Memory & Cognition

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 757–764 | Cite as

Let’s swap: Early understanding of social exchange by British and Nepali children



Recent research with adults has suggested that they readily understand conditional rules that include a deontic or prescriptive element. The possibility that young children might also understand such conditional rules when they are embedded in the context of an exchange agreement was explored in three studies. Children 3–7 years of age listened to stories in which two protagonists agreed to an exchange of mutual benefit. Children tested both in Britain and Nepal were accurate in identifying (1) when either protagonist had reneged on the agreement and (2) when both protagonists had kept the agreement. The findings indicate that young children are sensitive to the obligations that stem from an exchange agreement even if it is made between equals rather than imposed by adult authority.


  1. Berndt, T. J. (1977). The effect of reciprocity norms on moral judgement and causal attribution.Child Development,48, 1322–1330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheng, P.W., &Holyoak, K. J. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas.Cognitive Psychology,17, 391–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cosmides, L. (1985).Deduction or Darwinian algorithms? An explanation of the “elusive” content effect on the Wason selection task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University (University Microfilms 86-02206).Google Scholar
  4. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task.Cognition,31, 187–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosmides, L., &Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.),The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, D. D. (1996a). Evidence for the innateness of deontic reasoning.Mind & Language,11, 160–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummins, D.D. (1996b). Evidence of deontic reasoning among 3- and 4-year-old children.Memory & Cognition,24, 823–829.Google Scholar
  8. Cummins, D.D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of higher cognition. In D. D. Cummins & C. A. Allen (Eds.),The evolution of mind (pp. 30–50). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. De Cooke, P. A. (1992). Children’s understanding of indebtedness as a feature of reciprocal help exchanges between peers.Developmental Psychology,28, 948–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gigerenzer, G., &Hug, K. (1992). Domain-specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating, and perspective change.Cognition,43, 127–171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris, P. L., &Núñez, M. (1996). Understanding of permission rules by pre-school children.Child Development,67, 1572–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holyoak, K., &Cheng, P.W. (1995). Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view.Thinking & Reasoning,1, 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Isaacs, S. (1933).Social development in young children. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Levitt, M. J., Weber, R. A., Clark, M. C., &McDonnell, P. (1985). Reciprocity of exchange in toddler sharing behavior.Developmental Psychology,21, 122–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manktelow, K., &Over, D.E. (1991). Social roles and utilities in reasoning with deontic conditionals.Cognition,39, 85–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Núñez, M., &Harris, P. L. (1998a). Psychological and deontic concepts: Separate domains or intimate connection?Mind & Language,13, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Núñez, M., & Harris, P. L. (1998b, July).Young children’s reasoning about prescriptive rules: Spotting transgressions through the selection task. Paper presented at the XVth Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Berne, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  18. Politzer, G., &Nguyen-Xuan, A. (1992). Reasoning about promises and warnings: Darwinian algorithms, mental models, relevance judgements or pragmatic schemes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,44A, 402–421.Google Scholar
  19. Smetana, J. G. (1993). Understanding of social rules. In M. Bennett (Ed.),The child as psychologist (pp. 111–141). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  20. Turiel, E. (1997). The development of morality. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (pp. 863–932). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. Foss (Ed.),New horizons in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135–151). Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul L. Harris
    • 1
    • 2
  • María núñez
    • 1
  • Caroline Brett
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordEngland
  2. 2.Graduate School of EducationHarvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations