Priming third-party social exclusion does not elicit children's inclusion of out-group members

You can't play with us: First-person ostracism affects infants' behavioral reactivity

Ostracism negatively affects fundamental psychological needs, induces physiological and behavioral changes, and modulates the processing of social information in adults. Yet little is known about children and preverbal infants' responses to first-person experiences of ostracism. The current study aimed to explore the efficacy of a triadic ball-tossing game in manipulating social inclusion and ostracism with 13-month-old infants (N = 84; 44% males; mostly White; tested from 2019 to 2022) by developing an observational coding system. Infants' behaviors were recorded while participating in a ball-tossing game where they were either included or ostracized from the game. Ostracized, but not included, infants showed an increase in negative emotionality and involvement behaviors, thus suggesting that behavioral responses to being ostracized emerge early in life.

Diversity vs. ingroup: How children generalize for the common good

How do children generalize for the common good? The present study investigated whether children are more likely to use the preference of their ingroup (ingroup rationale) or that of a diverse group (diversity rationale) as a basis for generalization about the broader community. In a series of studies, five-year-olds from two different cultures (US and China), yet living in environments with analogous ingroup majority-outgroup minority structure, were asked to generalize either the preference of a diverse sample or the preference of an ingroup sample to the majority. We found that children from both cultures have a default strategy to generalize from their ingroup (Study 1). However, Studies 2-4 show that this ingroup default is amenable to change, suggesting that children mostly use this strategy because ingroup members were salient and conveniently available. When ingroup was removed or reduced (Study 2), or when primed with photos of diverse populations (Studies 3 & 4), children changed their strategies and were more likely to use the diversity-rationale. In both cultures, the intergroup structure of children's living environment exerts similar pressures, resulting in analogous outcomes in generalizing for the common good.

Priming third-party social exclusion does not elicit children's inclusion of out-group members

This study investigates how culture and priming 3- to 7-year-old children (N = 186) with third-party social exclusion affects their subsequent inclusion of out-group members. Children in societies that tend to value social independence (Germany, New Zealand) and interdependence (Northern Cyprus) were randomly assigned to minimal groups. Next, they watched video stimuli depicting third-party social exclusion (exclusion condition) or neutral content (control condition). We assessed children's recognition of the social exclusion expressed in the priming videos and their understanding of the emotional consequences thereof. We furthermore assessed children's inclusion behaviour in a ball-tossing game in which participants could include an out-group agent into an in-group interplay. Children across societies detected third-party social exclusion and ascribed lower mood to excluded than non-excluded protagonists. Children from Germany and New Zealand were more likely to include the out-group agent into the in-group interaction than children from Northern Cyprus. Children's social inclusion remained unaffected by their exposure to third-party social exclusion primes. These results suggest that children from diverse societies recognize social exclusion and correctly forecast its negative emotional consequences, but raise doubt on the notion that social exclusion exposure affects subsequent social inclusion.