairly (Burns & 2  Sommerville, 2014; Geraci & Surian, 2011). To illustrate, in an early study examining whether preverbal infants make sociomoral evaluations, Hamlin et al. (2007) showed infants live puppet shows in which one character (the “protagonist”) repeatedly tried but failed to reach the top of a steep hill. On the protagonist’s third failed attempt, either a “helper” character bumped the protagonist up the hill, assisting him in reaching his goal, or a “hinderer” character bumped the protagonist down the hill, preventing him from reaching his goal. In a similar study (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011), infants viewed a protagonist play with a ball, and then lose the ball to one side of the stage or the other. When the ball rolled toward the helper, the helper returned the ball to the protagonist, but when the ball rolled toward the hinderer, the hinderer ran away with the ball. After watching these shows repeatedly, infants in these and similar studies were encouraged to choose between the helpful and unhelpful puppets. By 5-6 months of age, infants consistently reached for helpers rather than hinderers, for helpers rather than neutral characters, and for neutral characters rather than hinderers (Hamlin, 2015; Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin et al., 2007). Three-month-old infants (who are too young to reach for objects) reliably looked longer at helpers than hinderers (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin et al., 2010). Together, these results suggest that preverbal infants engage in sociomoral evaluation from extremely early in life.  Follow-up studies have further demonstrated that infants’ evaluations are sensitive to some of the nuances of mature sociomoral judgments. For instance, infants take into account: 1) the knowledge and intentions of the actors – whether the helper and hinderer knew their actions were helpful or unhelpful, whether or not they succeeded in helping or hindering (Hamlin, 2013b; Hamlin, Ullman, Tenenbaum, Goodman, & Baker, 2013), 2) 3  the similarity of the target to infants themselves – whether the target shared the infants’ food preferences (Hamlin, Mahajan, Liberman, & Wynn, 2013), 3) the moral status of the target of prosocial and antisocial acts - whether the target was an agent or not (Buon et al., 2014; Hamlin & Wynn, 2011) or had previously harmed or helped others (Hamlin, 2014; Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, & Mahajan, 2011), and 4) the goal of the protagonist - whether the protagonist’s actions clearly demonstrated an unfulfilled goal (Hamlin, 2015). The robustness of infants’ preferences for prosocial over antisocial others is remarkable, particularly given the complexity of the tasks and the number of socio-cognitive mechanisms required to reliably identify and prefer prosocial characters. Indeed, infants presumably need to 1) recognize that a protagonist has an unfulfilled goal, 2) recognize the intentions of the helper and hinderer to facilitate or block that goal, 3) empathize with the protagonist’s plight in order to care about how the helper and hinderer treat him, and 4) organize their behavioral responses in order to demonstrate a preference for one individual over another. Thus, if an infant fails to prefer the more prosocial character in a given study, this may be due to a breakdown in one or in several of these processes.  Developmental continuity Past research has provided evidence for developmental continuity in cognitive and social skills from infancy to preschool. For example, numerical sensitivity at 6 months correlates with both symbolic and nonsymbolic mathematical performance at 3.5 years (Starr, Libertus, & Brannon, 2013). In the social domain, researchers have found longitudinal relations between looking time patterns in infant social cognition tasks and performance on preschool theory of mind tasks (Wellman, Lopez-Duran, LaBounty, & 4  Hamilton, 2008; Wellman, Phillips, Dunphy‐Lelii, & LaLonde, 2004; Yamaguchi, Kuhlmeier, Wynn, & VanMarle, 2009), between anticipatory looking in infant false-belief task and performance on child verbal false-belief tasks (Thoermer, Sodian, Vuori, Perst, & Kristen, 2012), between infant nonverbal communication and toddler mental state language (Kristen, Sodian, Thoermer, & Perst, 2011), and between infant distress understanding and self-regulation and preschool sharing behaviors (Paulus et al., 2015). Other studies have also found relationships between infant neural activities and future social functioning. For example, Licata, Paulus, Kühn-Popp, Meinhardt, and Sodian (2015) found that infant’s left frontal EEG activation is associated with later responsiveness and involvement in mother-child interactions. In a similar vein, Paulus, Kühn-Popp, Licata, Sodian, and Meinhardt (2013) found that infants’ resting state neural activity is associated with distinct patterns of prosocial behaviors later in life: infants who showed greater activation in the left frontal cortex at 14 months tended to engage in more comforting behaviors at 24 months, whereas those who showed greater activation in the right temporal cortex engaged in more instrumental helping at 18 months. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that individual differences in infancy are correlated with individual differences in cognition and behavior in childhood, providing evidence for the validity of tasks used to study infants. The present study The primary purpose of the present study is to examine the relationship between infants’ performance on studies of sociomoral evaluation and future social functioning. We reasoned that individual differences in infant sociomoral evaluation tasks may reflect individual differences in social and cognitive development, in particular, the development of theory of mind and empathy.  5  In order to examine the relationship between infant performance and preschool social functioning, we identified children who participated in two or more “usable” (details below) studies in our lab during their first two years, and who are currently of preschool age. We then computed several indices to represent each child’s infant study performance. First, we calculated an index we called “weighted with hypothesis rate” (heretofore WWHR), essentially the percentage of the time each infant performed in the hypothesized direction of the study (e.g., picking out the prosocial character over the antisocial character; details below). Second, we calculated “average study complexity”, reflecting our best estimate of the average difficulty of the studies each infant participated in. Further details of these two indices will be provided in the methods section.  We also identified each child’s “rate of habituation,” or the average number of trials it took to habituate during all habituation studies participated in during infancy (that is, not just those that we considered reflective of sociomoral evaluation for the purpose of calculating the WWHR and complexity indices). The habituation procedure has been used extensively by previous research as a measure of infants’ cognitive abilities; quick habituation is considered to indicate superior perceptual, memory, and processing capacities (Bornstein, 1985; Bornstein & Benasich, 1986; Bornstein, Pêcheux, & Lécuyer, 1988; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1994; Sirois & Mareschal, 2004). Indeed, studies have found links between infant habituation rate and future intelligence scores (Slater, Cooper, Rose, & Morison, 1989; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1989; for meta-analysis, see McCall & Carriger, 1993).  Finally, we wished to identify a proxy for infants’ temperament. Temperament is defined as behavioral and emotional patterns that appear early in life and have a biological 6  basis (Rutter, 1987; Thomas & Chess, 1977). Researchers have identified two common patterns of infant temperament: inhibited and uninhibited. Whereas inhibited infants tend to be shy and nervous, uninhibited infants are more interactive and spontaneous (Coll, Kagan, & Reznick, 1984; Kagan, Reznick, Clarke, Snidman, & Garcia-Coll, 1984). A number of studies have found links between infant temperament and social-developmental outcomes. For example, Kagan, Snidman, Zentner, and Peterson (1999) found that infants who are highly reactive to stimulation are less sociable and more likely to show anxious symptoms in childhood. Similar relationships are shown by studies using different samples and methodologies (Fox & Henderson, 1999; Kagan, Snidman, & Arcus, 1998; Pfeifer, Goldsmith, Davidson, & Rickman, 2002). Researchers have also found evidence for developmental continuity in neural correlates of temperament (Calkins, Fox, & Marshall, 1996; Schwartz, Wright, Shin, Kagan, & Rauch, 2003). In the present study, we used the percentage of the time each infant “fussed-out” of our studies (dubbed “fuss-out rate”) as an indicator of his or her temperament. We reasoned that infants who frequently fussed out in our studies may have done so because they were timid in new environments, and hence may be more likely to show behavioral outcomes associated with inhibited temperament. To assess preschool social functioning, we administered a battery of parent-report scales via the internet. To probe problem behaviors, we administered the Child Behavior Checklist—Preschool, which is widely used to measure children’s behavioral and emotional problems. To probe theory of mind development, we used the Social Responsiveness Scale, a reliable measure of social deficiencies associated with autism spectrum disorders. To probe potential problems with empathy and related constructs, we administered the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits—Preschool, which was 7  designed to measure traits that are associated with the development of antisocial behavioral disorders such as psychopathy. We also administered the Communication and Socialization Scales of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales II, to assess communicative development and for an additional assessment of social functioning.  We hypothesized that infants’ performance on studies examining sociomoral cognition and evaluation would be associated with parent report of preschool social functioning. In contrast, we hypothesized that rate of habituation across studies would not be associated with preschool social functioning, both because rate of habituation is considered a measure of general cognitive processing power, and because in no previous infant study in our laboratory has rate of habituation been associated with patterns of success and failure in sociomoral evaluation (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011). We also hypothesized that infants’ fuss-out rate would be associated with parent report of preschool anxious and withdrawn behaviors. Finally, as it has been well documented that boys and girls differ in certain aspects of cognitive (Charman, Ruffman, & Clements, 2002), emotional (Brody, 1985), and social (Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Rose & Rudolph, 2006) development, we examined whether the relationships between infant’s performance on sociomoral evaluation tasks and preschool social functioning show different patterns between males and females.    8  Method Participants Participants were 44 children (29 female, 15 male) who had participated in two or more studies examining moral cognition and evaluation during infancy from 2010 to 2013 in an infant research lab in British Columbia, Canada. On average, each individual participated in 3.23 (SD = 1.16) infant studies, with an average test age of 12.30 months (unweighted: M = 12.30 months, SD = 3.70 months; weighted by number of studies: M = 12.45 months, SD = 5.60 months). The average age of preschool survey was 3.99 years (SD = 0.54 years). All participants were full-term and healthy at the time of testing. The sample was chosen on the basis of availability and convenience; these 44 children were among the first cohort of participants who 1) had participated in two or more studies examining sociomoral cognition and evaluation during infancy and 2) had reached the minimum age of preschool survey (3 years). Data collection for the project is still in progress; it is our goal to end up with a sample of over 200 infants. Infant sociomoral evaluation tasks The studies that infants participated in our lab had examined infants’ abilities to understand prosocial and antisocial interactions, interpret helpers and hinderers’ intentions, keep track of relationships amongst prosocial, antisocial, and neutral characters, and to evaluate these characters on the basis of their behaviors. In these studies, infants first watched either videos or puppet shows in which characters behaved prosocially or antisocially toward others. The contexts and patterns of social interactions varied across studies and represented many different kinds of prosocial and antisocial situations. Infants’ sociomoral evaluations were then measured through various response types, including 9  reaching choice (picking out one character over the other), preferential looking (looking longer at one character over the other), distribution preference (giving more resources to one character over another, or giving preferred or dispreferred objects to a single character), help seeking (asking one character for help), and selective imitation (imitating one character’s behaviors over, or more than, another’s).  