When do kids start to care about other peoples opinions Sara Valencia Botto

I’d like you to take a moment

and consider what
you are wearing right now.

I have a deep, philosophical
question for you.

Why are we not all wearing
comfortable pajamas right now?

(Laughter)

Well, I’m a psychologist
and not a mind reader,

although many people think
that’s the same thing.

I can bet you that your response
is somewhere along the lines of,

“I’m expected to not wear pj’s in public”

or “I don’t want people
to think I am a slob.”

Either way, the fact that we all
chose to wear business casual clothing,

as opposed to our favorite
pair of sweatpants,

is not a silly coincidence.

Instead, it reveals two
defining human characteristics.

The first is that we are cognizant
of what other people value,

like what they will approve
or disapprove of,

such as not wearing pj’s
to these sorts of settings.

And two, we’ve readily used
this information to guide our behavior.

Unlike many other species,

humans are prone to tailor their behavior
in the presence of others

to garner approval.

We spend valuable time putting on make up,

choosing the right picture
and Instagram filter,

and composing ideas
that will undoubtedly change the world

in 140 characters or less.

Clearly, our concern
with how other people will evaluate us

is a big part of being human.

Despite this being
a big human trait, however,

we know relatively little
about when and how

we come to care
about the opinion of others.

Now, this is a big question
that requires many studies.

But the first step
to uncovering this question

is to investigate when in development

we become sensitive
to others' evaluations.

I have spent the past four years
at Emory University

investigating how an infant,

who has no problem walking
around the grocery store in her onesie,

develops into an adult
that fears public speaking

for fear of being negatively judged.

(Laughter)

Now, this is usually a point
when people ask me,

“How do you investigate
this question, exactly?

Infants can’t talk, right?”

Well, if my husband
were up here right now,

he would tell you that I interview babies,

because he would rather not say
that his wife experiments on children.

(Laughter)

In reality, I design
experiments for children,

usually in the form of games.

Developmental psychologist
Dr. Philippe Rochat and I

designed a “game” called “The Robot Task”

to explore when children
would begin to be sensitive

to the evaluation of others.

Specifically, the robot task
captures when children, like adults,

strategically modify their behavior
when others are watching.

To do this, we showed
14 to 24-month-old infants

how to activate a toy robot,

and importantly, we either
assigned a positive value,

saying “Wow, isn’t that great!”

or a negative value, saying,
“Oh, oh. Oops, oh no,”

after pressing the remote.

Following this toy demonstration,

we invited the infants
to play with the remote,

and then either watched them

or turned around and pretended
to read a magazine.

The idea was that if by 24 months,

children are indeed sensitive
to the evaluation of others,

then their button-pressing behavior
should be influenced

not only by whether or not
they’re being watched

but also by the values
that the experimenter expressed

towards pressing the remote.

So for example,

we would expect children to play with
the positive remote significantly more

if they were being observed

but then choose to explore
the negative remote

once no one was watching.

To really capture this phenomenon,
we did three variations of the study.

Study one explored how infants
would engage with a novel toy

if there were no values
or instructions provided.

So we simply showed infants
how to activate the toy robot,

but didn’t assign any values,

and we also didn’t tell them
that they could play with the remote,

providing them with a really
ambiguous situation.

In study two,

we incorporated the two values,
a positive and a negative.

And in the last study,
we had two experimenters and one remote.

One experimenter expressed a negative
value towards pressing the remote,

saying, “Yuck, the toy moved,”

while the other experimenter
expressed a positive value, saying,

“Yay, the toy moved.”

And this is how the children reacted
to these three different scenarios.

So in study one, the ambiguous situation,

I’m currently watching the child.

She doesn’t seem to be too interested
in pressing the remote.

Once I turned around –

now she’s ready to play.

(Laughter)

Currently, I’m not watching the child.

She’s really focused.

I turn around.

(Laughter)

She wasn’t doing anything, right?

In study two, it’s the two remotes,

one with the positive
and one with the negative value.

I’m currently observing the child.

And the orange remote
is a negative remote.

She’s just looking around,
looking at me, hanging out.

Then I turn around …

(Laughter)

That’s what she’s going for.

