essay hahahah
answer question 1-2 pages due tomorrow 3pm la time zone
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES
Acquiring Group Bias: Observing Other Peoples Nonverbal Signals Can
Create Social Group Biases
Allison L. Skinner
Northwestern University
Kristina R. Olson and Andrew N. Meltzoff
University of Washington
Evidence of group bias based on race, ethnicity, nationality, and language emerges early in the life span.
Although understanding the initial acquisition of group bias has critical theoretical and practical
implications, precisely how group biases are acquired has been understudied. In two preregistered
experiments, we tested the hypothesis that generalized social group biases can be acquired through
exposure to positive nonverbal signals directed toward a novel adult from one group and more negative
nonverbal signals directed toward a novel adult from another group. We sought to determine whether
children would acquire global nonverbal signal-consistent social group biases that extended beyond their
explicit social preferences, by measuring childrens preferences, imitation, and behavioral intentions.
Supporting our preregistered hypotheses, preschool-age participants favored small and large groups
whose member received positive nonverbal signals, relative to groups whose member received more
negative nonverbal signals. We also replicated prior work indicating that children will acquire individual
target biases from the observation of biased nonverbal signals. Here we make the case that generalized
social group biases can be rapidly and unintentionally transmitted on the basis of observational learning
from nonverbal signals.
Keywords: group bias, nonverbal behavior, children, observational learning, attitudes
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000218.supp
Imagine a child arriving at a public playground with a new
babysitter. The child observes his babysitter warmly smile and
greet another adult as they make their way across the playground.
But when she greets another one of the adults, her nonverbal
behavior suddenly changes, and her voice seems to have a scornful
tone. Although his babysitter does not explicitly verbalize her
feelings toward these individuals, her nonverbal signals speak
volumes. How will the child use this information? Will he develop
attitudes favoring one of these two people relative to the other?
Moreover, if these two adults were members of different groups
(e.g., different nationalities), could this experience generalize and
influence the childs attitudes toward others from those groups?
The current studies examine these questions.
Social psychological conceptions of group bias often describe it
as an attitude reflecting valenced associations (positive or nega-
tive) with a group of people (Brewer, 1999; Smith, 2014). These
types of valenced associations with social groups emerge early in
human development (e.g., Aboud, 2003; Cvencek, Greenwald, &
Meltzoff, 2016; Dunham, Baron, & Carey, 2011; Pahlke, Bigler, &
Suizzo, 2012; Rutland, Cameron, Bennett, & Ferrell, 2005). For
instance, as early as 3 years of age, and more reliably by 45 years
of age, children show evidence of favoring some racial groups over
others (Aboud, 2003; Castelli, Zogmaister, & Tomelleri, 2009;
Qian et al., 2016; Setoh et al., 2019; Shutts, 2015). Moreover, these
biases have been observed at both the explicit (based on direct
measures and self-reports) and the implicit (based on indirect
measures of cognitive associations) level (Dunham, Baron, &
Banaji, 2008). Before reaching school age, children have been
shown to demonstrate biases based on gender, race, accent, and
nationality, among others (e.g., Cvencek, Greenwald, & Meltzoff,
2011; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006; Hilliard & Liben, 2010;
Kinzler, Shutts, Dejesus, & Spelke, 2009; McLoughlin & Over,
2017; McLoughlin, Tipper, & Over, 2018; Renno & Shutts, 2015;
Richter, Over, & Dunham, 2016).
Precisely how group biases are initially acquired has been
understudied, and yet understanding the acquisition of group bias
has critical theoretical implications (Skinner & Meltzoff, 2019).
Developmental intergroup theory (DIT) argues that there are a
number of factors that signal to children which attributes are
meaningful within a social context and another set of factors that
This article was published Online First September 16, 2019.
X Allison L. Skinner, Psychology Department, Northwestern Univer-
sity; Kristina R. Olson, Department of Psychology, University of Wash-
ington; Andrew N. Meltzoff, Psychology Department and the Institute for
Learning and Brain Sciences, University of Washington.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allison L.
Skinner, who is now at the Psychology Department, University of Georgia,
125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: [emailprotected]
.edu
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:
Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes
2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 119, No. 4, 824838
ISSN: 0022-3514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000218
824
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1220-4791
mailto:[emailprotected]
mailto:[emailprotected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000218
lead to the development of group biases (Bigler & Liben, 2007).
