Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We tested 15-month-olds’ capacity to represent social-dominance hierarchies with more than two agents. Our results showed that infants found it harder to memorize dominance relations that were presented in an order that hindered the incremental formation of a single structure (Study 1). These results suggest that infants attempt to build structures incrementally, relation by relation, thereby simplifying the complex problem of recognizing a social structure. Infants also found circular dominance structures harder to process than linear dominance structures (Study 2). These expectations about the shape of structures may facilitate learning. Our results suggest that infants attempt to represent social structures composed of social relations. They indicate that human infants go beyond learning about individual social partners and their respective relations and form hypotheses about how social groups are organized.

Keywords

social dominance transitive reasoning social relations structure learning naive sociology cognitive development social structure social cognition infant development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bergman

T. J.

Beehner

J. C.

Cheney

D. L.

Seyfarth

R. M.

(2003). Hierarchical classification by rank and kinship in baboons. Science, 302, 1234–1236.

Boehm

(1999). Hierarchy in the forest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brannon

E. M.

(2002). The development of numerical knowledge in infancy. Cognition, 83, 223–240.

Bryant

P. E.

Trabasso

(1971). Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature, 232, 458–465.

Caplan

Vespo

J. E.

Pedersen

Hay

(1991). Conflict and its resolution in small groups of one- and two-year-olds. Child Development, 62, 1513–1524.

De Soto

C. B.

(1960). Learning a social structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 417–421.

Ehrlich

Johnson-Laird

P. N.

(1982). Spatial descriptions and referential continuity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 296–306.

Fiske

A. P.

(1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.

Fiske

A. P.

(2004). Four modes of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assimilation; space, magnitude, time and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolism. In Haslam

(Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 61–146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10.

Flack

J. C.

Krakauer

D. C.

(2006). Encoding power in communication networks. American Naturalist, 168, E87–E102.

11.

Foos

P. W.

Smith

K. H.

Sabol

M. A.

Mynatt

B. T.

(1976). Constructive processes in simple linear order problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 759–766.

12.

Grosenick

Clement

T. S.

Fernald

R. D.

(2007). Fish can infer social rank by observation alone. Nature, 445, 429–432.

13.

Halford

G. S.

Wilson

W. H.

Phillips

(1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 21, 803–831.

14.

Hand

J. L.

(1986). Resolution of social conflicts: Dominance, egalitarianism, spheres of dominance, and game theory. Quarterly Review of Biology, 61, 201–220.

15.

Hawley

P. H.

(1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: A strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97–132.

16.

Kinzler

K. D.

Spelke

E. S.

(2007). Core systems in human cognition. Progress in Brain Research, 164, 257–264.

17.

Libertus

M. E.

Brannon

E. M.

(2009). Behavioral and neural basis of number sense in infancy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 346–351.

18.

Lourenco

S. F.

Longo

M. R.

(2011). Origins and the development of generalized magnitude representation. In Dehaene

Brannon

(Eds.), Space, time, and number in the brain: Searching for the foundations of mathematical thought (pp. 225–244). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

19.

Mascaro

Csibra

(2012). Representation of stable dominance relations by human infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 109, 6862–6868.

20.

Mou

Province

Luo

(2010, March). Can 16-month-old infants make transitive inferences? Poster session presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Baltimore, MD.

21.

Paz-y-Miño

Bond

A. B.

Kamil

A. C.

Balda

R. P.

(2004). Pinyon jays use transitive inference to predict social dominance. Nature, 430, 778–781.

22.

Piaget

(1947). La psychologie de l’intelligence [The psychology of intelligence]. Paris, France: Armand Colin.

23.

Platten

Hernik

Fonagy

Fearon

(2010). Knowing who likes who: The early developmental basis of coalition understanding. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 569–580.

24.

Simon

H. A.

(1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.

25.

Thomsen

Carey

(2013). Core cognition of social relations. In Banaji

Gelman

S. A.

(Eds.), Navigating the social world: What infants, children, and other species teach us (pp. 88–95). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

26.

Thomsen

Frankenhuis

W. E.

Ingold-Smith

M. C.

Carey

(2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331, 477–480.

27.

Weber

(1946). Class, status, party. In Gerth

H. H.

Wright Mills

(Eds.), Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 180–195). Oxford, England: Routledge.

28.

Wright

B. C.

(2012). The case for a dual-process theory of transitive reasoning. Developmental Review, 32, 89–124.

29.

Zitek

E. M.

Tiedens

L. Z.

(2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned and liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 98–115.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.56 MB

Human Infants’ Learning of Social Structures

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material