I’m not watching the child.

He wants the mom to play with it, right?

Take a safer route.

I turn around …

(Laughter)

He wasn’t doing anything, either.

Yeah, he feels awkward.

(Laughter)

Everyone knows
that side-eyed glance, right?

Study three, the two
experimenters, one remote.

The experimenter that reacted negatively
towards pressing the remote

is watching the child right now.

She feels a little awkward,
doesn’t know what to do, relying on Mom.

And then, she’s going to turn around

so that the experimenter that expressed
a positive response is watching.

Coast is clear – now she’s ready to play.

(Laughter)

So, as the data suggests,

we found that children’s
button-pressing behavior

was indeed influenced by the values
and the instructions of the experimenter.

Because in study one,
children did not know

what would be positively
or negatively evaluated,

they tended to take the safest route

and wait until I turned my back
to press the remote.

Children in study two

chose to press the positive remote
significantly more when I was watching,

but then once I turned my back,

they immediately took the negative remote
and started playing with it.

Importantly, in a control study,

where we removed
the different values of the remotes –

so we simply said, “Oh, wow”
after pressing either of the remotes –

children’s button-pressing behavior
no longer differed across conditions,

suggesting that it was really
the values that we gave the two remotes

that drove the behavior
in the previous study.

Last but not least,

children in study three chose to press
a remote significantly more

when the experimenter that expressed
a positive value was watching,

as opposed to the experimenter
that had expressed a negative value.

Not coincidentally,

it is also around this age
that children begin to show embarrassment

in situations that might elicit
a negative evaluation,

such as looking
at themselves in the mirror

and noticing a mark on their nose.

The equivalent of finding spinach
in your teeth, for adults.

(Laughter)

So what can we say,
based on these findings?

Besides the fact that babies
are actually really, really sneaky.

(Laughter)

From very early on, children, like adults,

are sensitive to the values
that we place on objects and behaviors.

And importantly, they use these values
to guide their behavior.

Whether we’re aware of it or not,

we’re constantly communicating values
to those around us.

Now, I don’t mean values like
“be kind” or “don’t steal,”

although those are certainly values.

I mean that we are constantly
showing others, specifically our children,

what is likeable, valuable
and praiseworthy, and what is not.

And a lot of the times,

we actually do this
without even noticing it.

Psychologists study behavior
to explore the contents of the mind,

because our behavior
often reflects our beliefs,

our values and our desires.

Here in Atlanta,
we all believe the same thing.

That Coke is better than Pepsi.

(Applause)

Now, this might have to do with the fact
that Coke was invented in Atlanta.

But regardless,

this belief is expressed in the fact
that most people will chose to drink Coke.

In the same way,

we are communicating a value

when we mostly complement girls

for their pretty hair
or their pretty dress,

but boys, for their intelligence.

Or when we chose to offer candy,
as opposed to nutritious food,

as a reward for good behavior.

Adults and children
are incredibly effective

at picking up values
from these subtle behaviors.

And in turn, this ends up
shaping their own behavior.

The research I have shared with you today

suggests that this ability
emerges very early in development,

before we can even utter
a complete sentence

or are even potty-trained.

And it becomes an integral part
of who we grow up to be.

So before I go,

I’d like to invite you
to contemplate on the values

that we broadcast
in day-to-day interactions,

and how these values might be shaping
the behavior of those around you.

For example, what value
is being broadcasted

when we spend more time
smiling at our phone

than smiling with other people?

Likewise, consider how your own behavior
has been shaped by those around you,

in ways you might not
have considered before.

To go back to our simple illustration,

do you really prefer Coke over Pepsi?

Or was this preference simply driven
by what others around you valued?

Parents and teachers
certainly have the privilege

to shape children’s behavior.

But it is important to remember

that through the values we convey
in simple day-to-day interactions,

we all have the power to shape
the behavior of those around us.

Thank you.

(Applause)

我想让你

花点时间考虑一下
你现在穿的是什么。

我有一个深刻的哲学
问题要问你。

为什么我们现在不都穿着
舒适的睡衣?