To be considered qualified for the current project, an infant study had to meet several criteria: First, the interactions between characters needed to be morally relevant. We only included studies that examined infants’ evaluations of moral activities (e.g., helping, harming) rather than social or conventional activities (e.g., emotion understanding, conformity). Second, the study should have a clear hypothesis: there should be a character whose behaviors were of higher moral value, and infants were expected to pick out this character over other characters; that is, we did not include conditions that were run to control for various physical aspects of our displays. Third, we excluded studies in which there were procedural errors, parental interference, or in which infants failed to choose either character, as data from these infants are uninterpretable. We included all studies that met these three criteria, whether or not the studies are currently published. We did not exclude studies in which infants did not as an age group show clear social preferences, assuming we had a clear hypothesis when the study began, nor did we exclude studies with incomplete numbers of participants. In total, 81 different studies (conditions) were included in the final analyses (see Appendix 1 for a brief summary of each included study). Weighted with hypothesis rate As mentioned above, each participant was assigned a “weighted with hypothesis 10  rate” (WWHR) as a measure of overall study performance. WWHR was calculated in three steps. First, a value was assigned to infants’ performance on each study: infants who performed in the direction of the hypothesis received a score of 1; infants who performed against the direction of the hypothesis received a score of -1. Second, infants’ scores for each study was multiplied by that study’s overall effect size. This step allowed us to assign different weights to studies reflecting the average performance of infants at the same age on the same procedure, whereby an infant would receive less penalty for performing against the direction of the hypothesis if that is how most other infants performed. Finally, these products were added up across all studies an infant participated in, and divided by the number of studies, providing a value between -1 and 1. As an example, if an infant had usable data for 3 studies, and performed with hypothesis in Study 1 (effect size = 0.90), against hypothesis in Study 2 (effect size = 0.82) and against hypothesis in Study 3 (effect size = 0.75), his or her WWHR = 1×(0.90)+(−1) ×(0.82)+(−1) ×(0.75)3= −0.22.  Average study complexity The complexity score of a study was defined as the number of factors that infants needed to take into account to engage in moral evaluation, over and above what a study simply requiring them to choose between a basic helper and hinderer would do. We reasoned that the more complicating factors each study contained the more difficult it might be for an infant to perform with the study’s hypothesis. Since different infants participated in different studies, some infants might have participated in more “difficult” studies than others and hence have a lower WWHR, despite that this portion of WWHR reflects issues of random assignment and when we happened to be running particular studies, rather than individual differences in sociomoral evaluation. Hence, in the regression analyses of the 11  present study, we controlled for the effect of average study complexity in order to get a more accurate estimate of the relationships between WWHR and preschool social functioning.  We identified various possible complicating factors. First, studies were considered more complex when they included neutral characters. Whereas in most of the studies in our laboratory infants choose between a prosocial character and an antisocial character, in some conditions (e.g., Hamlin, Mahajan, et al., 2013; Hamlin et al., 2007) infants choose between one valenced character (either prosocial or antisocial) and one neutral character who engaged in neither prosocial nor antisocial activities. Because to succeed at neutral comparisons infants must be able to perform both positive and negative evaluations independently, we reasoned that neutral comparisons are more complex than non-neutral comparisons.  Second, we reasoned that studies were more complex if they required evaluating prosocial/antisocial actions in context. Specifically, various studies included in the current exploration require considering who an action was directed toward, what a character desires, or who owns the object being given or taken. We hypothesized that these additional considerations impose heavier cognitive loads and require higher processing capacities. Therefore, it might be more difficult for infants’ to display social preferences in context-dependent studies.   Third, we identified whether a study required interpreting helper’s and hinderer’s mental states. In these studies, infants needed to take into account issues such as failed attempts to help/hinder (Hamlin, 2013b), helping and hindering without knowing it (Hamlin, Ullman, et al., 2013), and accidental helping and hindering. We hypothesized that 12  given work suggestive that infants develop an ability to interpret unfulfilled goals later than fulfilled goals (Brandone & Wellman, 2009) it might be more difficult for infants’ to demonstrate robust social evaluation in these studies.   Finally, we identified various other complications that were less easily categorizeable, including: 1) characters who were inconsistently prosocial or antisocial, 2) choices between agentive claws rather than puppets, and 3) second-order punishment. To calculate average study complexity, we first tallied up how many complexity factors were involved in each study. For example, if a study required analyses of context, mental states, and consistency, its complexity score was 3. We then averaged complexity scores across all qualified studies an infant participated in. For instance, if an infant participated in three qualified studies, with complexity scores of 2, 3, and 1, the baby’s average task complexity score was  2+3+13 = 2. The complexity score for each study is listed in Appendix 1.  Average habituation rate In studies that used habituation procedures, infants watched alternating prosocial and antisocial events repeatedly until the habituation criterion was met or until they saw 14 total events. On each trial, infants were allowed to process the scenario for up to 30 seconds after the event ended. The next event took place 30 seconds later or if infants showed diminished interest by looking away for 2 consecutive seconds. The habituation criterion was met if the sum of the looking times on three consecutive trials was less than half the sum of the looking times on the first three trials that themselves had a sum equal to or above 12s. Habituation rate was defined as the number of trials it took infant to meet the habituation criterion. If the habituation criterion was still not met after trial 14, the habituation rate for that study was entered as 15.  13  Fuss-out rate A fuss-out was called if during a study an infant displayed signs of significant distress (e.g., crying), resulting in early termination of the study. Fuss-out rate was calculated by dividing the number of studies in which an infant fussed out by the number of the infant’s total visits, including studies that were eligible for inclusion into an infants’ WWHR calculation and those that were not. We used studies that (had the infant not fussed out) still could not have been included in their WWHR calculation since fuss out rate should not be specific to a certain type of study. Indeed, all studies were carried out in the same environment by the same group of researchers, using similar stimuli, and following similar procedures. Preschool social functioning To assess participants’ social functioning in preschool, we administered a battery of parent-report online scales, including the Social Responsiveness Scale (Constantino & Gruber, 2005), the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits —Preschool (Frick, 2003), the Child Behavior Checklist—Preschool (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000), and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales II (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005). These scales were chosen because they provide comprehensive assessments of preschool social functioning as well as pinpoint measures of deficits that are associated with theory of mind and empathy development. Survey data were collected using REDCap, a web-based application widely used in scientific research. The links to these online questionnaires were sent to parents after their children reached the age of 3. In total, 40 families (90.91%) completed all four scales, and 4 families completed only some of the scales. The Child Behavior Checklist—Preschool (CBCL) is a comprehensive assessment 14  of children’s behavioral and emotional problems. The validity and reliability of the scale have been supported by previous research (Achenbach, 1992; Achenbach, Edelbrock, & Howell, 1987; Koot, Van Den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1997). The scale obtains parent- or caregiver- report of children’s behaviors, including the following dimensions: Emotionally Reactive, Anxious/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Withdrawn, Sleep Problems, Attention Problems, and Aggressive Behavior. For the purpose of the present study, we only administered domains that we reasoned are related to children’s social functioning, including Emotionally Reactive (9 items), Anxious/Depressed (8 items), Withdrawn (8 items), Attention Problems (5 items), and Aggressive Behavior (19 items). Sample items are shown in Appendix 2. Using a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true of your child), the checklist generates a raw score and a T-score (normed by age) on each domain. T-scores below 65 are in the normal range. T-scores equal to or above 70 are in the clinical range. Previous studies have found correspondence between scores on the CBCL Attention Problems and interview-based diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and between scores on the CBCL Anxious/Depressed and interview-based diagnoses of Anxiety Disorders (Biederman et al., 1993). The Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) is a parent/teacher-report measure of symptoms associated with autism spectrum disorders. The scale is widely used in psychological and clinical research and has good psychometric properties (Bölte, Poustka, & Constantino, 2008; Bölte, Westerwald, Holtmann, Freitag, & Poustka, 2011; Constantino, Davis, et al., 2003; Constantino et al., 2004). The scale comprises 65 items scored from 1 (not true) to 4 (almost always true). Sample items are shown in Appendix 2. 15  The scale generates severity raw scores and T-scores (normed by age and gender) for 5 domains of social impairments, including Social Awareness, Social Cognition, Social Communication, Social Motivation, and Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors. The scale also yields total raw and T-scores (Social Communication and Interaction score) for 4 domains (Social Awareness, Social Cognition, Social Communication, and Social Motivation) as well as total raw and T-scores for all 5 domains. T-scores equal to or below 59 are in the normal range. T-scores between 60 and 75 are in the mild-moderate range and suggest deficiencies that are clinically significant. T-scores equal to or above 76 are in the severe range, suggestive of severe social malfunctioning. Previous studies have reported diagnostic agreement between SRS scores and clinician administered Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Constantino, Davis, et al., 2003; Murray, Mayes, & Smith, 2011; Pine, Luby, Abbacchi, & Constantino, 2006). It has also been shown that the social impairments measured by the SRS are different from general psychopathologies measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (Bölte et al., 2008; Constantino, Hudziak, & Todd, 2003). It is worth noting that the sample of the current study included one child whose parent reported him to be diagnosed with ASD. The Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits—Preschool (ICU) measures callous-unemotional traits, which are considered central to the construct of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976; Frick, Marsee, & Patrick, 2006; Frick & White, 2008). The scale comprises 24 items (12 positively worded and 12 negatively worded) rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all true) to 3 (definitely true). Sample items are shown in Appendix 2. The reliability and validity of the ICU have been well supported by past research (Essau, Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006; Kimonis et al., 2008; Roose, Bijttebier, Decoene, Claes, & Frick, 2010). The 16  scale generates raw scores for three domains (callousness, uncaring, and unemotional) as well as a total score. Past research has found correlations between scores on the ICU and conduct problems, aggressive behaviors, and delinquency in preschool (Ezpeleta, Osa, Granero, Penelo, & Domènech, 2013) and adolescence (Essau et al., 2006; Kimonis et al., 2008; Roose et al., 2010; Viding, Simmonds, Petrides, & Frederickson, 2009). The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales II (Vineland II), one of the most commonly used adaptive behavior tests, assess children’s adaptive functioning and daily skills in four domains: Communication (Subdomains: Receptive, Expressive, and Written), Daily Living Skills (Subdomains: Personal, Domestic, and Community), Socialization (Subdomains: Interpersonal Relationships, Play and Leisure Time, and Coping Skills), and Motor Skills (Subdomains: Gross, and Fine). It has been shown that the scales have good psychometric properties (Cicchetti & Sparrow, 1981; Perry & Factor, 1989; Sparrow, 2011; Sparrow, Balla, Cicchetti, Harrison, & Doll, 1984; Sparrow et al., 2005). As the focus of the present study was on sociomoral development and to reduce demand on participants’ parents, we only administered the Communication domain (99 items; scoring discontinues when the examinee receives 0 on four consecutive items) and the Socialization domain (99 items; scoring discontinues when the examinee receives 0 on four consecutive items). Sample items are shown in Appendix 2. Each item is rated from 0 (never) to 2 (usually). The scales generate total raw scores, standard scores (normed by age, M = 100 and SD = 15), and percentile ranks for the 2 domains, as well as raw scores and v- scores (normed by age, M = 15 and SD = 3) for subdomains. Different from the other 3 scales, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales measure social competencies as opposed to deficiencies. Therefore, higher scores on these scales reflect better social 17  functioning. The Vineland has been used extensively to assess adaptive skills in children with social and cognitive deficits, including ASD and Down syndrome (Bölte & Poustka, 2002; Deckner, Soraci, Deckner, & Blanton, 1981; Freeman, Ritvo, Yokota, Childs, & Pollard, 1988; Liss et al., 2001; Loveland & Kelley, 1988; Rodrigue, Morgan, & Geffken, 1991; Volkmar et al., 1987).                