Should Individuals Think Like Their Group? A Descriptive-to-Prescriptive Tendency Toward Group-Based Beliefs

Children's moral evaluations of and behaviors toward people who are curious about religion and science

Although children exhibit curiosity regarding science, questions remain regarding how children evaluate others' curiosity and whether evaluations differ across domains that prioritize faith (e.g., religion) versus those that value questioning (e.g., science). In Study 1 (n = 115 5- to 8-year-olds; 49% female; 66% White), children evaluated actors who were curious, ignorant and non-curious, or knowledgeable about religion or science; curiosity elicited relatively favorable moral evaluations (ds > .40). Study 2 (n = 62 7- to 8-year-olds; 48% female; 63% White) found that these evaluations generalized to behaviors, as children acted more pro-socially and less punitively toward curious, versus not curious, individuals (η p 2 $$ {\eta}_{\mathrm{p}}^2 $$  = .37). These findings (data collected 2020-2022) demonstrate children's positive moral evaluations of curiosity and contribute to debates regarding overlap between scientific and religious cognition.

Condemned or valued: Young children evaluate nonconformity based on nonconformists' group orientations

Nonconformity--the act of deviating from established norms and expectations of one's group--is often evaluated negatively, despite its potential benefits for society. Three preregistered studies (N = 153) examined how nonconformists' group orientations (attitudes and intentions toward ingroup and outgroups) might affect 4-6-year-olds' evaluations of nonconformity in intergroup situations. Study 1 examined children's default beliefs of nonconformists' group attitudes toward ingroup and outgroup. We found that children expected nonconformists to hold more positive attitudes toward their outgroup than toward their ingroup, and this expectation predicted their disapproval of nonconformity. In Study 2, however, when nonconformity was explicitly motivated by positive intentions toward the ingroup rather than toward the outgroup, children were more accepting of nonconformity. Study 3 found that among nonconformists with different types of group orientations (positive toward the outgroup, ingroup or both group), young children evaluated the most positively nonconformists who bring the ingroup and the outgroup together. Collectively, these findings suggest that children evaluate nonconformity based on nonconformists' group orientations, illuminating one mechanism for how nonconformity could be more socially accepted and valued.

The effect of group status on children's hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs

Members of advantaged groups are more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to think, feel, and behave in ways that reinforce their group's position within the hierarchy. This study examined how children's status within a group-based hierarchy shapes their beliefs about the hierarchy and the groups that comprise it in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. To do this, we randomly assigned children (4-8 years; N = 123; 75 female, 48 male; 21 Asian, 9 Black, 21 Latino/a, 1 Middle-Eastern/North-African, 14 multiracial, 41 White, 16 not-specified) to novel groups that differed in social status (advantaged, disadvantaged, neutral third-party) and assessed their beliefs about the hierarchy. Across five separate assessments, advantaged-group children were more likely to judge the hierarchy to be fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and were more likely to hold biased intergroup attitudes and exclude disadvantaged group members. In addition, with age, children in both the advantaged- and disadvantaged-groups became more likely to see membership in their own group as inherited, while at the same time expecting group-relevant behaviors to be determined more by the environment. With age, children also judged the hierarchy to be more unfair and expected the hierarchy to generalize across contexts. These findings provide novel insights into how children's position within hierarchies can contribute to the formation of hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: A total of 123 4-8-year-olds were assigned to advantaged, disadvantaged, and third-party groups within a hierarchy and were assessed on seven hierarchy-reinforcing beliefs about the hierarchy. Advantaged children were more likely to say the hierarchy was fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and to hold intergroup biases favoring advantaged group members. With age, advantaged- and disadvantaged-group children held more essentialist beliefs about membership in their own group, but not the behaviors associated with their group. Results suggest that advantaged group status can shape how children perceive and respond to the hierarchies they are embedded within.

Analysis of the cognitive processes involved in creating and sustaining cooperative group activity

A cooperative group activity (CGA) and shared intentionality are two phenomena whereby two or more individuals engage in an activity with the intention that the group will succeed, that is, to act as a "we. " This ability to act together as a "we" is an important human psychological feature and has been argued to demarcate an important developmental step. Many CGA and shared intentionality theories have centered around philosophical problems of what counts as a "we" and how to give a cognitively plausible account of children's engagement in such activities, e.g., pretend play by toddlers. The aims of this paper are (i) to highlight the importance of distinguishing between creating and sustaining a CGA, since they require different cognitive abilities, (ii) to give a cognitively plausible account of the creation of a CGA, and iii) to present a formal framework of the sustainability of a CGA that can illuminate how engagement in a CGA stimulates cognitive change in its members. In the first part (section Creating cooperative group activity) of the paper, several theoretical problems are discussed, including the common knowledge problem, the jointness problem, the central problem, and the cognitively plausible explanation problem. The section ends with a cognitively plausible account of the creation of a CGA. The second part (section Sustainability of cooperative group activity) of the paper presents a formal framework of belief compatibility and trust relations. It explores how engagement in a CGA places certain cognitive constraints on its members while stimulating cognitive change and development. The paper ends with a discussion of empirical postulations derived from this account.

Socializing with Smoker and Social Smoking Behavior among Chinese Male Smokers with Low Nicotine Dependence: The Mediating Roles of Belief of Smoking Rationalization and Smoker Identity

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that socializing with other smokers is an essential trigger for social smoking among smokers with a low nicotine dependence. This study further explored the mediating effects of the belief of smoking rationalization and smoker identity on the relationship between socializing with smokers and social smoking behavior.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was conducted. A total of 696 low-nicotine-dependent smokers in China completed questionnaires that assessed socializing with smokers, social smoking behavior, smoker identity, and the belief of smoking rationalization. The mediating roles of the belief of smoking rationalization and smoker identity on the relationship between socializing with smokers and social smoking behavior were assessed by using SPSS 23 and AMOS 23.

RESULTS

The belief of smoking rationalization, smoker identity, socializing with smokers, and social smoking behavior were significantly and positively correlated with each other. In addition, this study found an independently mediated role for smoker identity in the relationship with smoker socialization and social smoking behavior, and a sequentially mediated role for smoking rationalization and smoker identity in this relationship.

CONCLUSION

Reducing the belief of smoking rationalization and smoker identity may be conducive to reducing social smoking behavior for low-nicotine-dependent smokers when socializing with other smokers.

Understanding Intergroup Relations in Childhood and Adolescence

There are various theoretical approaches for understanding intergroup biases among children and adolescents. This article focuses on the social identity approach and argues that existing research will benefit by more fully considering the implications of this approach for examining intergroup relations among youngsters. These implications include (a) the importance of self-categorization, (b) the role of self-stereotyping and group identification, (c) the relevance of shared understandings and developing ingroup consensus, and (d) the importance of coordinated action for positive and negative intergroup relations. These implications of the social identity approach suggest several avenues for investigating children’s and adolescents’ intergroup relations that have not been fully appreciated in the existing literature. However, there are also limitations to the social identity approach for the developmental understanding and some of these are discussed.

Group Identity and Ingroup Bias: The Social Identity Approach

This article discusses the social identity approach (social identity theory and self-categorization theory) for understanding children’s ingroup biases in attitudes and behaviors. It is argued that developmental research on ingroup bias will be enhanced by more fully considering the implications of this approach. These implications include (a) the conceptualization of group identity, (b) the importance of social reality and children’s epistemic motivation, (c) the role of processes of normative influence and social projection, and (d) the relevance of moral considerations. These four implications have not been fully considered in the developmental literature but indicate that the social identity approach offers the possibility for theoretically integrating and empirically examining various processes involved in children’s ingroup biases.