(笑声)

好吧,我是个心理学家,
而不是读心术,

虽然很多人认为
那是一回事。

我敢打赌你的回答

大概是“我不应该在公共场合穿睡衣”

或“我不希望
人们认为我是个懒鬼”。

无论哪种方式,我们都
选择穿商务休闲服,

而不是我们最喜欢
的运动裤,

这并不是一个愚蠢的巧合。

相反,它揭示了两个
决定性的人类特征。

首先是我们
知道其他人看重什么,

比如他们会赞成
或反对什么,

比如
在这些场合不穿睡衣。

第二,我们很容易使用
这些信息来指导我们的行为。

与许多其他物种不同,

人类倾向于在他人面前调整自己的行为

以获得认可。

我们花费宝贵的时间化妆,

选择合适的图片
和 Instagram 过滤器,

在 140 个字符或更少的字符内撰写毫无疑问会改变世界的想法。

显然,我们
关心别人如何评价我们

是人类的重要组成部分。 然而,

尽管这是
人类的一大特征,但

我们
对何时以及如何

开始
关心他人的意见知之甚少。

现在,这是一个
需要大量研究的大问题。


揭开这个问题的第一步

是调查在发展过程中我们何时

对他人的评价变得敏感。

在过去的四年里
,我在埃默里大学

研究了一个

穿着连体衣在杂货店走来走去没有问题的婴儿如何成长

为一个
害怕公开演讲的成年人,

因为害怕受到负面评价。

(笑声)

现在,这通常是
人们问我的时候,

“你
到底是怎么研究这个问题的?

婴儿不会说话,对吧?”

好吧,如果我丈夫
现在在这里,

他会告诉你我采访婴儿,

因为他宁愿不
说他的妻子在孩子身上做实验。

(笑声)

实际上,我
为孩子们设计实验,

通常以游戏的形式。

发展心理学家
Philippe Rochat 博士和我

设计了一个名为“机器人任务”的“游戏”

来探索孩子
何时开始

对他人的评价敏感。

具体来说,机器人任务会
捕捉到儿童(如成人)在其他人注视时

策略性地修改他们的行为

为此,我们向
14 到 24 个月大的婴儿

展示了如何激活玩具机器人

,重要的是,我们要么
分配了一个正值,

一边说“哇,真棒!”

或负值,按下遥控器后说
“哦,哦。哦,哦,不”

在这个玩具演示之后,

我们邀请
婴儿玩遥控器

,然后或者看着他们,

或者转身假装
在看杂志。

这个想法是,如果到 24 个月时,

孩子们确实
对他人的评价很敏感,

那么他们的按键行为不仅
应该受到

他们是否被注视的影响

,还应该受到
实验者对按键表达的价值观的影响。

遥控器。

因此,例如,

我们希望孩子们在被观察时会
更多地使用正极遥控器,

但是

一旦没有人在看,他们就会选择探索负极遥控器。

为了真正捕捉到这种现象,
我们对这项研究进行了三种变体。

一项研究探讨了

如果没有
提供价值或说明,婴儿将如何与新玩具互动。

所以我们只是给婴儿
展示了如何激活玩具机器人,

但没有赋值

,也没有
告诉他们可以玩遥控器,

给他们提供了一个非常
模棱两可的情况。

在研究二中,

我们结合了两个值,
一个积极的和一个消极的。

在上一项研究中,
我们有两个实验者和一个遥控器。

一位实验者
对按下遥控器表示负值,

说,“呸,玩具动了”,

而另一位实验者
表示正值,说,

“是的,玩具动了。”

这就是孩子
们对这三种不同情景的反应。

所以在研究一,模棱两可的情况下,

我目前正在观察孩子。

她似乎
对按遥控器不太感兴趣。

一旦我转身——

现在她已经准备好玩了。

(笑声)

目前,我没有在看孩子。

她真的很专注。

我转身。

(笑声)

她什么都没做,对吧?

在研究二中,它是两个遥控器,

一个带有正值
,一个带有负值。

我现在正在观察孩子。

橙色遥控
器是负遥控器。

她只是环顾四周,
看着我,闲逛。

然后我转身……

(笑声)

这就是她想要的。

我不看孩子。

他想让妈妈和它一起玩,对吧?

