Griffin Hansel
Research Mentor: Katarzyna Myslinska Szarek
Mentor Department: Psychology, LSA
Author(s): Griffin Hansel, Katarzyna Myslinska-Szarek
Session: Session 2 (10:00 AM – 10:50 AM)
Presentation Type: Poster 130
Abstract
This study examines how children form and update beliefs about ingroup versus outgroup members across prosociality and competence, and how these beliefs guide partner choice. The main aim of the project is to determine whether children prioritize group membership, moral behavior, or competence when selecting collaborative partners. In Study 1 we tested one hundred four children (N = 104, Mage = 6.02 years, SD = 0.82) participated in a minimal group paradigm in which they were randomly assigned to a social group (Green or Orange team). Children completed a partner-selection task involving two potential partners: one described as highly prosocial but less competent, and the other highly competent but less prosocial. Whether the prosocial or competent partner belonged to the in group was counterbalanced across conditions. Children rated each partner’s prosociality and competence before and after observing behavioral information, then chose a partner for tasks that increased in difficulty. Results from Study 1 showed asymmetric belief updating. Children updated prosociality ratings differently based on group membership: prosocial ingroup members maintained higher ratings after negative prosocial behavior compared to prosocial outgroup members. In contrast, competence ratings were updated similarly regardless of group membership, with both ingroup and outgroup members receiving comparable ratings after negative competence information. Partner choices demonstrated flexibility: although children initially preferred prosocial partners (75.5%), increasing task difficulty led children to choose competent outgroup partners when competence was not associated with the ingroup. When the competent partner was in group, children consistently preferred that partner across difficulty levels (approximately 86–88%). Study 2 will extend this work by presenting competence and fairness information using characters who are all in group or all out group members, allowing for a cleaner test of belief updating mechanisms depending on a type of information and group membership.
