Evaluations of aggressive chasing interactions by 7-month-old infants

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Aggressive Behavior Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1002/ab.22174
Alessandra Geraci, Silvia Benavides-Varela, Chiara Nascimben, Francesca Simion, Elisa Di Giorgio
{"title":"Evaluations of aggressive chasing interactions by 7-month-old infants","authors":"Alessandra Geraci,&nbsp;Silvia Benavides-Varela,&nbsp;Chiara Nascimben,&nbsp;Francesca Simion,&nbsp;Elisa Di Giorgio","doi":"10.1002/ab.22174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent theories of socio-moral development assume that humans evolved a capacity to evaluate others' social actions in different kinds of interactions. Prior infant studies found both reaching and visual preferences for the prosocial over the antisocial agents. However, whether the attribution of either positive or negative valence to agents' actions involved in an aggressive chasing interaction can be inferred by both reaching behaviors and visual attention deployment (i.e., disengagement of visual attention) is still an open question. Here we presented 7-month-old infants (<i>N</i> = 92) with events displaying an aggressive chasing interaction. By using preferential reaching and an attentional task (i.e., overlap paradigm), we assessed whether and how infants evaluate aggressive chasing interactions. The results demonstrated that young infants prefer to reach the victim over the aggressor, but neither agent affects visual attention. Moreover, such reaching preferences emerged only when dynamic cues and emotional face-like features were congruent with agents' social roles. Overall, these findings suggested that infants' evaluations of aggressive interactions are based on infants' sensitivity to some kinematic cues that characterized agents' actions and, especially, to the congruency between such motions and the face-like emotional expressions of the agents.</p>","PeriodicalId":50842,"journal":{"name":"Aggressive Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aggressive Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.22174","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent theories of socio-moral development assume that humans evolved a capacity to evaluate others' social actions in different kinds of interactions. Prior infant studies found both reaching and visual preferences for the prosocial over the antisocial agents. However, whether the attribution of either positive or negative valence to agents' actions involved in an aggressive chasing interaction can be inferred by both reaching behaviors and visual attention deployment (i.e., disengagement of visual attention) is still an open question. Here we presented 7-month-old infants (N = 92) with events displaying an aggressive chasing interaction. By using preferential reaching and an attentional task (i.e., overlap paradigm), we assessed whether and how infants evaluate aggressive chasing interactions. The results demonstrated that young infants prefer to reach the victim over the aggressor, but neither agent affects visual attention. Moreover, such reaching preferences emerged only when dynamic cues and emotional face-like features were congruent with agents' social roles. Overall, these findings suggested that infants' evaluations of aggressive interactions are based on infants' sensitivity to some kinematic cues that characterized agents' actions and, especially, to the congruency between such motions and the face-like emotional expressions of the agents.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估 7 个月大婴儿的攻击性追逐互动。
最近的社会道德发展理论认为,人类进化出了在不同类型的互动中评估他人社会行为的能力。先前的婴儿研究发现,相对于反社会行为主体而言,婴儿在触觉和视觉上都更喜欢亲社会行为主体。然而,在攻击性追逐互动中,是否可以通过伸手行为和视觉注意力调配(即脱离视觉注意力)来推断行为主体行为的正面或负面价值归属,这仍然是一个未决问题。在此,我们向 7 个月大的婴儿(92 人)展示了攻击性追逐互动事件。通过使用优先伸手和注意任务(即重叠范式),我们评估了婴儿是否以及如何评估攻击性追逐互动。结果表明,幼婴倾向于伸手去够受害者而不是施暴者,但这两种行为都不会影响视觉注意力。此外,只有当动态线索和情绪面孔特征与行为主体的社会角色一致时,才会出现这种伸手偏好。总之,这些研究结果表明,婴儿对攻击性互动的评价是基于婴儿对一些运动线索的敏感性,这些线索是行为主体行动的特征,尤其是对这些运动与行为主体的脸部情绪表达之间的一致性的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Aggressive Behavior
Aggressive Behavior 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
52
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Aggressive Behavior will consider manuscripts in the English language concerning the fields of Animal Behavior, Anthropology, Ethology, Psychiatry, Psychobiology, Psychology, and Sociology which relate to either overt or implied conflict behaviors. Papers concerning mechanisms underlying or influencing behaviors generally regarded as aggressive and the physiological and/or behavioral consequences of being subject to such behaviors will fall within the scope of the journal. Review articles will be considered as well as empirical and theoretical articles. Aggressive Behavior is the official journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression.
期刊最新文献
Evaluations of aggressive chasing interactions by 7-month-old infants Can classroom seating arrangements help establish a safe environment for victims? A randomized controlled trial Issue Information Brief report: Social comparison, hypercompetitiveness, and indirect aggression: Associations with loneliness and mental health Comparing behavioral measures of aggression in the laboratory: Taylor Aggression Paradigm versus Point-Subtraction Aggression Paradigm
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1