The factors that are said to heighten the salience of particular
attributes are (a) observable characteristics that differentiate
groups (perceptual discriminability), (b) the use of distinct labels
to refer to different groups, (c) implicit cues that denote that groups
are meaningful (e.g., groups are segregated), and (d) the propor-
tional size of the groups (i.e., minority groups tend to be perceived
as more distinctive). Once groups have been made salient to
children, there are both cognitive processes (e.g., essentialism,
ingroup bias) and environmental inputs (e.g., explicit messages
about groups, nonverbal behavior directed toward members of
different groups) that are thought to lead children to attach mean-
ing to the groups and develop biases.
Prior work has shown that, like adults (Brewer, 1979), children
readily form ingroup biases, even in the context of minimal groups
(Bigler, Brown, & Markell, 2001; Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997;
Bigler & Liben, 2006, 2007; Dunham et al., 2011; Patterson &
Bigler, 2006). That is, merely assigning children to be members of
an arbitrary group will lead them to favor that group and have
more positive attitudes toward its members than members of the
assigned outgroup. Although limited work has examined chil-
drens attitudes and biases toward experimentally created novel
groups (in which children are not a member), there is evidence that
they will readily form attitudes and biases with regard to novel
groups (e.g., Johnston & Jacobs, 2003; Rhodes, 2014; Roberts,
Gelman, & Ho, 2017; Roberts, Guo, Ho, & Gelman, 2018; Rob-
erts, Ho, & Gelman, 2017). For instance, relevant to the current
work, children will show behavioral intentions (to give a cookie)
that favor members of a privileged novel group over members of
a disadvantaged novel group (Olson, Dweck, Spelke, & Banaji,
2011).
Evaluative Conditioning and Observational Learning
Early classical conditioning work indicated that neutral stimuli
could develop valenced associations via repeated pairings with
positive or negative stimuli (e.g., Staats & Staats, 1958). Subse-
quent research showed that attitudes toward social targets could be
shaped in the same way, via a classical conditioning approach
termed evaluative conditioning (De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens,
2001; Hofmann, De Houwer, Perugini, Baeyens, & Crombez,
2010; Olson & Fazio, 2001). For example, child participants who
were repeatedly exposed to a novel creature paired with a liked
creature (e.g., a puppy) formed positive associations with that
novel creature (Halbeisen, Walther, & Schneider, 2017). In some
cases, repeated pairings are not even necessary, for instance, when
groups are verbally tagged with explicitly negative information
(Kang & Inzlicht, 2012).
Related work on vicarious classical conditioning has demon-
strated that conditioned emotional responses can be transmitted
vicariously, such that strong affective associations can be estab-
lished through observing someone else go through an aversive
conditioning procedure (Bandura & Rosenthal, 1966; Berber,
1962). Banduras (1971) social learning theory builds upon this,
asserting that observation of others behavior is a key means
through which people learn about the world. This adaptive ability
allows adults and children to learn much more quickly and effi-
ciently than we would if we had to learn everything first hand
through trial and error (Bandura, 1971; Meltzoff, Kuhl, Movellan,
& Sejnowski, 2009); and such observational learning has been
shown to have neuro-biological foundations in human infancy
(Meltzoff & Marshall, 2018). Bandura argued that viewing another
person displaying vocal, facial, and postural cues in response to
a stimulus (e.g., a person) can result in strong emotional biases
toward or against that stimulus (Bandura, 1971, p. 13). For exam-
ple, a young child who observes someone seeming warmer and
friendlier when interacting with a member of one group relative to
a member of another group may go on to develop biases based on
this observation.
The Role of Nonverbal Signals in Shaping
Group Biases
It has been theorized that nonverbal signals may be a means
through which group biases are transmitted to other people (e.g.,
Bigler & Liben, 2007; Castelli, De Dea, & Nesdale, 2008; Dovi-
dio, 2009; Platten, Hernik, Fonagy, & Fearon, 2010; Weisbuch &
Pauker, 2011). Though the supposition that group biases can
initially be acquired in this way has never actually been tested,
prior work demonstrates that attitudes toward specific individuals
can be acquired from observed nonverbal signals (de Rosnay,
Cooper, Tsigaras, & Murray, 2006; Skinner, Meltzoff, & Olson,
2017). Children will draw inferences about who is nicer, smarter,
stronger, and higher status based on the nonverbal signals that are
displayed by specific individuals (e.g., Terrizzi, Brey, Shutts, &
Beier, 2019) as well as the nonverbal signals that others direct
toward target individuals (Brey & Shutts, 2015, 2018; Skinner et
al., 2017).
