* 6 12 (agent),. 12 ( 1), 6 ( 2) ( ).,,,. ( ) ( ).,,. 6-12., 1. * 2012 ( ) (NRF-2012-S1A3-A2033375) 2011 :,, (120-749) 50 : Tel: 02-2123-2449, E-mail: hsong@yonsei.ac.kr
,.,.,. (agents). Premack Premack[1] (Habituation) 12.., (dishabituation),. (, [2-5]). Kuhlmeier 5 12, ( ),. ( ) ( ). 12 5 [5]. 3 10 [3]. 1,
. 12 [2]. (retrospective interpretation).,?,.,. Piaget. Piaget. 8-9, [6]. Piaget, 8-9 [7-10]., 3 [10].. 21 ( ) ( ),
[11]. 8. Hamlin 5 8, ( ) ( ).,,., 8, 5 [12]. 8,. Piaget. Hamlin ( ) [12]. Hamlin[12] 8. [13]... [14] Kuhlmeier [5] 12 16.
.. Kuhlmeier [5],.,,.., 16, 12. 16, 12. [14] 12 16? 8 [12], 12? 12.,, ( )., ( ) ( ). 12.,. (Violation-of-Expectation paradigm) 6 12.,
. ( ),.. Kuhlmeier [5], (, [3, 14]).. Kuhlmeier, [5] Hamlin, [3, 14]. Kuhlmeier [5], ( ).,. ( ). 12 16 ( 9, 11 26, 11 3 -
13 1 ). 18 (9 ) (4 ) 2.5 (3 ) (1 ) (1 ). Kuhlmeier [5].,,. ( ). (familiarization trial) ( 1 ).,..,.,.. 8. 3, 6.,. (pre-test display trial), ( 1 ).,.,.
. (test trial) ( ) ( ) ( 1 ). 16 8,. 4, 2. ( ), ( ),.
,. 95cm, 200cm, 64cm, 76cm. 84cm, 60cm. 62cm, 22 (LG L226WTQ) ( 2 ). 3, 6. 1, 1.
( 2).,,., 93 %. 2,. 7. 60.,, ( ).,, ( ), ( ), Fs(1, 12) < 1.,,,. ( ),, F(1, 14) = 1.19, p >.29., (M = 28.15, SD = 11.40) (M = 22.55, SD = 9.00)..,, F(1, 14) = 1.72, p >.21., (M = 11.53,
SD = 7.27) (M = 7.61, SD = 4.28).,, F(1, 14) = 7.76, p <.05., (M = 24.96, SD = 12.26) (M = 11.66, SD = 5.65) ( 3). Wilcoxon (Non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test), Ws = 47, p <.05. (ANCOVA). 1, (ANCOVA).,.,, F(1, 14) = 1.39, p >.25. (ANCOVA),, F(1, 13) = 5.68, p <.05.
( ). 1 12. 12.,. 12 12., ( ), ( ) [16]. 1 [14] 12. 2 12. 6. 6 16 ( 8, 6 13, 5 20-7 3 ). 5
(2 ) (1 ) (1 ) 2.5 (1 ). 2 1., 92%.,, ( ).,,, Fs(1, 12) < 2.40, ps >.14., F(1, 12) = 11.20, p <.01.,,, ( ) ( )..,, F(1, 12) < 1., (M = 27.58, SD = 9.91) (M = 27.24, SD = 6.08).
, F(1, 12) = 15.08, p <.01. (M = 31.91, SD = 6.76) (M = 21.63, SD = 5.24)., F(1, 12) = 7.22, p <.05. (Planned comparison),, (M = 18.90, SD = 3.80) (M = 25.26, SD = 5.09), F(1, 12) = 2.57, p >.13. (M = 36.26, SD = 3.68) (M = 28.42, SD = 6.87), F(1, 12) = 5.05, p <.05.., Fs(1, 12) < 1.30, ps >.27., ( /, M = 10.45, SD = 7.20; /, M = 6.28, SD = 1.75; /, M = 13.58, SD = 15.99; /, M = 7.47, SD = 2.68).. ( 4),, F(1, 12) = 9.27, p <.05., (M = 11.58, SD = 5.42) (M = 6.65, SD = 2.87).,, F(1, 12) = 4.79, p <.05, (M = 10.37, SD = 6.04) (M = 7.50, SD = 2.46)., F(1, 12) = 11.20, p <.01. (Planned comparison),
(M = 15.85, SD = 3.81) (M = 5.98, SD = 2.80), F(1, 12) = 23.44, p <.001. (M = 7.30, SD = 2.29) (M = 7.77, SD = 3.18), F(1, 12) < 1. Wilcoxon (Non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test).,, Ws = 15, p <.05., Ws = 15.5, p >.85., (ANCOVA).,.,, F(1, 14) < 1. (ANCOVA), ( )
, F(1, 11) = 8.16, p <.05., Fs(1, 11) < 4.71, ps >.05. ( )., 2 6 1 12 (6 12 ), ( ), ( ).,, F(1, 24) = 11.88, p <.01., (M = 9.16, SD = 5.04) (M = 18.27, SD = 11.48),.,, F(1, 24) = 12.12, p <.01., 12 (M = 18.31, SD = 11.50) 6 (M = 9.11, SD = 4.90)., F(1, 24) = 2.71, p >.11,., Fs(1, 24) < 2.24, ps >.14. 2 6.,....,
. [15],.,. 1 12. 2 6 1 12., ( ) ( ). 12 6. (, [2-5]).,.,, 12 6. Kuhlmeier
[5], (, [3, 14]).,., (, ) [16]., 6-12,,.., Kuhlmeier [5] Hamlin [3].,. 6.,. 8 [12]. 2 6., Hamlin [12],. 3 [17, 18] 10 [3]., [5].
