title: Three-year-olds' understanding of the consequences of joint commitments.
abstract: Here we investigate the extent of children's understanding of the joint commitments inherent in joint activities. Three-year-old children either made a joint commitment to assemble a puzzle with a puppet partner, or else the child and puppet each assembled their own puzzle. Afterwards, children who had made the joint commitment were more likely to stop and wait for their partner on their way to fetch something, more likely to spontaneously help their partner when needed, and more likely to take over their partner's role when necessary. There was no clear difference in children's tendency to tattle on their partner's cheating behavior or their tendency to distribute rewards equally at the end. It thus appears that by 3 years of age making a joint commitment to act together with others is beginning to engender in children a "we"-intentionality which holds across at least most of the process of the joint activity until the shared goal is achieved, and which withstands at least some of the perturbations to the joint activity children experience.
authors.affiliation: Department for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany ; Department of Developmental Psychology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
authors.forename: Maria
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gräfenhain
authors.forename: Malinda
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Carpenter
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tomasello
mesh_terms: D002657:Child Development / Q000502:physiology*; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D005260:Female; D006379:Helping Behavior; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Oct;61(4):570-81
references.pmid: 1960649
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2009 Sep;45(5):1430-43
references.pmid: 19702403
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998 Jan;74(1):63-79
references.pmid: 9457776
references.citation: Law Hum Behav. 2004 Aug;28(4):411-35
references.pmid: 15499823
references.citation: Child Dev. 1991 Dec;62(6):1352-66
references.pmid: 1786720
references.citation: Infancy. 2007 May;11(3):271-294
references.pmid: 33412734
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Oct;28(5):675-91; discussion 691-735
references.pmid: 16262930
references.citation: Rev Philos Psychol. 2011 Jun;2(2):193-211
references.pmid: 23087769
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2012 Jan;15(1):54-61
references.pmid: 22251292
references.citation: J Soc Psychol. 1986 Feb;126(1):129-30
references.pmid: 3724086
references.citation: Int J Behav Dev. 2007 Jan;31(1):1-11
references.pmid: 18997880
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):12-21
references.pmid: 21722884
references.citation: Child Dev. 2006 May-Jun;77(3):640-63
references.pmid: 16686793
references.citation: Nature. 2011 Jul 20;476(7360):328-31
references.pmid: 21775985
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2011 Feb;22(2):267-73
references.pmid: 21196533
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 Aug;20(8):944-8
references.pmid: 19515118
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2011 Jul;47(4):1054-64
references.pmid: 21604863
references.citation: Nature. 2008 Aug 28;454(7208):1079-83
references.pmid: 18756249
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2008 Jul;44(4):1195-201
references.pmid: 18605846
references.citation: Br J Dev Psychol. 2011 Mar;29(Pt 1):124-30
references.pmid: 21288257
references.citation: J Child Lang. 1978 Oct;5(3):391-401
references.pmid: 701416
references.citation: Child Dev. 1990 Aug;61(4):1164-74
references.pmid: 2209186
references.citation: Child Dev. 2010 May-Jun;81(3):945-57
references.pmid: 20573115
references.citation: Child Dev. 2012 Jan-Feb;83(1):137-45
references.pmid: 22172281
references.citation: Child Dev. 2006 Jul-Aug;77(4):803-21
references.pmid: 16942491