There is also some evidence that these attitudes may generalize
somewhat beyond the specific targets of nonverbal signals. In
Skinner et al.s (2017) study, preschool children who observed an
adult display positive nonverbal signals toward one individual and
negative nonverbal signals toward another subsequently demon-
strated bias in favor of the target of positive nonverbal signals and
also another individual who was described as that persons best
friend. Although in this experiment, the best friend was also a
member of the same group as the target, the close connection
indicated by being a friend of the target and the presumed simi-
larities between best friends may explain the generalization rather
than their mere shared group membership. Thus, the present work
builds upon prior work suggesting that children can acquire atti-
tudes toward individuals from nonverbal signals, to provide the
first test that nonverbally acquired bias may generalize based upon
mere group membership.
Although there have been no studies in either adults or children
investigating whether exposure to valenced nonverbal signals can
produce attitudes toward novel social groups, we know that atti-
tudes toward familiar social groups that are often socially stigma-
tized (e.g., racial groups) can be influenced through exposure to
valenced nonverbal signals directed toward an individual from that
group (e.g., Castelli, Carraro, Pavan, Murelli, & Carraro, 2012;
Weisbuch & Ambady, 2009). For example, White participants who
viewed an experimental video in which a White actor displayed
negative nonverbal signals toward a Black target subsequently
expressed stronger anti-Black bias than those who viewed a video
in which the White actor displayed positive nonverbal signals
toward the Black target (e.g., Castelli et al., 2008, 2012; Willard,
Isaac, & Carney, 2015). Relatedly, this type of nonverbal racial
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
825NONVERBAL ACQUISITION OF SOCIAL GROUP BIASES
bias was recently identified on primetime TV shows in the United
States, and evidence indicated that exposure to these shows in-
creased adults implicit anti-Black biases (Weisbuch, Pauker, &
Ambady, 2009). In other words, nonverbal signals directed toward
members of a societally stigmatized group can influence attitudes
toward that group. However, whether this is evidence that bias
toward groups can initially be acquired in this way is unclear
because nonverbal signals were fully consistent with biases that
were already present in participants social environments. Thus,
these studies do not demonstrate whether group biases can be
initially acquired via nonverbal signals.
Differentiating Bias Acquisition From the Activation
of Existing Societal Biases
The current research is uniquely differentiated from related prior
work in that it focuses on the initial acquisition of new group-
based bias, as opposed to shifting attitudes toward familiar social
groups. Critically, evidence suggests that just because cues are
capable of shifting or increasing an existing group bias does not
mean that they are capable of creating a new group bias. For
instance, prior work has shown that predominantly White and
Asian American participants pro-White/anti-Black biases were
uninfluenced by observing valenced nonverbal signals directed
toward a White target (Willard et al., 2015). In this study, non-
verbal signals only influenced group biases when they capitalized
on social biases (i.e., against Black people) that were preexisting
within the cultural context. When nonverbal biases were counter to
group biases preexisting in the cultural context (i.e., against White
people), they had no impact on participants group biases. Thus,
the fact that biased nonverbal signals can inflame group biases that
are preexistent within a cultural context is not necessarily evidence
that biased nonverbal signals can create new group biases. The
present experiments examine whether observers can acquire novel
group biases from exposure to biased nonverbal signals directed
toward individual group members.
Attitude Transfer
Evidence suggests that information about an individual often
does not immediately generalize (at least not explicitly) to their
broader group (Ranganath & Nosek, 2008; Ratliff & Nosek, 2011).
Attitude transfer from an individual to a broader social group can
also depend upon the observers own group membership (e.g.,
Chen & Ratliff, 2015; Willard et al., 2015). For instance, Black
participants who were induced to develop attitudes toward a racial
ingroup member (a Black individual), who was depicted as a
member of a novel social group (not based on race), did not
generalize those attitudes to other members of the novel social
group (Chen & Ratliff, 2015). In addition, if individuals are not
perceived to be typical of their group, attitudes toward an individ-
ual may not generalize to their broader group (e.g., Cameron &
Rutland, 2006; Pettigrew, 1979). For example, previous findings
have shown that children do not generalize their attitudes about
their own grandparents to old people in general, possibly because
children do not perceive their grandparents to be typical old people
(Newman, Faux, & Larimer, 1997). Together, this work suggests
that although attitudes toward individuals can transfer to others in
that individuals broader group, attitudes do not always generalize.
