Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday October 08 2014, @09:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the please-put-down-my-camera dept.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/10/07/toddlers-regulate-behavior-to-avoid-making-adults-angry/
Abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201414000513

Researchers have found that toddlers as young as 15 months can detect anger from adults and regulate their behaviour accordingly.

Now researchers at the University of Washington have found that children as young as 15 months can detect anger when watching other people’s social interactions and then use that emotional information to guide their own behavior.

The study, published in the October/November issue of the journal Cognitive Development, is the first evidence that younger toddlers are capable of using multiple cues from emotions and vision to understand the motivations of the people around them.

“At 15 months of age, children are trying to understand their social world and how people will react,” said lead author Betty Repacholi, a faculty researcher at UW’s Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences and an associate professor of psychology. “In this study we found that toddlers who aren’t yet speaking can use visual and social cues to understand other people – that’s sophisticated cognitive skills for 15-month-olds.”

The findings also linked the toddlers’ impulsive tendencies with their tendency to ignore other people’s anger, suggesting an early indicator for children who may become less willing to abide by rules.

The abstract explains the process a little more:

Infants were bystanders to a social exchange in which an Experimenter performed actions on objects and an Emoter expressed anger, as if they were forbidden acts. Next, the Emoter became neutral and her visual access to the infant was experimentally manipulated. The Emoter either: (a) left the room, (b) turned her back, (c) faced the infant but looked down at a magazine, or (d) faced and looked toward the infant. Infants were then presented with the test objects. When the previously angry Emoter was facing them, infants were hesitant to imitate the demonstrated acts in comparison to the other conditions. We hypothesize that infants integrated the emotional and visual-perceptual cues to determine whether the Emoter would get angry at them, and then regulated their behavior accordingly.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday October 08 2014, @11:46PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday October 08 2014, @11:46PM (#103837)

    Seriously, anyone who raised a child (or paid attention when their siblings did) knows that the little buggers will react to angry faces, when they get caught doing (of hopefully only about to) something they shouldn't.

    I'm pretty sure that "recognize facial threat to current course of action" is hardcoded in our genes...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @05:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @05:04AM (#103903)

    This is a /. article. Any fucking idiot in the world knows that small children can sense what is going on. Who funded this idiocy?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @09:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @09:34AM (#103961)

      Any fucking idiot in the world knows that small children can sense what is going on.

      Well, that still makes it informative to those who don't fuck, and to those who are not idiots. ;-)

      • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Thursday October 09 2014, @11:18PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Thursday October 09 2014, @11:18PM (#104242)

        I really hope that last comment was sarcasm...

        The reason I can't tell if it was or not? In the various cultures I associate with there's an increasingly accepted attitude that if it can't be (or hasn't been) "proven" with scientific methods, then it's not "real knowledge". (i.e. stated disregard for the significance of anecdotal experience) The attitude I refer to is probably one of the reasons this, yes, _idiotic_ study was funded.

        From my own experiences as a parent, my social association w/ parents of adult children, and a general respect for traditional cultures of all types, I've come to the conclusion that one of the fundamental ways that one can grow one's understanding of humanity and cultivate wisdom is to raise some kids. It's not the only way -- and definitely not an assured path -- but it's probably the most- and most-successfully-used.

        You know, if you don't have children and are interested in aspects of their development, you could always go ask a few parents you know about their experiences. I **guarantee** that after a few conversations you'll know more about child development than you think you do after seeing the results of this study. (Obviously it depends on which parents you ask :) )

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @11:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09 2014, @11:27AM (#103975)

    Except they're not reacting to angry faces.

    They're reacting to the potential of angry faces.