Study: Infants Can Judge Naughty From Nice

Even 6-Month-Old Babies Show Crucial Social Judging Skills Among Playmates

(CBS/AP)  Even infants can tell the difference between naughty and nice playmates, and know which to choose, a new study finds.

Babies as young as 6 to 10 months old showed crucial social judging skills before they could talk, according to a study by researchers at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center published in Thursday's journal Nature.

"Our results suggest that infants, just like adults, are able to tell the difference between those who act positively vs. negatively toward others, and that they tend to approach those who act positively and to avoid those who act negatively," study lead author Kiley Hamlin tells CBS News partner WebMD via email.

The infants watched a googly-eyed wooden toy trying to climb roller-coaster hills and then another googly-eyed toy come by and either help it over the mountain or push it backward. They then were presented with the toys to see which they would play with.

Nearly every baby picked the helpful toy over the bad one.

The babies also chose neutral toys - ones that didn't help or hinder - over the naughty ones. And the babies chose the helping toys over the neutral ones.

"It's incredibly impressive that babies can do this," said Hamlin, a Yale psychology researcher. "It shows that we have these essential social skills occurring without much explicit teaching."

There was no difference in reaction between the boys and girls, but when the researchers took away the large eyes that made the toys somewhat lifelike, the babies didn't show the same social judging skills, Hamlin said.

The choice of nice over naughty follows a school of thought that humans have some innate social abilities, not just those learned from their parents.

"We know that they're very, very social beings from very, very early on," Hamlin said.

A study last year out of Germany showed that babies as young as 18 months old overwhelmingly helped out when they could, such as by picking up toys that researchers dropped.

David Lewkowicz, a psychology professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton who wasn't part of the study, said the Yale research was intriguing. But he doesn't buy into the natural ability part. He said the behavior was learned, and that the new research doesn't prove otherwise.

"Infants acquire a great deal of social experience between birth and 6 months of age and thus the assumption that this kind of capacity does not require experience is simply unwarranted," Lewkowicz told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

But the Yale team has other preliminary research that shows similar responses even in 3-month-olds, Hamlin said.

Researchers also want to know if the behavior is limited to human infants. The Yale team is starting tests with monkeys, but has no results yet, Hamlin said.

[erasmus6]

"There are good children and I belive adults are the one who hurt them by hate and other things they do or do not do." posted by MichelleM99


Yes, you are right. Children are born INNOCENT. They are like a blank slate. Then the adults get a hold of them and the destruction begins. Well, not for all.

[myidoncbs]

smiley676 says, "as a parasite, it IS a living being". So, what''s your point? "Alive" and "human" are not the same thing! Every cell in my body is ALIVE. I don''t get very upset about the MILLIONS of cells that die every day.

The point is, and always will be, that we can not allow the religious dogmas of some people to dictate the behavior of everyone else, and our Constitution says we can not allow the religious dogmas of anyone to dictate the laws of our country. Religious nutcases want to do both. Sane people typically want them to do neither.

[smiley676]

MyIDonCBS as a parasite, it IS a living being

[denn034]

Next year it''ll probably be otherwise.

[myidoncbs]

GrammaWamma, "sheltered on or in" excludes them after they''re born. But you can draw the line ANYWHERE. That''s the point. There is no clear, agreed upon, definition of when "human life" begins. We can''t base our laws on the religious dogma of one particular group, so those who would try to force their religion on everyone else should just sit down and shut up. Everytime they try to justify their dogma, they show themselves to be fools. There is no justification for dogma. They believe it because that''s what they''ve been told to believe. I am free to believe something different, and so is everyone else.

[grammawhamma]

When a zygote plants itself in a woman''''s uterus, it becomes a parasite. (Parasite /n/ An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.) There is no scientific basis for calling it anything else.
Posted by MyIDonCBS at 10:38 PM : Nov 22, 2007

Do you realize your definition of parasite basically describes most children from age of birth until almost adulthood also? Think about it.

[incog-nito]

VastR-WCon: Hate to say this, but that was lame.

[myidoncbs]

noseonurface claims, "Just because that is the way some people view it only prooves how ''scientifically ignorant'' they are, including you."

Some people see it the way I described, but that does NOT mean they are "scientifically ignorant". When a zygote plants itself in a woman''s uterus, it becomes a parasite. (Parasite /n/ An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.) There is no scientific basis for calling it anything else.

The way "some people" view this has NO BEARING on my level of scientific knowledge. I have never even said what I think about abortion, other than that the government shouldn''t be the one to decide. And I happen to have an extensive level of scientific knowledge, but there''s no need to brag.

Feeling witty, no doubt, noseonurface asks, "What if your mom thought of you as ''invasive mass of parasitic cells'' and [got rid of it]"? Then I wouldn''t be here, and I would not have to read your foolish remarks!

Religious nutcases really should apply some logic to their crazy beliefs sometime. If children are never born, they can''t possibly sin, so they have to go to heaven. You should be happy for them! OTOH, the Muslims that you all seem to want to kill will go to h3ll if you kill them. You are playing God by preventing them from ever "finding Jesus"! That just HAS TO BE A SIN!

[dmhphils]

noseonurface complains about my use of the phrase "an invasive mass of parasitic cells". But that is the way some people view it, especially when that parasite is threatening to kill the host!
Posted by MyIDonCBS at 08:27 AM : Nov 22, 2007
-------------------------------------------------

What if your mom thought of you as "invasive mass of parasitic cells" and decided that you were an unpleasant inconvenience, and you were chopped up in pieces and suctioned out of her womb?