18  Results Data preparation All following analyses were performed with standard scores (except for the ICU, which does not yield standard scores), including 1) T-scores (M = 50, SD = 10) on SRS total, SRS subscales, and CBCL subscales, 2) Standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15) on Vineland main domains, and 3) V-scores (M = 15, SD = 3) on Vineland subdomains. The total scores on the Vineland and the CBCL were incalculable in the present study since only selected domains were administered. To represent participants’ general adaptive skills and behavioral/emotional problems, we computed overall scores for the Vineland and the CBCL by averaging scores on available dimensions. Average Vineland Score was defined as the average of the Standard scores on Vineland Communication and Vineland Socialization. Average CBCL Score was defined as the average of the T-scores on Emotionally Reactive, Anxious/Depressed, Withdrawn, Attention Problems, and Aggressive Behavior. Correlation analyses Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of and the correlations between WWHR, Average Study Complexity, Average Habituation Rate, Fuss-out Rate, and preschool social functioning measures. There were no significant correlations between WWHR, Average Study Complexity, Average Habituation Rate, and Fuss-out Rate (ps > .05), suggesting 1) that WWHR, Average Habituation Rate, and Fuss-out Rate measure different aspects of individual differences, and 2) that the complexity of tasks, at least as defined by us in the present study, does not influence infants’ performance. 19  Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between WWHR, Average Complexity, Average Habituation Rate, Fuss out Rate, and preschool social functioning measures.  WWHR Average Study Complexity Average Habituation Rate Fuss-Out Rate Mean SD WWHR --    0.27 0.41 Average Study Complexity -.17 --   1.07 0.41 Average Habituation Rate -.11 -.09 --  9.12 2.61 Fuss-out Rate .26 -.06 -.08 -- 0.04 0.08 Average CBCL -.16 .06 .04 .18 54.46 4.64   CBCL Emotionally Reactive -.15 .07 .00 .06 59.98 9.36   CBCL Anxious/Depressed .12 -.01 -.09 .33* 53.32 6.61   CBCL Withdrawn -.10 -.06 .07 .35* 53.48 6.31   CBCL Attention Problems -.38* .07 -.03 -.07 51.80 4.08   CBCL Aggressive Behavior -.11 .11 .18 -.09 53.73 6.76 SRS Total -.39* -.02 .13 -.12 48.05 8.64 SRS Social Communication and Interaction -.34* -.04 .13 -.10 48.43 9.01     Social Awareness -.25 -.02 .02 -.22 52.25 10.16     Social Cognition -.35* -.07 .20 -.10 48.43 8.42     Social Communication -.41** -.03 .15 -.13 47.55 8.70     Social Motivation -.16 -.02 .06 .07 48.23 9.73 SRS Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors -.50** .07 .02 -.14 45.80 8.53 ICU Total -.11 -.16 .08 -.05 17.50 8.25     Callousness -.18 -.02 .21 -.08 5.16 3.78     Uncaring -.05 -.22 -.04 -.11 10.07 4.61 20   WWHR Average Study Complexity Average Habituation Rate Fuss-Out Rate Mean SD     Unemotional .01 -.10 .01 .24 2.27 1.62 Average Vineland .26 .08 -.02 .08 105.83 8.96  Vineland Communication .41** .10 -.04 .12 109.38 10.96     Receptive .43** .17 -.01 .05 18.05 2.59     Expressive .12 .16 .09 -.01 15.31 2.14     Written .34* -.11 -.14 .19 17.19 2.64  Vineland Socialization .03 .04 .02 .01 102.29 9.26     Interpersonal Relationships .06 .06 -.01 -.10 15.71 2.02     Play and Leisure Time -.03 -.00 .11 .12 15.50 2.17     Coping Skills .02 .05 -.04 .00 15.50 1.47  *  Correlation significant at p  <  .05 level (2-tailed) **  Correlation significant at p  <  .01 level (2-tailed)  As shown in Table 1, WWHR was negatively correlated with parent report of preschool socio-cognitive deficits, including CBCL Attention Problems, r(42) = -.38, p = .011, SRS Total, r(38) = -.39, p = .013, SRS Social Communication and Interaction, r(38) = -.34, p = .03, SRS Social Cognition, r(38) = -.35, p = .027, SRS Social Communication, r(38) = -.41, p = .009, and SRS Restricted and Repetitive Behaviors, r(38) = -.50, p = .001. WWHR was also positively correlated with parent report of preschool social adaptive skills, including Vineland Communication, r(40) = .41, p = .007, Vineland Receptive Communication, r(40) = .43, p = .004, and Vineland Written Communication, r(40) = .34, 21  p = .028. These results provided preliminary evidence for the links between infants’ performance on sociomoral evaluation tasks and their preschool social functioning. Fuss-out Rate was positively associated with parent report of preschool socio-emotional problems, including CBCL Anxious/Depressed, r(42) = .33, p = .027, and CBCL Withdrawn, r(42) = .35, p = .020. These results are consistent with previous research demonstrating developmental continuity in temperament. No associations were found between Average Habituation Rate and parent report of preschool social functioning, suggesting that the relationships between WWHR, Fuss-out Rate, and parent report of preschool functioning are domain-specific; that is, parent-report preschool functioning is associated with the socio-emotional aspects of infants’ behaviors (reflected by WWHR and Fuss-out Rate) but not with basic cognitive skills (reflected by Average Habituation Rate). Hierarchical regressions  To further examine the relationships between WWHR and preschool social functioning, and to explore the interaction between Gender and WWHR, we conducted a series of four-stage hierarchical regressions with Average CBCL, SRS total, ICU total, and Average Vineland as dependent variables. In each analysis, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity were entered at Step 1 as control variables. Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate were entered at Step 2. The WWHR was entered at Step 3. The interaction term between Gender and WWHR was entered at Step 4. Preliminary analyses revealed no gender differences in WWHR, Average Habituation Rate, and Fuss-out Rate (ps > .05). The regression statistics are reported in Table 2-5.  22  Table 2. Hierarchical regression with Average CBCL as the dependent variable.  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β T p β t p β t p β t p Gender -.14 -0.82 .416 -.21 -1.19 .242 -.20 -1.16 .256 -.16 -0.94 .354 Survey Age -.24 -1.43 .163 -.27 -1.57 .127 -.30 -1.74 .092 -.23 -1.38 .178 Number of Studies -.25 -1.46 .155 -.31 -1.76 .088 -.32 -1.85 .074 -.32 -1.92 .064 Average Study Complexity .05 0.30 .769 .10 0.57 .576 .04 0.26 .800 .08 0.50 .619 Average Habituation Rate    .22 1.24 .223 .20 1.12 .272 .15 0.85 .404 Fuss-out Rate    .18 1.10 .279 .23 1.41 .170 .25 1.56 .130 WWHR       -.26 -1.52 .138 -.62 -2.56 .016 Gender × WWHR          -.49 -2.00 .055 R2 .11   .18   .24   .33   ΔR2    .07   .06   .09   F Statistic F(4, 33) = 1.02, p = .413 F(2, 31) = 1.28, p = .293 F(1, 30) = 2.32, p = .138 F(1, 29) = 4.01, p = .055  The hierarchical regression of Average CBCL showed that at Stage 1, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity accounted for 11% of the variation in Average CBCL. Adding Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate to the model explained an additional 7% of the variation in Average CBCL. Introducing WWHR explained an additional 6% of the variation in Average CBCL. Finally, the addition of Gender × WWHR to the equation accounted for an additional 9% of the variation in Average CBCL, which was marginally significant. Post-hoc probing of the moderation effect (Holmbeck, 2002) revealed that the association between WWHR and Average 23  CBCL was stronger for males, β = -.62, t(29) = -2.56, p = .016, than for females, β = .03, t(29) = 0.11, p = .910. Together all independent variables explained 33% of the variation in Average CBCL. Table 3. Hierarchical regression with SRS Total as the dependent variable.  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β T p β t p β t p β t p Gender -.10 -0.54 .591 -.15 -0.77 .445 -.11 -0.62 .542 -.08 -0.50 .620 Survey Age -.12 -0.65 .521 -.17 -0.90 .374 -.21 -1.19 .243 -.13 -0.82 .419 Number of Studies -.11 -0.56 .579 -.16 -0.83 .415 -.18 -0.98 .336 -.18 -1.07 .296 Average Study Complexity -.00 -0.02 .982 .01 0.07 .944 -.02 -0.13 .899 -.02 -0.11 .913 Average Habituation Rate    .22 1.08 .291 .19 1.05 .303 .10 0.60 .554 Fuss-out Rate    -.10 -0.54 .594 .00 0.00 .999 .01 0.04 .968 WWHR       -.44 -2.52 .018 -.87 -3.81 .001 Gender × WWHR          -.59 -2.61 .015 R2 .03   .08   .26   .41   ΔR2    .05   .18   .16   F Statistic F(4, 30) = 0.21, p = .931 F(2, 28) = 0.79, p = .465 F(1, 27) = 6.37, p = .018 F(1, 26) = 6.82, p = .015  The hierarchical regression of SRS Total showed that at Stage 1, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity accounted for 3% of the variation in SRS Total. Adding Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate to the model explained an additional 5% of the variation in SRS Total. Introducing WWHR explained an additional 18% of the variation in SRS Total, which was statistically significant; greater 24  WWHR in infancy was associated with lower parent reported social responsiveness problems in preschool. Finally, the addition of Gender × WWHR to the equation accounted for an additional 16% of the variation in SRS Total, which was also significant. Post-hoc probing of the moderation effect revealed that the association between WWHR and SRS Total was stronger for males, β = -.87, t(26) = -3.81, p = .001, than for females, β = -.05, t(26) = -0.21, p = .834. Together all independent variables explained 41% of the variation in SRS Total. Table 4. Hierarchical regression with ICU Total as the dependent variable.  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β t p β t p β t p β t p Gender .02 0.13 .898 -.01 -0.07 .943 -.00 -0.02 .986 .06 0.36 .721 Survey Age -.26 -1.56 .128 -.31 -1.72 .095 -.33 -1.88 .070 -.24 -1.46 .154 Number of Studies .01 0.06 .955 -.03 -0.14 .889 -.03 -0.19 .849 -.03 -0.18 .855 Average Study Complexity -.11 -0.68 .502 -.11 -0.61 .545 -.16 -0.90 .377 -.10 -0.65 .520 Average Habituation Rate    .14 0.74 .468 .11 0.61 .547 .04 0.22 .829 Fuss-out Rate    -.08 -0.45 .654 -.03 -0.17 .867 -.01 -0.06 .951 WWHR       -.25 -1.42 .166 -.76 -3.23 .003 Gender × WWHR          -.69 -2.92 .007 R2 .09   .11   .17   .36   ΔR2    .02   .06   .19   F Statistic F(4, 33) = 0.82, p = .520 F(2, 31) = 0.40, p = .672 F(1, 30) = 2.01, p = .166 F(1, 29) = 8.53, p = .007 The hierarchical regression of ICU Total showed that at Stage 1, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity accounted for 9% of the variation 25  in ICU Total. Adding Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate to the model explained an additional 2% of the variation in ICU Total. Introducing WWHR explained an additional 6% of the variation in ICU Total. Finally, the addition of Gender × WWHR to the equation accounted for an additional 19% of the variation in ICU Total, which was statistically significant. Post-hoc probing of the moderation effect revealed that the association between WWHR and ICU Total was stronger for males, β = -.76, t(29) = -3.23, p = .003, than for females, β = .15, t(29) = 0.73, p = .474. Together all independent variables explained 36% of the variation in ICU Total.                26    Table 5. Hierarchical regression with Average Vineland as the dependent variable.  