Evidence that attitudes do not always generalize is particularly
relevant to the case of nonverbal signals, given that they are less
explicit than other common attitude inductions (e.g., verbal trait
descriptions about an individual, such as vicious or wonder-
ful).
Rationale for the Current Experiments
In the current research, we extend the work of Skinner et al.
(2017) to examine whether exposing children to biased nonverbal
signalsappearing warmer and friendlier when interacting with
one individual relative to anotherwill create group bias in favor
of that individuals larger social group or class. The proposed
process of nonverbal group bias acquisition is hypothesized to
operate across the life span, but we tested this question with
preschool-age children because this is an age at which many social
group biases appear for the first time (Skinner & Meltzoff, 2019).
Our focus on bias in favor of one group relative to another is
consistent with the assertion that discrimination in contemporary
Western society more often results from group favoritism than
group derogation or hostility (Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014), and
related evidence that (in)group favoritism seems to emerge earlier
in development than (out)group derogation (e.g., Aboud, 2003;
Buttelmann & Bhm, 2014). We examine whether disparities in
nonverbal signals indicating warmth and friendlinesssuch as
facial expression, tone of voice, and body postureduring social
interactions can produce generalized group biases. We hypothe-
sized that children would generalize the social biases learned from
observing nonverbal signals directed toward individuals, resulting
in group biases.
In Experiment 1, we examined whether seeing one individual
receive more positive nonverbal signals than another would lead
preschool children to develop group bias in favor of that individ-
uals small group of affiliates. Prior work had demonstrated that
children generalized such biases to the targets best friends (Skin-
ner et al., 2017). Experiment 1 tested whether such biases would be
generalized to the targets groups of mere affiliates. In Experiment
2, we tested whether such biases would be generalized much more
broadly, to large classes of people (akin to those of the same
nationality).
Across both experiments we used a constellation of measures
assessing affect, cognition, and behaviorin line with the tripar-
tite perspective on group attitudes (Jackson et al., 1996). Relative
liking (i.e., preference items) served as a measure of affect (con-
sistent with the operational definition of affective attitude compo-
nents provided by Ostrom, 1969). Childrens imitation (cognition/
behavior) was thought to be relevant for a couple of reasons. First,
imitation can provide an indication of who children think is more
knowledgeable or prestigious (Chudek, Heller, Birch, & Henrich,
2012). Second, evidence suggests that across the life span people
are more likely to imitate (e.g., Buttelmann, Zmyj, Daum, &
Carpenter, 2013; Cvencek et al., 2011; Howard, Henderson,
Carrazza, & Woodward, 2015; Kinzler, Corriveau, & Harris, 2011;
Likowski, Mhlberger, Seibt, Pauli, & Weyers, 2008; Watson-
Jones, Whitehouse, & Legare, 2016), as well as mentally simulate
(Gutsell & Inzlicht, 2010), the actions of ingroup members and
those whom they like. Examining who children choose to provide
a resource (toy) to and who they choose to interact with provided
an additional measure of behavior and also offered some indication
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
826 SKINNER, OLSON, AND MELTZOFF
of whether nonverbally acquired attitudes have the potential to
result in group disparities. By measuring childrens preferences,
imitation, and behavioral intentions, we sought to ascertain
whether children would acquire nonverbal signal-consistent group
attitudes that were reflective of all three attitude components
affect, cognition, and behavior (e.g., Jackson et al., 1996; Ostrom,
1969).
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, we sought to test whether exposing children to
more positive nonverbal signals directed toward one novel indi-
vidual (relative to another) could lead them to develop generalized
biases in favor of the social group that the target of more positive
nonverbal signals belongs to. We introduced preschool-aged chil-
dren to two unfamiliar groups of peoplemembers of one group
were all dressed in the same color shirts and members of the other
group were all dressed in shirts of a different color. Next, children
observed a prerecorded interaction on video (drawn from Skinner
et al., 2017), in which an adult actor displayed positive nonverbal
signals toward a novel adult from one group and negative nonver-
bal signals toward a novel adult from another group. We used adult
models to display the nonverbal signals because some evidence
suggests that young children are more likely to conform to the
attitudes and beliefs of adults than children (McGuigan & Steven-
son, 2016) and ascribe more informative value to adults gestures
(Kachel, Moore, & Tomasello, 2018). After watching the video-
recorded interaction, children answered a series of questions de-
signed to assess their biases toward the adults in the video and each
adults social group.
