Socially evaluative contexts facilitate mentalizing

Woo, B. M., Tan, E., Yuen, F. L, & Hamlin, J. K.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Month 2022, 

Vol. xx, No. xx

Abstract

Our ability to understand others’ minds stands at the foundation of human learning, communication, cooperation, and social life more broadly. Although humans’ ability to mentalize has been well-studied throughout the cognitive sciences, little attention has been paid to whether and how mentalizing differs across contexts. Classic developmental studies have examined mentalizing within minimally social contexts, in which a single agent seeks a neutral inanimate object. Such object-directed acts may be common, but they are typically consequential only to the object-seeking agent themselves. Here, we review a host of indirect evidence suggesting that contexts providing the opportunity to evaluate prospective social partners may facilitate mentalizing across development. Our article calls on cognitive scientists to study mentalizing in contexts where it counts.

Highlights

Cognitive scientists have long studied the origins of our ability to mentalize. Remarkably little is known, however, about whether there are particular contexts where humans are more likely to mentalize.

We propose that mentalizing is facilitated in contexts where others’ actions shed light on their status as a good or bad social partner. Mentalizing within socially evaluative contexts supports effective partner choice.

Our proposal is based on three lines of evidence. First, infants leverage their understanding of others’ mental states to evaluate others’ social actions. Second, infants, children, and adults demonstrate enhanced mentalizing within socially evaluative contexts. Third, infants, children, and adults are especially likely to mentalize when agents cause negative outcomes.  Direct tests of this proposal will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of human mentalizing.

Concluding remarks

Mental state reasoning is not only used for social evaluation, but may be facilitated, and even overactivated, when humans engage in social evaluation. Human infants begin mentalizing in socially evaluative contexts as soon as they do so in nonevaluative contexts, if not earlier, and mental state representations across human development may be stronger in socially evaluative contexts, particularly when there are negative outcomes. This opinion article supports the possibility that mentalizing is privileged within socially evaluative contexts, perhaps due to its key role in facilitating the selection of appropriate cooperative partners. Effective partner choice may provide a strong foundation upon which humans’ intensely interdependent and cooperative nature can flourish.

The work cited herein is highly suggestive, and more work is clearly needed to further explore this possibility (see Outstanding questions). We have mostly reviewed and compared data across experiments that have studied mentalizing in either socially evaluative or nonevaluative contexts, pulling from a wide range of ages and methods; to our knowledge, no research has directly compared both socially evaluative and nonevaluative contexts within the same experiment.  Experiments using stringent minimal contrast designs would provide stronger tests of our central claims. In addition to such experiments, in the same way that meta-analyses have explored other predictors of mentalizing, we call on future researchers to conduct meta-analyses of findings that come from socially evaluative and nonevaluative contexts. We look forward to such research, which together will move us towards a more comprehensive understanding of humans’ early mentalizing.

A pdf is here.

Changing impressions in competence-oriented domains: The primacy of morality endures

A. Luttrella, S. Sacchib, & M. Brambillab

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volume 98, January 2022, 104246

Abstract

The Moral Primacy Model proposes that throughout the multiple stages of developing impressions of others, information about the target's morality is more influential than information about their competence or sociability. Would morality continue to exert outsized influence on impressions in the context of a decision for which people view competence as the most important attribute? In three experiments, we used an impression updating paradigm to test how much information about a target's morality versus competence changed perceivers' impressions of a job candidate. Despite several pilot studies in which people said they would prioritize competence over morality when deciding to hire a potential employee, results of the main studies reveal that impressions changed more when people received new information about a target's immorality than about his incompetence. This moral primacy effect held both for global impressions and willingness to hire the target, but direct effects on evaluations of the target as an employee did not consistently emerge. When the new information about the target was positive, we did not reliably observe a moral primacy effect. These findings provide important insight on the generalizability of moral primacy in impression updating.

Highlights

• People reported that hiring decisions should favor competence over morality.

• Impressions of a job candidate changed more based on his morality (vs. competence).

• Moral primacy in this context emerged only when the new information was negative.

• Moral primacy occurred for general impressions more than hiring-specific judgments.

Conclusion

In sum, we tested the boundaries of moral primacy and found that even in a context where other dimensions could dominate, information about a job candidate's immorality continued to have disproportionate influence on general impressions of him and evaluations of his suitability as an employee. However, our findings further show that the relative effect of negative moral versus competence information on domain-specific judgments tended to be smaller than effects on general impressions. In addition, unlike prior research on impression updating (Brambilla et al., 2019), we observed no evidence for moral primacy in this context when the new information was positive (although this pattern may be indicative of a more general valence asymmetry in the effects of morally relevant information). Together, these findings provide an important extension of the Moral Primacy Model but also provide useful insight on the generalizability of the effect.

The research is here.

Moral masters or moral apprentices? A connectionist account of sociomoral evaluation in preverbal infants

Benton, D. T., & Lapan, C. 

(2021, February 21). 

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mnh35

Abstract

Numerous studies suggest that preverbal infants possess the ability to make sociomoral judgements and demonstrate a preference for prosocial agents. Some theorists argue that infants possess an “innate moral core” that guides their sociomoral reasoning. However, we propose that infants’ capacity for putative sociomoral evaluation and reasoning can just as likely be driven by a domain-general associative-learning mechanism that is sensitive to agent action. We implement this theoretical account in a connectionist computational model and show that it can account for the pattern of results in Hamlin et al. (2007), Hamlin and Wynn (2011), Hamlin (2013), and Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, and Mahajan (2011). These are pioneering studies in this area and were among the first to examine sociomoral evaluation in preverbal infants. Based on the results of 5 computer simulations, we suggest that an associative-learning mechanism—instantiated as a computational (connectionist) model—can account for previous findings on preverbal infants’ capacity for sociomoral evaluation. These results suggest that an innate moral core may not be necessary to account for sociomoral evaluation in infants.

From the General Discussion

The simulations suggest the preverbal infants’ reliable choice of helpers over hinderers inHamlin et al. (2007), Hamlin and Wynn (2011), Hamlin (2013), and Hamlin et al. (2011) could have been based on extensive real-world experience with various kinds of actions (e.g., concordant action and discordant action) and an expectation—based on a learned second-order correlation—that agents that engage in certain kinds of actions (e.g., concordant action) have the capacity for interaction, whereas agents that engage in certain kinds of other actions (e.g., discordant action) either do not have the capacity for interaction or have less of a capacity for it. 

Broadly, these results are consistent with work by Powell and Spelke (2018). They found that 4- to 5½-month-old infants looked longer at characters that engaged in concordant (i.e., imitative) action with other characters than characters that engaged in discordant (i.e., non-imitative) action with other characters (Exps. 1 and 2). Specifically, infants looked longer at characters that engaged in the same jumping motion and made the same sound as a target character than those characters that engaged in the same jumping motion but made a different sound than the target character. Our results are also consistent with their finding—which was based on a conceptual replication of Hamlin et al. (2007)—that 12-month-olds reliably reached for a character that engaged in concordant (i.e., imitative) action with the climber than a character that engaged in discordant (i.e., non-imitative) action with it (Exp. 4), even when those actions were non-social. 

The research is here.