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β t p β t p β t p β t p Gender -.17 -0.98 .334 -.14 -0.81 .427 -.18 -1.08 .291 -.21 -1.34 .190 Survey Age .32 1.93 .062 .36 2.04 .050 .40 2.46 .020 .32 2.09 .046 Number of Studies .21 1.25 .221 .24 1.30 .202 .25 1.51 .143 .24 1.57 .128 Average Study Complexity .02 0.10 .920 .03 0.16 .873 .06 0.38 .706 .06 0.38 .708 Average Habituation Rate    -.08 -0.44 .661 -.06 -0.35 .728 .01 0.07 .946 Fuss-out Rate    .14 0.79 .435 .03 0.20 .842 .04 0.27 .791 WWHR       .41 2.51 .018 .76 3.46 .002 Gender × WWHR          .49 2.22 .035 R2 .18   .20   .35   .45   ΔR2    .03   .15   .10   F Statistic F(4, 31) = 1.66, p = .185 F(2, 29) = 0.46, p = .638 F(1, 28) = 6.30, p = .018 F(1, 27) = 4.94, p = .035  The hierarchical regression of Average Vineland showed that at Stage 1, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity accounted for 18% of the variation in Average Vineland. Adding Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate to the model explained an additional 3% of the variation in Average Vineland. Introducing WWHR explained an additional 15% of the variation in Average Vineland, which was statistically significant; greater WWHR in infancy was associated higher parent-report 27  Average Vineland score in preschool. Finally, the addition of Gender × WWHR to the equation accounted for an additional 10% of the variation in Average Vineland, which was also statistically significant. Post-hoc probing of the moderation effect revealed that the association between WWHR and Average Vineland was stronger for males, β = .76, t(27) = 3.46, p = .002, than for females, β = .09, t(27) = 0.44, p = .664. Together all independent variables explained 45% of the variation in Average Vineland. Taken together, these results showed that WWHR was associated with parent report of preschool social responsiveness problems (measured by SRS Total) and general adaptive skills (measured by Average Vineland) above and beyond the effects of Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, Average Study Complexity, Average Habituation Rate, and Fuss-out Rate. These relationships, however, were moderated by Gender such that the associations were stronger for boys than for girls. Although the relationship between WWHR and parent-report preschool empathy problems (measured by ICU Total) did not reach statistical significance, we found a significant Gender × WWHR interaction such that the association between WWHR and ICU Total was significant for males but not for females. We also found a marginally significant Gender × WWHR interaction in predicting Average CBCL, such that the association between WWHR and Average CBCL was significant for males but not for females. Different from the SRS and the ICU which measure specific socio-cognitive problems, the CBCL and the Vineland measure children’s general social functioning. To explore the relationships between WWHR and specific domains of the CBCL and the Vineland, we identified CBCL and Vineland domains that were significantly associated with WWHR in the regression analyses (i.e., CBCL Attention Problems and Vineland 28  Communication), and ran hierarchical regressions with these domains as dependent variables. The regression statistics are reported in Table 6-7.  Table 6. Hierarchical regression with CBCL Attention Problems as the dependent variable.  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β t p Β t p β t p β t p Gender .31 1.82 .078 .35 1.93 .063 .37 2.26 .031 .44 3.43 .002 Survey Age .01 0.09 .932 .03 0.18 .861 -.01 -0.08 .935 .10 0.80 .431 Number of Studies -.01 -0.05 .960 .03 0.14 .887 .01 0.06 .954 .02 0.12 .904 Average Study Complexity .11 0.64 .528 .08 0.47 .645 -.01 -0.08 .938 .05 0.43 .674 Average Habituation Rate    -.13 -0.68 .504 -.17 -1.02 .315 -.26 -1.98 .057 Fuss-out Rate    -.11 -0.64 .525 -.02 -0.13 .900 .00 0.03 .975 WWHR       -.47 -2.89 .007 -1.08 -5.76 <.001 Gender × WWHR          -.84 -4.45 <.001 R2 .10   .13   .32   .59   ΔR2    .02   .19   .28   F Statistic F(4, 33) = 0.95, p = .449 F(2, 31) = 0.40, p = .672 F(1, 30) = 8.32, p = .007 F(1, 29) = 19.76, p < .001  The hierarchical regression of CBCL Attention Problems showed that at Stage 1, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity accounted for 10% of the variation in CBCL Attention Problems. Adding Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate to the model explained an additional 2% of the variation in CBCL Attention Problems. Introducing WWHR explained an additional 19% of the variation in CBCL 29  Attention Problems, which was statistically significant; greater WWHR in infancy was associated with lower parent reported attention problems in preschool. Finally, the addition of Gender × WWHR to the equation accounted for an additional 28% of the variation in CBCL Attention Problems, which was also statistically significant. Post-hoc probing of the moderation effect revealed that the association between WWHR and CBCL Attention Problems was stronger for males, β = -1.08, t(29) = -5.76, p < .001, than for females, β = .03, t(29) = 0.16, p = .878. Together all independent variables explained 59% of the variation in CBCL Attention Problems. Table 7. Hierarchical regression with Vineland Communication as the dependent variable.  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 β t p Β t p Β t p β t p Gender -.20 -1.15 .257 -.18 -0.99 .329 -.22 -1.38 .179 -.24 -1.56 .131 Survey Age .24 1.43 .162 .28 1.60 .122 .33 2.11 .044 .27 1.78 .087 Number of Studies .21 1.21 .236 .23 1.25 .220 .24 1.53 .136 .24 1.55 .133 Average Study Complexity .07 0.39 .698 .09 0.50 .623 .13 0.82 .421 .12 0.82 .420 Average Habituation Rate    -.07 -0.37 .715 -.04 -0.26 .798 .01 0.06 .952 Fuss-out Rate    .18 1.04 .309 .06 0.36 .719 .06 0.41 .683 WWHR       .48 3.09 .004 .74 3.39 .002 Gender × WWHR          .36 1.64 .113 R2 .16   .20   .40   .45   ΔR2    .04   .21   .05   F Statistic F(4, 31) = 1.46, p = .237 F(2, 29) = 0.66, p = .526 F(1, 28) = 9.57, p = .004 F(1, 27) = 2.68, p = .113  30  The hierarchical regression of Vineland Communication showed that at Stage 1, Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, and Average Study Complexity accounted for 16% of the variation in Vineland Communication. Adding Average Habituation Rate and Fuss-out Rate to the model explained an additional 4% of the variation in Vineland Communication. Introducing WWHR explained an additional 21% of the variation in Vineland Communication, which was statistically significant; greater WWHR in infancy was associated with higher parent-report Vineland Communication score in preschool. Finally, the addition of Gender × WWHR to the equation accounted for an additional 5% of the variation in Vineland Communication, which was not statistically significant. When all independent variables were entered into the equation, only WWHR was a significant predictor of Vineland Communication. Together all independent variables explained 59% of the variation in Vineland Communication. These additional analyses revealed that WWHR was associated with parent report of attention problems (measured by CBCL Attention Problems) and communication skills (measured by Vineland Communication) above and beyond the effects of Gender, Survey Age, Number of Studies, Average Study Complexity, Average Habituation Rate, and Fuss-out Rate. The relationship between WWHR and CBCL Attention Problems was moderated by Gender such that the association between WWHR and CBCL Attention Problems was stronger for males than for females.    31  General Discussion The present study was designed to examine the longitudinal relationship between infants’ behaviors in the laboratory and their future behavioral patterns. Evidence was found for domain-specific continuity in social functioning. Specifically, infants’ performance on moral evaluation tasks, as measured by WWHR, was associated with parent report of preschool socio-cognitive functioning; greater rates of performing in the direction of our hypotheses in infant sociomoral evaluation studies were associated with lower rates of parent reported attention problems, social responsiveness problems, and callous-unemotional traits, as well as higher rates of parent reported adaptive social and communication skills. It is unlikely that these effects can be explained by domain-general cognitive abilities, as the relationships still held after controlling for Habituation Rate. These findings suggest that there are meaningful early individual differences in sociomoral cognition and evaluation, and that these individual differences are associated with future socio-cognitive functioning.  There are two explanations for the relationships found in this study. One possibility is that different social and cognitive components of sociomoral evaluation (e.g., attention, theory of mind, empathy) contribute to the development of social functioning independently. This account views WWHR as a composite measure of lower-level socio-cognitive abilities, and posits that the relationships between WWHR and parent-report preschool social functioning actually reflect the associations between the underlying socio-cognitive abilities and preschool social functioning. This view is consistent with prior work that suggests that moral reasoning consists of lower-level socio-cognitive processes and that there is no neural circuit that is uniquely dedicated to moral judgment (for review, see 32  Young & Dungan, 2012). Supporting this view, Gredebäck et al. (2015) found that ERP components reflecting infant evaluations of social valence are similar to those reflecting social perception of goal directed actions, suggesting that similar processes are involved in social evaluations and social perception. Alternatively, it is possible that sociomoral evaluation and cognition capacities specifically serve as building blocks for social development and future social functioning. This account views WWHR as a measure of infants’ moral evaluation, which is more than a collection of lower-level socio-cognitive components. This explanation emphasizes the importance of moral evaluation in social life, which is in line with previous studies showing the adaptive values of moral evaluation (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Henrich & Henrich, 2007; Joyce, 2006; Price, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2002). The results of the present study suggest that the links between WWHR and parent-report preschool social functioning could not be explained by lower-level cognitive abilities, which offers preliminary support for the second account. Nevertheless, to further tease apart these two possibilities, future studies need to incorporate measures of other infant socio-cognitive skills (e.g., theory of mind). If the effect of WWHR can be fully explained by these lower-level socio-cognitive components, the first account will be supported. If WWHR predicts social functioning over and above its key components, the second account will be supported. The present study also sheds light on the validity of infant sociomoral evaluation studies. Although a number of studies have shown sociomoral evaluations in preverbal infants, some researchers argued that infants’ preferences in moral evaluation tasks reflect low-level perceptual matching as opposed to social judgments (Scarf, Imuta, Colombo, & Hayne, 2012). The results of the present study offer evidence for the social judgment 33  account, as the low-level association account falls short of explaining the domain-specific nature of the associations found in the present study. Specifically, if infants’ performance on moral evaluation tasks only reflected infants’ abilities to match low-level valence, there should not have been a relationship between WWHR and parent-report preschool social functioning after controlling for habituation rate as a measure of general cognitive performance. It is worth noting that although we found main effects of WWHR in predicting parent-report preschool attention problems (CBCL Attention Problems) and social responsiveness problems (SRS and Vineland Communication), we only found a Gender × WWHR interaction in predicting parent-report preschool callousness-unemotional traits (ICU). One explanation for this gender difference is the restriction of range of empathy in female preschoolers. As is well documented in research literature, females tend to show more empathic responses than males (Hoffman, 1977; Mestre, Samper, Frías, & Tur, 2009). It is possible that there was a ceiling effect of empathy in females, resulting in a lack of variance in dependent variable and hence a weaker association.  We found similar Gender × WWHR interactions across several measures, including CBCL Attention Problems, SRS Total, ICU Total, Average Vineland, and Average CBCL. These interactions showed the same patterns: stronger relationships in males than in females. Given that previous studies have showed gender differences in attention problems (Arcia & Conners, 1998; Gaub & Carlson, 1997; Gershon & Gershon, 2002), social responsiveness problems (Baron-Cohen, 2002), and theory of mind (Charman et al., 2002), the “restriction of range” account may also apply to these measures. It remains a task for future studies, however, to pinpoint the developmental mechanisms (e.g., parenting styles, 34  peer relationships) underlying these gender differences. The current study joins previous research in showing the developmental continuity in temperament.  