走更安全的路线。

我转身……

(笑声)

他也没有做任何事情。

是的,他觉得很尴尬。

(笑声)

每个人都知道
那种斜视,对吧?

研究三,两个
实验者,一个远程。 对按下遥控

器反应消极的实验者

现在正在看孩子。

她觉得有些尴尬,
不知道该怎么办,靠妈妈。

然后,她将转身,


表达积极反应的实验者注视着。

海岸很清楚——现在她已经准备好上场了。

(笑声)

所以,正如数据所表明的,

我们发现孩子们的
按键

行为确实受到了实验者的价值观
和指导的影响。

因为在研究一中,
孩子们不知道

什么会被正面
评价或负面评价,

他们倾向于走最安全的路线

,等到我
转身按下遥控器。

研究二的孩子在我看的时候

选择了明显更多地按正极遥控器

但是当我转身时,

他们立即拿起负极遥控
器开始玩。

重要的是,在一项对照研究中

,我们删除
了遥控器的不同值——

所以我们在按下任一遥控器后简单地说,“哦,哇”
——

儿童的按钮按下行为
不再因条件而异,

这表明它 确实
是我们在之前的研究中为驱动行为的两个遥控器提供的值

最后但并非最不重要的一点是,

研究三中的儿童选择在

表示正面值的实验者观看时更多地按下遥控器,

而不是
表示负面值的实验者。

并非巧合

的是,大约在这个年龄段
,孩子们开始

在可能
引起负面评价的情况下表现出尴尬,

例如
看着镜子中的自己

并注意到自己鼻子上的印记。

对于成年人来说,这相当于在牙齿中发现菠菜。

(笑声)

那么,基于这些发现,我们能说什么呢

除了
婴儿实际上非常非常偷偷摸摸的事实之外。

(笑声)

从很早开始,孩子和成年人一样,

对我们赋予物体和行为的价值观很敏感

重要的是,他们使用这些价值观
来指导他们的行为。

无论我们是否意识到这一点,

我们都在不断地
向周围的人传达价值观。

现在,我不是指
“善良”或“不要偷窃”之类的价值观,

尽管这些确实是价值观。

我的意思是,我们不断地
向他人展示,特别是我们的孩子,

什么是可爱的、有价值的
和值得称赞的,什么不是。

很多时候,

我们实际上是在
没有注意到的情况下这样做的。

心理学家研究行为是
为了探索心灵的内容,

因为我们的行为
往往反映了我们的信念

、价值观和欲望。

在亚特兰大,
我们都相信同样的事情。

可口可乐比百事可乐好。

(掌声)

现在,这可能与
可口可乐是在亚特兰大发明的事实有关。

但无论如何,

这种信念体现在
大多数人会选择喝可乐这一事实上。

同样地,

当我们主要为

女孩补充漂亮的头发
或漂亮的衣服时,我们正在传达一种价值观,

而男孩则补充她们的智慧。

或者当我们选择提供糖果
而不是营养食品时,

作为对良好行为的奖励。

成人和儿童


从这些微妙的行为中汲取价值方面非常有效。

反过来,这最终会
塑造他们自己的行为。

我今天与大家分享的研究

表明,这种能力
在我们发育的早期就出现了,

甚至在我们能说出
一个完整的句子

或什至接受过便盆训练之前。


成为我们成长过程中不可或缺的一部分。

所以在我走之前,

我想邀请
你思考

一下我们
在日常互动中传播的价值观,

以及这些价值观如何
影响你周围人的行为。

例如,

当我们花更多时间
对着手机

微笑而不是与他人微笑时,传播的价值是什么?

同样,想想你自己的行为是
如何被你周围的人塑造的,这是你

以前可能没有考虑过的。

回到我们简单的例子,

你真的更喜欢可口可乐而不是百事可乐吗?

或者这种偏好仅仅是
由你周围的其他人所看重的东西驱动的?

父母和老师
当然

有权塑造孩子的行为。

但重要的是要记住

,通过我们
在简单的日常互动中传达的价值观,

我们都有能力塑造
周围人的行为。

谢谢你。

(掌声)