In line with recent calls for preregistration in the behavioral
sciences (Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2015; Lindsay, 2015; Nosek,
Ebersole, DeHaven, & Mellor, 2018), we preregistered our exper-
iment, hypotheses, and analyses. Our preregistered hypothesis was
that after observing one (randomly assigned) individual receive
more positive nonverbal signals than another individual, children
would exhibit generalized bias in favor of people from the same
social group as the person who received more positive nonverbal
signals. The two adults to whom bias was directed were unfamiliar
to the child, matched to each other in gender, race, and age, and the
individual who received more positive nonverbal signals was
randomly assigned. In this way, we tested for the acquisition of
generalized group bias using novel groups for which the partici-
pants could not have had prior biases one way or another (novel
group design). Through the peer review process, the reviewers
recommended several changes to our preregistered analysis plan
and therefore, for full transparency, the online supplemental ma-
terials includes analyses that follow the preregistration exactly, and
the analyses reported in the main text adopts the modifications
suggested in the review process.
Method
Participants. A priori power analysis, carried out using
GPower software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007),
indicated that to detect an effect size of d .45 (the average effect
size in previous work, Skinner et al., 2017) for the planned
two-tailed t test, with an alpha of .05 and power .80, a sample
of 41 participants would be needed. We chose to recruit a sub-
stantially larger sample in step with recommendations indicating
that larger samples are preferred to adequately power behavioral
studies (e.g., Fraley & Vazire, 2014). We predetermined our stop-
ping rule, which was defined as 80 participants (forty 4-year-olds,
forty 5-year-olds; with equal numbers of boys and girls at each
age) with complete data who passed the manipulation check. Our
preregistered design and analysis plan is available on Open Sci-
ence Framework: https://osf.io/92jxa/?view_only2b265205
af744de2bc173d03a118ba34. To reach our predetermined stop-
ping point, we had to recruit 110 participants from the local
community through the University of Washington Child Partici-
pant Pool, a computerized database of thousands of children in the
greater Seattle area. Children most often enter this database at birth
when their parent voluntarily returns a postcard mailed from the
participant pool, but some participants join at later points via
community event recruitment. Reviewers requested that we in-
clude all participants in analyses rather than only those who passed
the manipulation check and we have done so in the main text. The
online supplemental materials reports analyses including only
those participants who were specified in the preregistration.
Fifty-five percent of the participants were boys (Mage 58.02
months, SD 5.29 months). They were identified by their parents
as White (82%), multiracial (12%), Asian (4%), or another racial
or ethnic group (2%). Although measures of socioeconomic status
(SES) were not included in this experiment, our experience re-
cruiting children from this subject pool indicates that participants
tend to be from middle or upper-middle SES backgrounds with
parents who tend to be college graduates. Children received a
small toy in exchange for their participation. All testing was done
in a laboratory at the university after the parent signed an informed
consent form. The universitys institutional review board approved
all experimental procedures (IRB#: STUDY00004316). Data from
Experiment 1 is available on Open Science Framework: https://osf
.io/4dtb7/?view_only4d0598ce6b3940cd85d01af7fb1b67d9.
Materials and procedure. Children were seated at a table in
front of a laptop computer and after providing verbal assent, they
were told that they would be watching a video and then answering
some questions. To allow children to become comfortable with
pointing to items on the computer screen, the experimenter first
asked children to point to a series of four colored shapes on the
screen. If children failed to correctly identify the items, the exper-
imenter (who was seated adjacent to the child) demonstrated the
correct response. Once children had correctly identified the colors
in the warm-up section, they moved on to the primary task of
interest.
In the introduction to the primary task, children were presented
with the still images of two adult women (hereafter referred to as
the targets), one in a dark red shirt and the other in a black shirt,
surrounded by smaller images of 15 other people who were mem-
bers of each targets group (indicated by shirt color). Adults were
chosen to be the targets of nonverbal signals consistent with the
idea that children may develop social biases from observing the
nonverbal signals that adults demonstrate toward one another.