Specifically, infants’ reactivity and emotional stability in the laboratory, as measured by fuss-out rate, was correlated with parent report of preschool anxiety, depression, and withdrawal. It is noteworthy that the measurement of temperament in the present study was different from Kagan and Snidman (1991) in two ways: First, the variable was collected in more naturalistic and less controlled settings. Whereas Kagan and Snidman (1991) measured infant temperament with a standardized procedure, fuss-out rate reflects infants’ reactivity across various settings (e.g., waiting room, study room). Second, fuss-out rate was collected over an extended period of time. Since fuss-out rate examines infants’ behaviors across visits, which were scheduled at least one month apart from each other, and because each infant, on average, visited the lab 3.23 times, fuss-out rate in the current study reflected infants’ reactive behaviors over a long period of time. The developmental relationships found in the present study speak to the validity of this measure. Future study can further explore the use of fuss-out rate as a measure of infant temperament. Interestingly, we did not find significant relationship between Average Study Complexity and WWHR. One explanation is that the average complexity score calculated in this way failed to reflect the difficulty of the tasks. In the present study, we gave each complexity factor equal weight. A new calculation method that assigns different weights to different factors may be more effective in describing the difficulty of tasks. Alternatively, the absence of relationship may reflect a systematic difference between infants and adults and between moral scenario analysis and moral evaluation. When adults 35  describe the complexity of scenarios, they tend to engage in explicit and analytic thinking, identifying complexity factors, evaluating each factor, assigning weights, and adding up values. In contract, infants, when evaluating characters, tend to (and may only be able to) engage in implicit, intuitive, and holistic thinking. Therefore, complexity factors identified by adults may not apply to infants. Future research can further test these two explanations. Several aspects of the study design had added noise to our variables and harmed the effect sizes, such as variance in experimenters, lab settings, and experimental designs. The fact that the developmental relationships observed held despite these disadvantageous factors speaks to their robustness. On the other hand, the results should also be received in light of several study weaknesses. First, the present study used a correlational design, which prevents us from making any causal conclusions. For example, it is possible that the associations between WWHR and parent report of social functioning could reflect causal relationship between infant moral evaluation and future social functioning. Alternatively, the associations might be caused by a third variable (e.g., SES, parenting style) that influences both infant and preschool variables. Future studies can address this issue by employing more controlled methods. Second, the present study measured preschool social functioning through parent report, which is prone to bias. It is possible that the relationships found in the study reflect parent characteristics; for example, supportive parents may tend to have children who perform better in infant moral evaluation tasks. These parents, when filling out preschool questionnaires, tend to interpret their children’s behaviors in positive ways, ignoring their children’s problems. Future studies can address this issue by using behavioral tasks, rather than parent report, to measure preschool social functioning. 36  Another concern is the study’s sample size and sample characteristics.  Due to time and financial restrictions, we only had a limited number of participants (N = 44). Also, the sample of the study did not quite map onto the demographics of the general population; most of the participants were Caucasian children from upper middle class families living in an urban area. It is also worth mentioning that our sample included one child whose parent reported him to be diagnosed with ASD. We included this child in our analyses so that the conclusions of the study can apply to both normal and clinical population. Currently, data collection for the present project is still underway. We hope that by increasing the sample size and taking into account these methodological issues, future studies will offer us a better insight into the developmental trajectory of social functioning.                37  References Achenbach, T. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3 and 1992 profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. Achenbach, T., Edelbrock, C., & Howell, C. (1987). Empirically based assessment of the behavioral/emotional problems of 2-and 3-year-old children. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 15(4), 629-650.  Achenbach, T., & Rescorla, L. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families. Aknin, L. B., Broesch, T., Hamlin, J. K., & Van de Vondervoort, J. W. (in press). Prosocial behavior leads to happiness in a small-scale rural society. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.  Arcia, E., & Conners, K. (1998). Gender differences in ADHD? Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 19(2), 77-83.  Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(6), 248-254.  Behne, T., Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Unwilling versus unable: Infants' understanding of intentional action. Developmental psychology, 41(2), 328 - 337.  Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., Doyle, A., Lehman, B. K., Kraus, I., Perrin, J., & Tsuang, M. T. (1993). Convergence of the Child Behavior Checklist with structured interview-based psychiatric diagnoses of ADHD children with and without comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34(7), 1241-1251.  Bloom, P. (2012). Moral nativism and moral psychology. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 71-89). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Bölte, S., & Poustka, F. (2002). The relation between general cognitive level and adaptive behavior domains in individuals with autism with and without co-morbid mental retardation. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 33(2), 165-172.  Bölte, S., Poustka, F., & Constantino, J. (2008). Assessing autistic traits: Cross‐cultural validation of the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Autism Research, 1(6), 354-363.  Bölte, S., Westerwald, E., Holtmann, M., Freitag, C., & Poustka, F. (2011). Autistic traits and autism spectrum disorders: The clinical validity of two measures presuming a continuum of social communication skills. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 41(1), 66-72.  Bornstein, M. H. (1985). Habituation of attention as a measure of visual information processing in human infants: Summary, systematization, and synthesis. In G. Gottlieb & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Measurement of audition and vision in the first year of postnatal life: A methodological overview. (pp. 253-300). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing. Bornstein, M. H., & Benasich, A. A. (1986). Infant habituation: Assessments of individual differences and short-term reliability at five months. Child development, 57(1), 87-99.  38  Bornstein, M. H., Pêcheux, M.-G., & Lécuyer, R. (1988). Visual habituation in human infants: Development and rearing circumstances. Psychological Research, 50(2), 130-133.  Bornstein, M. H., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1994). Antecedents of information-processing skills in infants: Habituation, novelty responsiveness, and cross-modal transfer. Infant Behavior and Development, 17(4), 371-380.  Brandone, A., & Wellman, H. (2009). You can't always get what you want: Infants understand failed goal-directed actions. Psychological Science, 20(1), 85-91.  Brody, L. R. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: A review of theories and research. Journal of Personality, 53(2), 102-149.  Buon, M., Jacob, P., Margules, S., Brunet, I., Dutat, M., Cabrol, D., & Dupoux, E. (2014). Friend or foe? Early social evaluation of human interactions. PLoS One, 9(2), e88612.  Burns, M. P., & Sommerville, J. (2014). “I pick you”: The impact of fairness and race on infants’ selection of social partners. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 93. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00093 Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological review, 106(4), 676 - 713.  Calkins, S. D., Fox, N. A., & Marshall, T. R. (1996). Behavioral and physiological antecedents of inhibited and uninhibited behavior. Child development, 67(2), 523-540.  Charman, T., Ruffman, T., & Clements, W. (2002). Is there a gender difference in false belief development? Social Development, 11(1), 1-10.  Cicchetti, D., & Sparrow, S. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American journal of mental deficiency, 86(2), 127-137.  Cleckley, H. M. (1976). The mask of sanity (5 Ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Coll, C. G., Kagan, J., & Reznick, J. S. (1984). Behavioral inhibition in young children. Child development, 55(3), 1005-1019.  Constantino, J., Davis, S., Todd, R., Schindler, M., Gross, M., Brophy, S., . . . Reich, W. (2003). Validation of a brief quantitative measure of autistic traits: Comparison of the social responsiveness scale with the autism diagnostic interview-revised. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 33(4), 427-433.  Constantino, J., & Gruber, C. (2005). Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Constantino, J., Gruber, C., Davis, S., Hayes, S., Passanante, N., & Przybeck, T. (2004). The factor structure of autistic traits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(4), 719-726.  Constantino, J., Hudziak, J., & Todd, R. (2003). Deficits in reciprocal social behavior in male twins: Evidence for a genetically independent domain of psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(4), 458-467.  Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J.Barkow, L.Cosmides & J.Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). New York: Oxford University Press. 39  Deckner, C. W., Soraci, S. A., Deckner, P. O., & Blanton, R. L. (1981). Consistency among commonly used procedures for assessment of abnormal children. Journal of clinical psychology, 37(4), 856-862.  Eisenberg, N. (1989). The development of prosocial values. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski & W. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values: Individual and social perspectives. (pp. 87-103). Hillsdale,  NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13(4), 454-469.  Ezpeleta, L., Osa, N. d. l., Granero, R., Penelo, E., & Domènech, J. M. (2013). Inventory of callous-unemotional traits in a community sample of preschoolers. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(1), 91-105.  Fox, N. A., & Henderson, H. A. (1999). Does infancy matter? Predicting social behavior from infant temperament. Infant Behavior and Development, 22(4), 445-455.  Freeman, B., Ritvo, E. R., Yokota, A., Childs, J., & Pollard, J. (1988). WISC‐R and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale Scores in Autistic Children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27(4), 428-429.  Frick, P. (2003). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. University of New Orleans. New Orleans, LA.  Frick, P., Marsee, M., & Patrick, C. (2006). Psychopathy and developmental pathways to antisocial behavior in youth. In C.J.Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 353-375). New York: Guilford Press. Frick, P., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous‐unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 359-375.  Gaub, M., & Carlson, C. L. (1997). Gender differences in ADHD: A meta-analysis and critical review. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(8), 1036-1045.  Geraci, A., & Surian, L. (2011). The developmental roots of fairness: Infants’ reactions to equal and unequal distributions of resources. Developmental Science, 14(5), 1012-1020.  Gershon, J., & Gershon, J. (2002). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in ADHD. Journal of attention disorders, 5(3), 143-154.  Gredebäck, G., Kaduk, K., Bakker, M., Gottwald, J., Ekberg, T., Elsner, C., . . . Kenward, B. (2015). The neuropsychology of infants’ pro-social preferences. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 12, 106-113.  Hamlin, K. (2013a). Moral judgment and action in preverbal infants and toddlers: Evidence for an innate moral core. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 186-193.  Hamlin, K. (2013b). Failed attempts to help and harm: Intention versus outcome in preverbal infants’ social evaluations. Cognition, 128(3), 451-474.  Hamlin, K. (2014). Context-dependent social evaluation in 4.5-month-old human infants: The role of domain-general versus domain-specific processes in the development of social evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 614.  Hamlin, K. (2015). The case for social evaluation in preverbal infants: Gazing toward one’s goal drives infants’ preferences for Helpers over Hinderers in the hill paradigm. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1563.  40  Hamlin, K., & Baron, A. S. (2014). Agency attribution in infancy: Evidence for a negativity bias. PLoS One, 9(5), e96112.  Hamlin, K., Mahajan, N., Liberman, Z., & Wynn, K. (2013). Not like me= bad infants prefer those who harm dissimilar others. Psychological Science, 24(4), 589-594.  Hamlin, K., Ullman, T., Tenenbaum, J., Goodman, N., & Baker, C. (2013). The mentalistic basis of core social cognition: Experiments in preverbal infants and a computational model. Developmental Science, 16(2), 209-226.  Hamlin, K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development, 26(1), 30-39.  Hamlin, K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557-559.  Hamlin, K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2010). Three-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations. Developmental Science, 13(6), 923-929.  Hamlin, K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P., & Mahajan, N. (2011). How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 19931-19936.  Henrich, J., & Henrich, N. