a second task, children were offered a choice between the same prosocial offer (1–1) and a more advantageous option (2–0). Compared to the first trials, where the child received a reward regardless of choice, the second trials were costly from the child’s perspective: either they would receive two rewards or they had to share with a peer.
The results of this study showed an interesting pattern of cross-cultural variation: when faced with the first choice, children in all societies increasingly chose the prosocial option (1–1) based on their age, and there was relative homogeneity in children’s schools across sites. However, when faced with the second, more costly choice, children showed much more variation, suggesting that culture plays a more important role in children’s sharing behavior when costs are involved.
Perhaps one of the most interesting results is the finding that in late childhood children’s choices begin to converge with those of adults in their respective societies, elucidating the developmental period during which local norms can exert considerable influence on social behavior.
Contrast studies between Western and non-Western populations have been conducted largely to test the generalization of results. For example, merit-based equity judgments were compared among children in Germany, Namibia and Kenya: merit-based allocations roughly corresponded to the Western/non-Western divide, with German children assigning allocations based on merit, while Samburu children were relatively more likely to assign allocations based on equality. This result is related to the types of interactions common in these societies; indeed, frequent or infrequent interactions with outsiders could influence the relative value of merit or equality, respectively, in these societies (Amir and McAuliffe 2020).
In recent years, researchers have made great strides in formulating new methods for measuring cultural distance. In particular, Muthukrishna and Henrich (2019) have developed a new measure to help researchers design, plan and justify comparative psychological projects.
Based on a mathematical method originally intended to calculate the degree of genetic distance between two populations (called the fixation index, or FST), the team created a new measure, called the cultural FST, to calculate cultural distance from a large survey of cultural values in various societies. These methods are already gaining popularity in studies of cross-cultural variation in adult behavior.
1.5.4. The accuracy and/or extent of data
In practice, the logistics of conducting cross-cultural research can sometimes involve a trade-off between breadth and precision: the collection of detailed ethnographic data across a wide range of communities by a single person, or even a single team, demands a great deal of time and effort, but there is much to be gained by combining and integrating the main points from these two approaches. Beatrice and John Whiting’s work on the emergence of social behavior, often referred to as the “Six Cultures” (1977), is a particularly significant and influential example of this successful overlap. This ambitious and unprecedented project had a series of interlocking parts. Working with their field teams, the researchers first produced detailed general ethnographies of the children’s host societies – in Kenya, Okinawa, India, the Philippines, Mexico and the United States – that included descriptions of the children’s upbringing and lives at the cultural level.
Next, the teams worked with families in each of these communities, conducting structured interviews with mothers. Finally, the field teams collected a large number of standardized observations of children’s behavior, resulting in more than 2,000 five-minute observations and nearly 10,000 coded interactions of approximately 134 children between the ages of 3 and 11.
Lamenting the fact that most existing cross-cultural work simply describes differences, rather than systematically exploring them, the authors used their body of data to address some of the most important issues in child development at the time, such as the effects of gender, age, birth order and culture on social behavior.
They also documented consistent gender differences among children, such as girls being more likely to ask for help, while boys were more likely to seek attention and dominance. These early insights into the role of culture in child socialization, and in particular in the development of prosocial behaviors, laid the groundwork for new waves of work to unpack the concept of culture.
An enduring lesson from the Six Cultures study is the effectiveness of the model for studying child development, a research model that focuses on the causes of fundamental societal characteristics, such as ecology and economics, on children’s formative practices, which in turn lead to variations in adult behaviors (Konner 2010).
To conclude this chapter, psychologists have begun to pay closer attention to considerations of culture and context when assessing human behavior. These waves of change have also reached developmental psychology, within which cross-cultural work is beginning to gain importance. Through meticulous work, we have learned more than ever about behavioral diversity in the early years of life, in different contexts, as research on children in diverse societies around the world helps us to understand the development, function and evolution of human behavior.
1.6. Childhood and family in history
Has childhood always existed? What a question! We recall that for Philippe Ariès (1973) the child and the family, such as we know them today, only appeared for the first time in the 18th century. Before that, the traditional, large family was guided by the function of economic survival, whereas today, the modern family is guided by the well-being of its members and the affective function.
In the traditional family, the socialization of the child was rigorous and the child’s duty was obedience. Education took place within the family framework, and the child entered the world of adults and work very early; adolescence did not exist.
On this point, the descriptions of Norbert Elias (1973) about his process of civilization are very enlightening, and this in all aspects of the child’s life: contrary to Rousseau, according to Elias, the child was, in all respects, a “miniature adult”, wearing the same clothes as their parents, eating the same food, sleeping in their bed and going to work with them in the morning.
It was only in the 18th century that the “modern child” appeared among the bourgeoisie and was over-invested in, until it became the “king child” of today. Declines in fertility have obviously also played a role in this phenomenon: when we have a single child, we invest more in them than if we have eight.
Children are no longer an asset (as they still are today in developing countries), but a cost that parents accept or refuse. However, when they decide to have children, they then expect them to be perfect. The result is an overestimation of the skills of the babies and then of the children, an overstimulation in all aspects of development, which requires an effort that may exceed the children’s capabilities, and a total availability of the parents, which is not without complications (Parrat-Dayan 1997).
Indeed, feminism, the employment of women and the desire for equality between men and women will disrupt the family and maternal and paternal roles and further complicate this problem.
The adult, especially initially the mother, realizes that she may make educational mistakes that will ultimately influence the child’s personality. Moreover, as early as the 1940s, psychologists had already begun to speak of these mothers as “bad”, “anxious”, “hostile”, “distressed”, “rejecting”, “overprotective”, “aggressive” and, consequently, responsible for child illnesses (Parrat-Dayan 1997).
Faced with this responsibility and the anxiety of doing the wrong things3, parents have turned to books on child rearing, which have been enjoying an exponential growth in popularity. These books testify to doctors’ conception of the mother–child