After introducing children to the two color groups, all of the group
members except the two targets disappeared from the screen and
children were informed that they would be watching a video of
those two people, and that they should pay close attention to see
what happens. They were then exposed to a brief video (30 s) in
which a series of two different female adults (henceforth referred
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
827NONVERBAL ACQUISITION OF SOCIAL GROUP BIASES
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000218.supp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000218.supp
https://osf.io/92jxa/?view_only=2b265205af744de2bc173d03a118ba34
https://osf.io/92jxa/?view_only=2b265205af744de2bc173d03a118ba34
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000218.supp
https://osf.io/4dtb7/?view_only=4d0598ce6b3940cd85d01af7fb1b67d9
https://osf.io/4dtb7/?view_only=4d0598ce6b3940cd85d01af7fb1b67d9
to as expressers) displayed one after anothernonverbal bi-
ases toward the adult targets. Two expressers were included in
the video to increase the impact of nonverbal signals, providing
some indication of consensus in the nonverbal biases. Expressers
wore different color shirts from the targets and one another (one
wore orange and the other wore white) and their group member-
ship was not mentioned by the experimenter. Stimulus videos were
identical to those used in previous work (Skinner et al., 2017).
In each scene, one of these expressers was shown in the middle
of the screen with the two targets flanking her on the left and right.
Expressers greeted each target individually by saying hi and then
one of the expressers produced two identical toys (colorful eggs)
and provided each target with one of the toys. Throughout the
video, the expressers displayed positive nonverbal signals (e.g.,
smiling, warm tone of voice, eagerly distributing the toy, leaning
in) toward one of the targets and negative nonverbal signals (e.g.,
scowling, cold tone of voice, reluctantly distributing the toy,
leaning away) toward the other target. Which target was nonver-
bally preferred (i.e., the target in the red shirt or the black shirt),
which target was greeted first, and which side of the screen the
preferred target appeared on were counterbalanced across partici-
pants. The targets responded identically (neutral-positive) whether
they received positive or negative nonverbal signals and the exact
same words were spoken to each target. All children watched the
stimulus video twice before moving on to complete the first set of
dependent measures. The videos of the stimulus conditions are
available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/4dtb7/
?view_only4d0598ce6b3940cd85d01af7fb1b67d9.
Experimenters who conducted the study were trained to main-
tain neutral affect during stimulus presentation and either look
down at the experiment sheet or at the computer screen, so as to
avoid making direct eye contact with the child during the video
(even if the child turned to look at them). Whenever the experi-
menters gestured to the targets/groups on the screen they did so in
counterbalanced order, such that (depending upon counterbalance
condition), they always pointed to the target on the left first and
then the target on the right (or vice versa). If children asked any
questions about the video (e.g., does she not like her?), experi-
menters were trained to respond with I dont know and then
redirect the child back to the experimental protocol. Thus, exper-
imenters were trained to respond in as standardized a way as
possible. This approach of having an experimenter seated with
children throughout the experiment is common in research with
young children (e.g., Castelli et al., 2008; McLoughlin & Over,
2017; Olson et al., 2011; Schug, Shusterman, Barth, & Patalano,
2013; Skinner et al., 2017).
Dependent measures assessing individual social bias. The
individual social bias items were included to assess the replicabil-
ity of previous findings (Skinner et al., 2017).
Social preference. Children were first presented with a still
image of the targets from the video and asked to point to the target
they liked best.1 The experimenter scored whether children chose
the target who received more positive nonverbal signals.
Behavioral intentions (resource provision). Next, children
were presented with a stuffed toy and asked to point to the target
that they thought the experimenter should give the toy to, as a
means of assessing resource provision to the targets. The experi-
menter scored whether children chose the target who received
more positive nonverbal signals.
Imitation (verbal). Participants were presented with another
brief video (30 s) of the same individuals. In this video, after
greeting the targets (repeating the nonverbal signals displayed in
the first video), one of the expressers picked up a novel object (a
rectangular wooden block with holes in it), inquiring about what it
is. In counterbalanced order, each of the targets provided a lin-
guistic label for the object (snegg or hoon). After playing the
video twice, the experimenter physically produced the object that
had been shown in the video and repeated the labels provided by
each of the targets. Then the experimenter asked whether the child
thought that the object was a snegg or a hoon (order counterbal-
anced). If alternative responses were provided, children were
prompted to indicate who they thought was right about the object
label (by pointing). The experimenter scored whether children
chose the label provided by