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological bulletin, 84(4), 712-722.  Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of pediatric psychology, 27(1), 87-96.  Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., Clarke, C., Snidman, N., & Garcia-Coll, C. (1984). Behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar. Child development, 55(6), 2212-2225.  Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1991). Temperamental factors in human development. American psychologist, 46(8), 856-862.  Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (1998). Childhood derivatives of high and low reactivity in infancy. Child development, 69(6), 1483-1493.  Kagan, J., Snidman, N., Zentner, M., & Peterson, E. (1999). Infant temperament and anxious symptoms in school age children. Development and Psychopathology, 11(02), 209-224.  Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Marsee, M. A., Cruise, K., Munoz, L. C., . . . Morris, A. S. (2008). Assessing callous–unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits. International journal of law and psychiatry, 31(3), 241-252.  Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16 [doctoral dissertation]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.  Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. The journal of philosophy, 70(18), 630-646.  Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. New York: Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral development. Human development, 12(2), 93-120.  41  Koot, H. M., Van Den Oord, E. J., Verhulst, F. C., & Boomsma, D. I. (1997). Behavioral and emotional problems in young preschoolers: Cross-cultural testing of the validity of the Child Behavior Checklist/2-3. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 25(3), 183-196.  Kristen, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Perst, H. (2011). Infants' joint attention skills predict toddlers' emerging mental state language. Developmental psychology, 47(5), 1207-1219.  Licata, M., Paulus, M., Kühn-Popp, N., Meinhardt, J., & Sodian, B. (2015). Infant frontal asymmetry predicts child emotional availability. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 0165025415576816.  Liss, M., Harel, B., Fein, D., Allen, D., Dunn, M., Feinstein, C., . . . Rapin, I. (2001). Predictors and correlates of adaptive functioning in children with developmental disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 31(2), 219-230.  Loveland, K. A., & Kelley, M. L. (1988). Development of adaptive behavior in adolescents and young adults with autism and Down syndrome. American journal of mental retardation: AJMR, 93(1), 84-92.  McCall, R. B., & Carriger, M. S. (1993). A meta‐analysis of infant habituation and recognition memory performance as predictors of later IQ. Child development, 64(1), 57-79.  Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Frías, M. D., & Tur, A. M. (2009). Are women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence. The Spanish journal of psychology, 12(01), 76-83.  Murray, M. J., Mayes, S. D., & Smith, L. A. (2011). Brief report: Excellent agreement between two brief autism scales (Checklist for Autism Spectrum Disorder and Social Responsiveness Scale) completed independently by parents and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 41(11), 1586-1590.  Paulus, M., Kühn-Popp, N., Licata, M., Sodian, B., & Meinhardt, J. (2013). Neural correlates of prosocial behavior in infancy: Different neurophysiological mechanisms support the emergence of helping and comforting. Neuroimage, 66, 522-530.  Paulus, M., Licata, M., Kristen, S., Thoermer, C., Woodward, A., & Sodian, B. (2015). Social understanding and self-regulation predict pre-schoolers’ sharing with friends and disliked peers A longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 53-64.  Perry, A., & Factor, D. C. (1989). Psychometric validity and clinical usefulness of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale for an autistic sample. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 19(1), 41-55.  Pfeifer, M., Goldsmith, H., Davidson, R. J., & Rickman, M. (2002). Continuity and change in inhibited and uninhibited children. Child development, 73(5), 1474-1485.  Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1962). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. Pine, E., Luby, J., Abbacchi, A., & Constantino, J. (2006). Quantitative assessment of autistic symptomatology in preschoolers. Autism, 10(4), 344-352.  42  Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1997). Infants attribute value±to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(6), 848-856.  Price, M. E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2002). Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 203-231.  Rodrigue, J. R., Morgan, S. B., & Geffken, G. R. (1991). A comparative evaluation of adaptive behavior in children and adolescents with autism, Down syndrome, and normal development. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 21(2), 187-196.  Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Decoene, S., Claes, L., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Assessing the affective features of psychopathy in adolescence: A further validation of the inventory of callous and unemotional traits. Assessment, 17(1), 44-57.  Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological bulletin, 132(1), 98-131.  Rutter, M. (1987). Temperament, personality, and personality disorder. The British journal of psychiatry, 150, 443-458.  Scarf, D., Imuta, K., Colombo, M., & Hayne, H. (2012). Golden Rule or valence matching? Methodological problems in Hamlin et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(22), E1426-E1426.  Schmidt, M., & Sommerville, J. (2011). Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PLoS One, 6(10), e23223.  Schwartz, C. E., Wright, C. I., Shin, L. M., Kagan, J., & Rauch, S. L. (2003). Inhibited and uninhibited infants" grown up": adult amygdalar response to novelty. Science, 300(5627), 1952-1953.  Sirois, S., & Mareschal, D. (2004). An interacting systems model of infant habituation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(8), 1352-1362.  Slater, A., Cooper, R., Rose, D., & Morison, V. (1989). Prediction of cognitive performance from infancy to early childhood. Human development, 32(3-4), 137-147.  Sloane, S., Baillargeon, R., & Premack, D. (2012). Do infants have a sense of fairness? Psychological Science, 23(2), 196-204.  Sparrow, S. (2011). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. In J. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 2618-2621). New York: Springer  Sparrow, S., Balla, D., Cicchetti, D., Harrison, P., & Doll, E. (1984). Vineland adaptive behavior scales (Survey Form). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Sparrow, S., Cicchetti, D., & Balla, D. (2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scales: (Vineland II), survey interview form/caregiver rating form. Livonia, MN: Pearson Assessments  Starr, A., Libertus, M. E., & Brannon, E. M. (2013). Number sense in infancy predicts mathematical abilities in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(45), 18116-18120.  Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Habituation and maternal encouragement of attention in infancy as predictors of toddler language, play, and representational competence. Child development, 60(3), 738-751.  43  Thoermer, C., Sodian, B., Vuori, M., Perst, H., & Kristen, S. (2012). Continuity from an implicit to an explicit understanding of false belief from infancy to preschool age. British journal of developmental psychology, 30(1), 172-187.  Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. New York: Cambridge University Press. Viding, E., Simmonds, E., Petrides, K., & Frederickson, N. (2009). The contribution of callous‐unemotional traits and conduct problems to bullying in early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(4), 471-481.  Volkmar, F., Sparrow, S., Goudreau, D., Cicchetti, D., Paul, R., & Cohen, D. (1987). Social deficits in autism: An operational approach using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(2), 156-161.  Wellman, H. M., Lopez-Duran, S., LaBounty, J., & Hamilton, B. (2008). Infant attention to intentional action predicts preschool theory of mind. Developmental psychology, 44(2), 618-623.  Wellman, H. M., Phillips, A. T., Dunphy‐Lelii, S., & LaLonde, N. (2004). Infant social attention predicts preschool social cognition. Developmental Science, 7(3), 283-288.  Woodward, A. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition, 69(1), 1-34.  Yamaguchi, M., Kuhlmeier, V. A., Wynn, K., & VanMarle, K. (2009). Continuity in social cognition from infancy to childhood. Developmental Science, 12(5), 746-752.  Young, L., & Dungan, J. (2012). Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe nowhere. Social neuroscience, 7(1), 1-10.            44  Appendices Appendix 1  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Friends Test Nice to Nice The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who helps a prosocial character versus a puppet who hinders a prosocial character. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who helped a prosocial character over the puppet who hindered a prosocial character. 1 0.89 Hamlin, 2014; Hamlin et al., 2011 Friends Test Mean to Mean The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who hinders an antisocial character versus a puppet who helps an antisocial character. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who hindered an antisocial character over the puppet who helped an antisocial character. 1 0.78 Hamlin, 2014; Hamlin et al., 2011 Failed Attempts 5 - Failed Hinder v Hinder The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to hinder a third party versus a puppet who successfully hinders a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to hinder a  third party over the puppet who successfully hindered a third party 1 0.38 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 5 - Failed Helper v Helper The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a puppet who successfully helps a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who successfully helped a third party over the puppet who tried but failed to help a third party 1 0.31 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 5 - Failed Helper v Neutral The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a neutral puppet who neither helps nor hinders We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to help a  third party over the neutral puppet 2 0.64 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 5 - Failed Hinderer v Neutral The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to We predicted that infants would prefer the neutral puppet over the puppet who 2 0.67 Hamlin, 2013b 45  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication hinder a third party versus a neutral puppet who neither helps nor hinders tried but failed to hinder a  third party Failed Attempts 5 - Failed Hinderer v Helper The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to hinder a third party versus a puppet who successfully helps a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who successfully helped a third party over a puppet who tried but failed to hinder a  third party 2 0.63 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 5 - Failed Helper v Hinderer The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a puppet who successfully hinders a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to help a third party over the puppet who successfully hindered a third party 2 0.50 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 5 - Helper v Hinderer (Replication) The study investigated how 5-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who successfully helps a third party versus a puppet who successfully hinders a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who successfully helped a  third party over the puppet who successfully hindered a third party 0 0.81 Hamlin, 2013b Mean Pig 5 - 2 Actors 1 Action Helper Test The study investigated whether 5-month-old infants would expect characters to treat others in consistent ways. Infants watched a puppet show in which one character helped a third party and another character hindered the third party in two scenarios. Later in a different scenario, both characters helped the third party. We predicted that infants would look longer at the character who changed his behaviors from hindering to helping rather then helped all along. 1 0.88  Agent Claw Test Mean The study investigated whether 6-month-old infants would attribute agency to a We predicted that infants would look longer to events in which the claw acted inconsistently with its 2 0.75 Hamlin & Baron, 2014; Woodward, 1998 46  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication mechanical claw that causes a negative outcome previous goal-directed act in the Woodward (1998) paradigm. Friendly Claw Mean/Neut  The study investigated whether 6-month-old infants would negatively evaluate a claw who blocked an agent’s goal.  We predicted that infants would choose a neutral, unknown claw over the hindering claw. 2 0.42  Friendly Claw Nice/Mean The study investigated whether 6-month-old infants would positively evaluate a claw who facilitated an agent’s goal. We predicted that infants would choose the helpful claw over a neutral, unknown claw. 1 0.30  Imitate Object Nice The study investigated whether 7-month-old infants would imitate the toy preference of a prosocial puppet We predicted infants would match the toy preference of the helpful puppet 0 0.66  Imitate Object Mean The study investigated whether 7-month-old infants would imitate the toy preference of an antisocial puppet.  