6., [2]..,. 3 [17], 6 [3]. 6 12.,.,,.,.., 6 12.,. 6,.
. Piaget 8-9 [6]. Cushman [19]. Cushman, 5, 6 [19].,. 12 6.,,. 1,. [1] Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1997). Infants attribute value±to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 848-856. [2] Fawcett, C., & Liszkowski, U. (2012). Infants anticipate others' social preferences. Infant and Child Development, 21, 239-249. [3] Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450, 557-559. [4] Kuhlmeier, V. A., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (in review). Attribution of dispositional states by 9-month-olds: The role of faces.
[5] Kuhlmeier, V., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2003). Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-olds. Psychological Science, 14, 402-408. [6] Piaget, J. (1932/1999). The moral judgement of the child. London: Routledge [7] Baird, J. A., & Astington, J. W. (2004). The role of mental state understanding in the development of moral cognition and moral action. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2004, 37-49. [8] Farnill, D. (1974). The effects of social-judgment set on children's use of intent information. Journal of Personality, 42, 276-289. [9] Karniol, R. (1978). Children's Use of Intention Cues in Evaluating Behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 76-85. [10] Nelson, S. A. (1980). Factors influencing young children s use of motives and outcomes as moral criteria. Child Development, 51, 823-829. [11] Dunfield, K. A., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2010). Intention-mediated selective helping in infancy. Psychological Science, 21, 523-527. [12] Hamlin, J. K. (2013). Failed attempts to help and harm: intention versus outcome in preverbal infants social evaluations. Cognition, 128, 451-474. [13] Moore, C. (2006). Representing intentional relations and acting intentionally in infancy: Current insights and open questions. In G. Knoblich, I. Thornton, M. Grosjean, & M. Shiffrar, (Eds.), Human body perception from the inside out (pp. 427-.442). New York: Oxford University Press. [14]. (2008)..,. [15] Lee, W., Kim, E. Y., Won, J., Lee, Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Infants expect others to help one another achieve a goal. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1881-1885). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. [16] Houston-Price, C., & Nakai, S. (2004). Distinguishing novelty and familiarity effects in infant preference procedures. Infant and Child Development, 13, 341-348. [17] Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2010). Three month olds show a
negativity bias in their social evaluations. Developmental science, 13, 923-929. [18] Hamlin, J. K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development, 26, 30-39. [19] Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent-based moral judgment. Cognition, 127, 6-21. 1 : 2014. 04. 27 : 2014. 06. 14
(Abstract) Infants' understanding of intentions underlying agents' helping and hindering actions Department of Psychology, Yonsei University The present study investigated whether 6- and 12-month-old infants could infer an agent's social preference on the basis of intentions. In Experiment 1, 12-month-old infants were first familiarized with two kinds of event: the helping and the hindering events. In the helping event, an agent (either a square or triangle) tried to help a circle climb up the hill and the movie stopped right before the circle reached the top of the hill. Thus, the outcome of the helping behavior was made to be ambiguous. Similarly, in the hindering movie, another agent tried to hinder the circle from reaching the top of the hill and the movie stopped right before the circle slipped down to the base of the hill making the final outcome of the hindering behavior unclear. During the test trial, infants were either presented with an event in which the circle approached the helper (approach-helper condition) or an event in which the circle approached the hinderer (approach-hinderer condition). The results indicated that both 6- and 12-month-olds looked longer at the approach-helper event than at the approach-hinderer event. Thus, by 6 months of age, infants are sensitive to agents' intentions when reasoning about agents' social preference. The current findings add to the emerging evidence on social evaluation and moral reasoning during infancy. Key words : intention, disposition, prosocial bahevior, moral development