Just because that is the way some people view it only prooves how "scientifically ignorant" they are, including you.

[vastr-wcon]

.
"Study: Infants Can Judge Naughty From Nice"

In a related study, 100 infants were shown videos of Sen Hillary Rodham "Hsu" Clinton answering planted questions in an Iowa rally. Unfortunately, several of the infants were injured when they all simultaneously ran screaming out of the viewing room.

.

[myidoncbs]

Here''s the biggest laugh of the day: "So, it is interesting that Science is constantly proving what the Bible already contains."

Science has conclusively proven NOTHING in the Bible. And LOGIC, which is an essential component of science, has conclusively demonstrated that much of it is FASLE. And, furthermore, true or not, most if it is just MEAN and NASTY. The God of the Bible is violent, jealous, vindictive, murderous, and totally irrational. Either the Bible is WRONG, or God is not someone we should allow to dictate our lives or our laws.

Finally, the Founding Fathers of this nation declared, absolutely and irrevocably, that CHURCH and STATE must remain forever SEPARATE, or else we will fall into the most depraved of dictatorships.

So again I say:

Religious Nucases: No Thanks!

[myidoncbs]

noseonurface complains about my use of the phrase "an invasive mass of parasitic cells". But that is the way some people view it, especially when that parasite is threatening to kill the host!

BTW, the phrase I used is not meant to be "scientific" (which for some twisted reason, you seem to think is a "dirty word"), so your complaint itself is misplaced. It is simply the way some people view the situation. You view it differently, so you want to impose your views on everyone else. That way leads to dictatorship, and THAT is what I am so strongly opposed to.

Religious nutcases: No Thanks!

[myidoncbs]

noseonurface and singinrick, your concept of "proof" is wholly lacking in merit. The fact that infants can tell the difference between those who might harm them and those who probably won''t harm them is a matter of SURVIVAL. It absolutely DOES NOT have any bearing on "good vs. evil"; it DOES NOT mean infants have any concept of morality; it DOES NOT prove anything in the Bible (which is an entirely self-contradicting mess of misunderstood myths, lies, and mumbo-jumbo, with a fair bit of common and not-so-common sense thrown in.)

You are so convinced that your religious dogma is absolutely correct that you "grasp at straws" to justify your own beliefs. Believe any crazy stuff you want, but you''d be better off keeping it to yourself because when you speak, all you do is reveal your own ignorance and foolishness.

[dmhphils]

This only confirms that when a child is born, they soon bear the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. This is inherent in the seed of the first Adam, and every human being born on the face of the earth has that nature.

So, it is interesting that Science is constantly proving what the Bible already contains. That is why this is no surprize to most Christians.

[dmhphils]

-Just more proof that God instills morals and principles in all of us upon our Creation and he also instills the ability to choose right from wrong. Some just sadly choose to reject Him when they get older.

Posted by singinrick at 07:28 PM : Nov 21, 2007
---------------------------------------------------

singingrick.....well said and so true!

[dmhphils]

That "baby" could be an invasive mass of parasitic cells,
Posted by MyIDonCBS at 05:06 PM : Nov 21, 2007
-------------------------------------------------

Oh, and that sounds so scientific. You may be an invasive mass of parasitic cells no doubt, but you''re on your own.

[wogerwabbit]

MyIDonCBS for president!

[nativewoman]

Interesting.

So infants can tell good behavior from bad behavior.

Apparently there is no need for years of religious indoctrination to teach people the difference between good behavior and bad behavior.

[michellem99-2009]

My aunt and I were talking about this issue.That article hit home. Having grown up in foster homes I asked her what was I like when I was little before I was put on town. She said *Barbara you were a sweet little girl. I don''t understand what happened to you after you were placed on the state as child.* To this day I could not give her an answer. She died before I could tell her.It was bad foster homes that beat that goodness out of me. I was used for the aid they got. Mother did not want me as I was born to early and handicapped plus legally blind. I was barred from using my name that my parents gave me and they were mean to me. There are good children and I belive adults are the one who hurt them by hate and other things they do or do not do. I have my name now. Barbara

[myidoncbs]

mbcsmith asks a stu/pid question, "Why do the LIBS want to kill them before they are born?" And ToolMangler compounds the ignorance, saying "Because they are so wrapped up in their own importance and too lazy" Here are the REAL reasons:

1. Abortion is NOT a "lib" vs. a "con" issue. It%u2019s religious nutcases vs. everyone else. Your attack is misdirected.
2. There is NO agreement on when human life begins. YOU believe abortion is "baby killing" but that DOES NOT make it so. That "baby" could be an invasive mass of parasitic cells, robbing the woman''s body of essential nutrients and even killing her. If that%u2019s right, then it''s more like self-defense. In many cases, it is just that.
3. No birth control method is foolproof, not even "abstinence", since a woman can be raped, negating her choice in the matter. Also, the VERY SAME people who most strongly oppose abortion also oppose *** education, which is the 1 THING that can prevent unwanted pregnancies!
4. Religious nutcases who champion this wedge issue don''t line up to adopt "crack wh*re babies" that would otherwise be aborted. This reeks of hypocrisy and heartlessness.
5. Since one''s stance on abortion is a purely a matter of religious dogma, it%u2019s NOT something that the US government should outlaw because of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Combining church and state inevitably leads to a profoundly repressive, anti-democratic dictatorship, with a total loss of freedom for all.

RELIGIOUS NUTCASES: NO THANKS!