We predicted infants would not match the toy preference of the unhelpful puppet.  0 1  Punexon Help-Neut The study investigated whether 8-month-old infants prefer a character who helps a third party stack objects on a platform over a neutral character who neither helps nor hinders.  We predicted that infants would prefer the helper over the neutral character. 1 0.50  FA 8 R/P with Fam: Helper Target The study, using a familiarization (rather than habituation) paradigm, investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to a failed helper We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was nice to a failed helper over the puppet who was mean to a failed helper. 2 0.50 Hamlin, 2013b 47  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication versus a puppet who is mean to a failed helper. FA 8 R/P with Fam: Hinderer Target The study, using a familiarization (rather than habituation) paradigm, investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to a failed hinderer versus a puppet who is mean to a failed hinderer. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was mean to a failed hinderer over the puppet who was nice to a failed hinderer 2 0.67 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Reward/Punish: Helper Target The study, using a habituation paradigm, investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to a failed helper versus a puppet who is mean to a failed helper. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was nice to a failed helper versus the puppet who was mean to a failed helper. 2 0.56 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Reward/Punish: Hinderer Target The study, using a habituation paradigm, investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to a failed hinderer versus a puppet who is mean to a failed hinderer. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was mean to a failed hinderer versus the puppet who was nice to a failed hinderer 2 0.63 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Failed Helper v Hinderer The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a puppet who successfully hinders a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to help a third party over a puppet who successfully hindered a third party 1 0.88 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Failed Hinderer v Helper The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to hinder a third party versus a puppet who successfully helps a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who successfully helped a third party over the puppet who tried but failed to hinder a  third party 1 0.88 Hamlin, 2013b 48  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication FA 8 Failed Helper v Neutral The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a neutral puppet who neither helps nor hinders We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to help a  third party over the neutral puppet 2 0.50 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Failed Hinderer v Neutral The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to hinder a third party versus a neutral puppet who neither helps nor hinders We predicted that infants would prefer the neutral puppet over the puppet who tried but failed to hinder a  third party 2 0.40 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Failed Helper v Failed Hinderer The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a puppet who tries but fails to hinder a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to help a  third party over the puppet who tried but failed to hinder a third party 1 0.88 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Failed Hinderer v Hinderer The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to hinder a third party versus a puppet who successfully hinders a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who tried but failed to hinder a  third party over the puppet who successfully hindered a third party 1 0.44 Hamlin, 2013b FA 8 Failed Helper v Helper The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who tries but fails to help a third party versus a puppet who successfully helps a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who successfully helped a third party over the puppet who tried but failed to help a third party 1 0.63 Hamlin, 2013b MonkeyBox Replication The study investigated how 8-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who helps a third party open a box versus a puppet who hinders a third party from opening the box We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who helped a third party open a box over the puppet who hindered a third party from opening the box 0 0.92 Hamlin & Wynn, 2011 49  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Actova 9 (Inconsistent/Consistent) The study investigated whether 9-month-old infants take consistency into account when evaluating others' moral behaviors. Infants watched puppet shows in which one character constantly helped/hindered a third party while the other character acted in inconsistent ways toward a third party - sometimes helped; at other times hindered  We predicted that infants would prefer the consistently nice puppet over the inconsistent puppet, and the inconsistent puppet over the consistently mean puppet. 1 0.52  Actova Dimorphic The study, using more distinguishable puppets, investigated whether 9-month-old infants take consistency into account when evaluating others' moral behaviors. Infants watched puppet shows in which one character constantly helped/hindered a third party while the other character acted in inconsistent ways toward a third party - sometimes helped; at other times hindered We predicted that infants would prefer the consistently nice puppet over the inconsistent puppet, and the inconsistent puppet over the consistently mean puppet. 1 0.58  FAE Confusion Test The study investigated how 9-month-old infants evaluate a character who is non-causally associated with a negative outcome versus a character who is causally associated with a negative outcome We predicted that infants would prefer the character who was non-causally associated with a negative outcome over the character who was causally associated with a negative outcome 2 0.75  50  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Bullies IG Mean, OG Nice The study investigated how 9-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who shares similar food preferences with them but hinders a third party versus a puppet who has a different food preference but helps a third party We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who showed a different food preference but helped a third party over the puppet who shared similar food preferences but hindered a third party 2 0.63 Hamlin, Mahajan, et al., 2013 Accidents Helping- No Knowledge The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who intentionally helps a third party versus a puppet who accidentally helps a third party without knowing the third party's goals We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who intentionally helped a third party over the puppet who accidentally helped a third party without knowing the third party's goals 1 0.70  Accidents Harming- No Knowledge The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who intentionally hinders a third party versus a puppet who accidentally hinders a third party without knowing the third party's goals We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who inadvertently and accidentally hindered a third party over the puppet who intentionally hindered a third party 1 0.72  Accidents Helping- Knowledge The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who intentionally helps a third party versus a puppet who, knowing the third party's goals, accidentally helps the third party  We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who intentionally helped a third party over the puppet who, knowing the third party's goals, accidentally helped the third party 1 0.64  Accidents Harming- Knowledge The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who intentionally hinders a third party versus a puppet who, knowing the third party's We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who accidentally hindered a third party (while knowing his goals) over the puppet who 1 0.61  51  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication goals, accidentally hinders the third party intentionally hindered a third party Greed Giving - 10 The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate givers who are more versus less greedy. This was defined by whether the givers had two or only one object to start.  We predicted that infants would prefer the generous giver (who gave away his only object) versus the ungenerous giver (who gave away one of his two objects) 1 0.71  Greed Taking - 10 The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate takers who are more versus less greedy. This was defined by whether the takers had one or no objects to start. We predicted that infants would prefer the ungreedy taker (who had no objects and took one) versus the greedy taker (who already had an object) 1 0.53  Same Action Know-Pref The study investigated how 10-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who lifts a door blocking a third party’s preferred object versus a puppet who lifts a door blocking the third party’s non-preferred object. Both puppets are aware of the third party's preference. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who lifted the door blocking the third party's preferred object over the puppet who lifted the door blocking the non-preferred object. 1 0.80 Hamlin, Ullman, et al., 2013 Mean Pig 2Actors1Action Helping Test Same Protagonist The study investigated whether 10-month-old infants expect characters to treat others in consistent ways. Infants watched a puppet show in which one character helped a third party and another character hindered the third party in two scenarios. Later in a different scenario, both characters helped the third party. We predicted that infants would look longer at the character who changed his behaviors from hindering to helping rather than helped all along.  1 0.94  52  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Mean Pig 2Actors1Action Hindering Test Same Protagonist The study investigated whether 10-month-old infants expect characters to treat others in consistent ways. Infants watched a puppet show in which one character helped a third party and another character hindered the third party in two scenarios. Later in a different scenario, both characters hindered the third party.  We predicted that infants would look longer at the character who changed his behaviors from helping to hindering rather than hindered all along.  1 0.94  Personality Original Helper Switch Protagonist The study investigated whether 10-month-old infants expect puppets to treat different agents in similar ways. Infants watched a puppet show in which one character helped an agent and another character hindered the agent in one scenario. Then in a different scenario, both characters helped a different agent. We predicted that infants would look longer when the helper hindered versus helped a new protagonist. 1 0.43  Personality Original Hinderer Switch Protagonist The study investigated whether 10-month-old infants expect puppets to treat different agents in similar ways. Infants watched a puppet show in which one character helped an agent and another character hindered the agent in one scenario. Then in a different scenario, both characters hindered a different agent. We predicted that infants would look longer when the hinderer helped versus hindered a new protagonist. 1 0.54  53  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Personality Same Protagonist Actors Helper  The study investigated whether 11-month-old infants expect characters to treat others in consistent ways. Infants watched a puppet show in which one character helped a third party and another character hindered the third party in one scenario. Later in a different scenario, both characters helped the third party. We predicted that infants would look longer when the helper hindered versus helped the same protagonist. 1 1  Actova 13 - 2 Hinder 1 Target The study investigated whether 13-month-old infants believe that being hindered by more than one puppet indicates an agent’s negative traits. Infants watched a puppet show in which one puppet was hindered by two puppets. We predicted that infants would prefer a novel puppet over the puppet who was hindered by two other puppets. 1 0.58  Failed Attempts 13 - Failed Helper The study, using a familiarization paradigm, investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to a failed helper versus a puppet who is mean to a failed helper. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was nice to a failed helper over the puppet who was mean to a failed helper. 2 0.72 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 13 - Failed Hinderer The study, using a familiarization paradigm, investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to a failed hinderer versus a puppet who is mean to a failed hinderer. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was mean to a failed hinderer over the puppet who was nice to a failed hinderer 2 0.63 Hamlin, 2013b 54  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Failed Attempts 13 - Control Failed Helper The study investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to the target of failed helping versus a puppet who is mean to the target of failed helping. