0
0
For nearly two decades, a foundational study in developmental psychology suggested that even infants—well before they can speak or reason—exhibit a basic sense of morality. According to this influential research, babies prefer “helpers” over “hinderers,” seemingly favoring altruistic behavior. However, a new large-scale study has cast doubt on this conclusion, leaving scientists to ponder: Are we truly born with a moral compass, or are our minds blank slates shaped entirely by experience?
The Original Experiment
In 2007, Kiley Hamlin and her colleagues conducted an experiment that became a landmark in moral psychology. They showed six- and 10-month-old babies a puppet show featuring characters struggling to climb a hill. One character would help the climber ascend (the “helper”), while another would push it back down (the “hinderer”). After the show, researchers observed which character the infants preferred to interact with.
The results were striking: 88% of 10-month-olds and all six-month-olds showed a clear preference for the helper, suggesting that even very young infants might possess an innate moral sense. But in a field where replication is key, this finding has faced scrutiny over the years, particularly because the original study relied on a relatively small sample size.
A Larger Lens: The ManyBabies Study
To address concerns about replicability, the ManyBabies consortium—a global network of developmental psychologists—recently revisited the helper-hinderer experiment. Pooling resources from 37 research labs across five continents, they tested 567 infants, making it one of the largest developmental psychology studies ever conducted.
This time, the findings were surprising: babies did not show a consistent preference for the helpful character. Across the ages tested, there was no clear evidence that infants inherently favor altruistic behavior.
What Changed?
The ManyBabies study introduced a few key differences in methodology. Instead of a live puppet show, researchers used videos featuring digital versions of the characters. While this ensured consistency across trials and labs, it may have affected how infants engaged with the experiment. Previous research suggests that even small changes—such as the orientation of the characters’ “googly eyes”—can significantly influence outcomes.
A Question of Blank Slates
The results reignite a classic philosophical debate. Are humans born as “blank slates,” as the 17th-century philosopher John Locke posited, acquiring knowledge and morality entirely through experience? Or is there an innate moral framework at play from birth?
While the ManyBabies study raises doubts about the original findings, it doesn’t necessarily prove that babies lack moral inclinations. Michael Frank, founder of the ManyBabies consortium, urged caution against jumping to conclusions. “This is one possibility—but we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss earlier studies or successful replications,” he noted.
The Path Forward
Kiley Hamlin, who co-authored the original study and contributed to the ManyBabies research, emphasized that more work is needed to untangle the complexities of infant cognition. “This is just one piece of the puzzle,” she remarked.
The new findings highlight the importance of replication and robust methodologies in science, especially in challenging fields like developmental psychology, where gathering data from infants is notoriously difficult.
Whether babies are moral blank slates or possess an innate sense of right and wrong remains an open question. For now, one of psychology’s most famous experiments has a question mark hanging over it. Future studies—and more baby participants—may provide the answers.
Provided by The Conversation.
