ArticleNature communications2024
Infants expect some degree of positive and negative reciprocity between strangers.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stable intuition and the rise of deliberative prosociality in childhood.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Representations of Nonlocal Syntactic Dependencies Feed Verb Learning in Infancy.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Black-White Color Metaphors of Justice: Two Experiments on Justice as a Legal Value.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Eleven-Month-Old Infants Preferentially Look at Helpers But Do Not Reliably Evaluate Inconsistent Actors.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026Article
- Parental and infant predictors of infant anger and fear reactivity.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- When revealed after the fact, selfish intentions undermine prosocial actions in 5-year-olds.PloS one · 2026Article
- Core Moral Concepts and the Sense of Fairness in Human Infants.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Infants expect some degree of positive and negative reciprocity between strangers.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social scientists from different disciplines have long argued that direct reciprocity plays an important role in regulating social interactions between unrelated individuals. Here, we examine whether 15-month-old infants (N = 160) already expect direct positive and negative reciprocity between strangers. In violation-of-expectation experiments, infants watch successive interactions between two strangers we refer to as agent1 and agent2. After agent1 acts positively toward agent2, infants are surprised if agent2 acts negatively toward agent1 in a new context. Similarly, after agent1 acts negatively toward agent2, infants are surprised if agent2 acts positively toward agent1 in a new context. Both responses are eliminated when agent2's actions are not knowingly directed at agent1. Additional results indicate that infants view it as acceptable for agent2 either to respond in kind to agent1 or to not engage with agent1 further. By 15 months of age, infants thus already expect a modicum of reciprocity between strangers: Initial positive or negative actions are expected to set broad limits on reciprocal actions. This research adds weight to long-standing claims that direct reciprocity helps regulate interactions between unrelated individuals and, as such, is likely to depend on psychological systems that have evolved to support reciprocal reasoning and behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.