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was nice to the target of failed helping over the puppet who was mean to the target of failed helping. 2 0.67 Hamlin, 2013b Failed Attempts 13 - Control Failed Hinderer The study investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who is nice to the target of failed hindering versus a puppet who is mean to the target of failed hindering. We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who was nice to the target of failed hindering over the puppet who was mean to the target of failed hindering. 2 0.57 Hamlin, 2013b Omission Helping-13 The study investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a character who has the ability to help but refuses to help versus a neutral (novel) character. We predicted that infants would prefer the neutral (novel) puppet over the character who had the ability to help but refused to help 2 0.75  Omission Helping13 2 The study investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a character who stops doing an action that would have ended up helping a puppet. We predicted that infants would prefer the neutral (novel) puppet over the character who stopped doing an action that would help. 2 0.73  Omission Hindering13 The study investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a character who stops doing an action that would have ended up hindering a puppet. We predicted that infants would prefer the character who stopped doing an action that would hinder over a neutral puppet.  2 0.63  Omission Hindering13 2 The study investigated how 13-month-old infants evaluate a character who stops doing an action that would have ended up hindering a puppet. We predicted that infants would prefer the character who stopped doing an action that would hinder over a neutral puppet.  2 0.54  55  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Bullies 14 - Target 1 Situation IG  The study investigated how 14.5-month-old infants evaluate an agent who is helped by a puppet who shares similar food preference with them versus an agent who is hindered by the puppet We predicted that infants would prefer the agent who was helped by a puppet who shared similar food preference with them over the agent who was hindered by the puppet 1 0.33 Hamlin, Mahajan, et al., 2013 Bullies 14 - Target 1 Situation OG  The study investigated how 14.5-month-old infants evaluate an agent who is helped by a puppet who has different food preference from them versus an agent who is hindered by the puppet We predicted that infants would prefer the agent who was hindered by a puppet who did not share similar food preference with them over the agent who was helped by the puppet 1 0.33 Hamlin, Mahajan, et al., 2013 Bullies 14 - Target 2 Situations IG  The study, using different moral scenarios, investigated how 14.5-month-old infants evaluate an agent who is helped by a puppet who shares similar food preference with them versus an agent who is hindered by the puppet We predicted that infants would prefer the agent who was helped by a puppet who shared similar food preference with them over the agent who was hindered by the puppet 1 0.88 Hamlin, Mahajan, et al., 2013 Ownership 1 Giving The study investigated whether 15-mo-old infants take into account ownership status when evaluating giving behaviors. Infants watched a puppet show in which an owner gave his ball to a third party and a non-owner gave a ball that did not belong to him to a third party. We reasoned that an owner who gives his possessions to others is considered more generous than a non-owner who gives public goods to others. Therefore, we predicted that infants would prefer the owner over the non-owner. 1 0.72  Ownership 1 Taking The study investigated whether 15-mon-old infants We reasoned that taking one's own possessions back 1 0.65  56  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication take into account ownership status when evaluating taking behaviors. Infants watched a puppet show in which an owner took his ball from a third party and a non-owner took a ball that did not belong to him from a third party. is considered more justifiable than taking public goods away. Therefore, we predicted that infants would prefer the owner over the non-owner. Greed Taking - 15 The study investigated how 15-month-old infants evaluate takers who are more versus less greedy. This was defined by whether the takers had one or no objects to start. We predicted that infants would prefer the ungreedy taker (who had no objects and took one) versus the greedy taker (who already had an object) 1 0.58  Tools The study investigated how 16-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who helps a third party get a toy off a shelf versus a puppet who hinders the third party We predicted that infants would prefer the helper over the hinderer. 0 0.71  Mislabelers Both Mean The study investigated how 16-month-old infants believe puppets who accurately versus inaccurately label objects will behave. We predicted that infants would look longer when the accurate labeler was mean than when the inaccurate labeler was mean 1 0.50  Mislabelers Both Nice The study investigated how 16-month-old infants believe puppets who accurately versus inaccurately label objects will behave. We predicted that infants would look longer when the inaccurate labeler was nice than when the accurate labeler was nice 1 0.25  Accidents 18 (Helping) The study investigated how 18-month-old infants evaluate a puppet who intentionally helps a third party versus a puppet who, knowing the third party's We predicted that infants would prefer the puppet who intentionally helped a third party over the puppet who, knowing the third party's 1 0.25  57  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication goals, accidentally helps the third party  goals, accidentally helped the third party Omission Helping18 1 The study investigated how 18-month-old infants evaluate a character who has the ability to help but refuses to help versus a neutral (novel) character. We predicted that infants would prefer the neutral (novel) puppet over the character who had the ability to help but refused to help 1 1  Omission Helping18 2 The study investigated how 18-month-old infants evaluate a character who stops doing an action that would have ended up helping a puppet. We predicted that infants would prefer a neutral (novel) puppet over the character who stopped doing an action that would help. 1 0.25  GGBG Original Good Choice The study investigated how 19-month-old infants respond to verbal moral questions. Infants first watched prosocial and antisocial events and were then asked to pick out the nice character. We predicted that infants would be able to pick out the prosocial character. 0 0.72  GGBG Original Bad Choice The study investigated how 19-month-old infants respond to verbal moral questions. Infants first watched prosocial and antisocial events and were then asked to pick out the mean character. We predicted that infants would be able to pick out the anti-social character. 0 0.72  GGBG Hill Version Good Choice The study, using hill stimuli from Hamlin et al. (2007), investigated how 19-month-old infants respond to verbal moral questions. Infants first watched prosocial and antisocial events and were We predicted that infants would be able to pick out the prosocial character. 0 0.57 Hamlin et al. 2007 58  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication then asked to pick out the prosocial character. GGBG Hill Version Bad Choice The study, using hill stimuli from Hamlin et al. (2007),  investigated how 19-month-old infants respond to verbal moral questions. Infants first watched prosocial and antisocial events and were then asked to pick out the mean character. We predicted that infants would be able to pick out the anti-social character. 0 0.57 Hamlin et al. 2007 GGBG Video Hill Version The study, using a video version of the hill stimuli from Hamlin et al. (2007), investigated how 19-month-old infants respond to verbal moral questions. Infants first watched prosocial and antisocial events and were then asked to identify the mean character and the nice character.  We predicted that infants would be able to identify the anti-social character and the prosocial character. 0 0.57 Hamlin et al. 2007 Preferences 22%Nice The study investigated whether 20-month-olds would give a nice character her preferred object when the character's preference is clear (because she consistently chooses a minority object from a box) We predicted that infants would give the nice character her preferred object. 1 0.73  Preferences 22% Mean The study investigated whether 20-month-olds would give a mean character her preferred object when the character's preference is clear (because she consistently chooses a minority object from a box) We predicted that infants would not give the mean character her preferred object. 1 0.55  59  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Preferences 78%Nice The study investigated whether 20-month-olds would give a nice character her preferred object when the character's preference is ambiguous (because she consistently chooses the majority object from the box). We predicted that infants would give the nice character her preferred object. 1 0.74  Preferences 78%Mean The study investigated whether 20-month-olds would give a mean character her preferred object when the character's preference is ambiguous (because she consistently chooses the majority object from the box). We predicted that infants would not give the mean character her preferred object. 1 0.53  Reward/Punish Reward Target Nice The study investigated whether 21-year-olds would give treats to a character who was nice to a nice character versus to a character who was mean to a nice character. We predicted that 21-year-olds would give treats to the helper of the nice character. 2 0.67 Hamlin et al., 2011 Reward/Punish Reward Target Mean The study investigated whether 21-year-olds would give treats to a character who was mean to a mean character versus to a character who was nice to a mean character. We predicted that 21-year-olds would give treats to the hinderer of the mean character. 2 1 Hamlin et al., 2011 Reward/Punish Punish Target Mean The study investigated whether 21-year-olds would take resources from a character who was mean to a mean character versus to a character who was nice to a mean character. We predicted that 21-year-olds would take resources from the helper of the mean character 2 1 Hamlin et al., 2011 60  Study (Condition) Name Research question Predicted outcome Complexity Effect Size Relevant Publication Who Helps Test The study investigated whether 22-year-olds would seek help from a helpful character or an unhelpful character We predicted that 22-year-olds would seek help from the helpful character rather than from the unhelpful character 0 0.86  Who Helps Control 2 The study investigated whether 22-year-olds would seek help from a character who shares similar food preferences with them or a character who does not share food preferences with them We predicted that 22-year-olds would seek help from the character who shared similar food preferences with them  0 0.85  Sharing 2 (NiceMeanNeutral) The study investigated whether 23-year-olds are happier when giving resources to a prosocial character versus to an antisocial character We predicted that 23-year-olds would show more signs of happiness when giving resources to a prosocial character versus to an antisocial character 0 0.75 Aknin, Broesch, Hamlin, & Van de Vondervoort, in press Sharing The study investigated whether 23-year-olds show more signs of happiness when they engage in costly sharing (versus non-costly sharing) We predicted that 23-year-olds would show more signs of happiness when they engaged in costly sharing (versus non-costly sharing) 0 0.45 Aknin et al., in press         61  Appendix 2  Scale Dimension Sample Item SRS Social awareness Walk in between two people who are talking. Social cognition Don’t recognize when others are trying to take advantage of him/her. Social communication Avoids eye contact, or has unusual eye contact. Social motivation Seems much more fidgety in social situations than when alone. Restricted and repetitive behaviors Behaves in ways which seem strange or bizarre. ICU Unemotional Does not show emotions. Callousness Does not care about being on time. Uncaring Seems motivated to do his/her best in structured activities (reverse-coded). CBCL—Preschool Emotionally Reactive Disturbed by any change in routine. Anxious/Depressed Clings to adults or too dependent. Withdrawn Avoids looking others in the eye. Attention Problems Can’t concentrate, can’t play attention for long. Aggressive Behavior Can’t stand waiting; wants everything now. Vineland II Receptive (Communication) Turns eyes and head toward sound. Expressive (Communication) Cries or fusses when hungry or wet. 62  Scale Dimension Sample Item Written (Communication) Identifies one or more alphabet letters as letters and distinguishes them from numbers. Interpersonal Relationships (Socialization) Looks at face of parent or caregiver. Play and Leisure Time (Socialization) Responds when parent or caregiver is playful (for example, smiles, laughs, claps hands, etc.). Coping Skills (Socialization) Changes easily from one at-home activity to another.       

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0166491/manifest

Comment

Related Items