Child Development, September/October 2019, Volume 90, Number 5, Pages 1789–1801

Modeling Prosocial Behavior Increases Helping in 16-Month-Olds

Nils Schuhmacher Moritz K€
oster
University of M€
unster University of Münster and Free University Berlin

Joscha K€artner
University of M€
unster

In two experiments, the imitation of helping behavior in 16-month-olds was investigated. In Study 1 (N = 31),
infants either observed an adult model helping or not helping another individual before they had the opportu-
nity to assist an unfamiliar experimenter. In one of two tasks, more children helped in the prosocial model
condition than in the no model control condition. In Study 2 (N = 60), a second control condition was
included to test whether infants imitated the prosocial intention (no neediness control). Children in the proso-
cial model condition helped more readily than children in the no model condition, with the second control
condition falling in between. These findings propose that modeling provides a critical learning mechanism in
early prosocial development.

Shortly after their first birthday, infants begin to
help others, for example by handing them objects
out of their reach. This early helping behavior fur-
ther increases in frequency and complexity during
children’s second year of life (Dahl, 2015; Warneken,
Chen, & Tomasello, 2006; Warneken & Tomasello,
2007). Although the development of children’s help-
ing behavior has been described exhaustively in the
literature (see Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006),
research on the driving forces is scarce. In particular,
it has been questioned if and how children’s proso-
cial development is influenced by social learning
from infancy on. One the one hand it was proposed
that infants’ early helping tendencies predominantly
rest on an evolved biological predisposition (see
Warneken & Tomasello, 2009). On the other hand,
current research focuses on different social learning
mechanisms such as infant’s sensitization to other’s
needs by means of parental scaffolding, that is, par-
ental encouragement, praise or supportive structur-
ing in helping situations (see Brownell, 2016).
However, although there is first correlational and
experimental evidence on the positive effect of
We particularly thank Amelie Helmrich, Micha Hilbert, Karina
L€
udemann, Jennifer Riefer, Benedikt Schuler, Judith Silk-
enb€aumer, Eva Strehlke, and Ulrike Wilde for recruitment, data
collection, and/or coding. Furthermore, we say thank you to all
participating families.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Nils Schuhmacher, Unit of Developmental Psychology, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of M€ unster, Fliednerstr. 21,
48149 M€ unster, Germany. Electronic mail may be sent to
nils.schuhmacher@uni-muenster.de.
encouragement and praise by primary caregivers
during the second year (Dahl, 2015; Dahl et al.,
2017; Hammond & Carpendale, 2015; K€ oster, Caval-
cante, Vera Cruz de Carvalho, D^ ogo Resende, &
K€artner, 2016), there is no research on another
important mechanism, namely observational learn-
ing based on imitation (see Elsner, 2014).
Influential theoretical frameworks have long
acknowledged the importance of observational
learning for child development, including children’s
helping behavior. For example, Rogoff (2003) and
Grusec and Davidov (2010) emphasize that it is not
only essential to investigate the degree to which
adults actively scaffold children’s learning pro-
cesses but also to investigate whether children
have opportunities to observe (and participate in)
others’ activities such as helping or cooperative
tasks.
Seminal empirical work on observational learn-
ing by Bandura (1965) and Bandura, Ross, and Ross
(1963) with older children shows (a) that children
potentially acquire aggressive behaviors by observ-
ing corresponding models and (b) that observing
others not only impacts the general acquisition of
new skills but also impacts children’s motivation to
perform previously observed behaviors such as
aggressive acts. Based on these (and additional)
findings, Bandura (1986) proposed his model of
© 2018 Society for Research in Child Development
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2019/9005-0023
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13054
1790 Schuhmacher, K€
oster, and K€artner
sociocognitive learning that generally builds on
humans’ competencies to learn from observing
others.
Bandura’s Bobo-Doll studies focused on imitation
of aggressive behavior in elementary school-aged
children but inspired subsequent research on imita-
tive learning of prosocial activities such as sharing
and generosity in elementary schoolers (e.g., Blake,
Corbit, Callaghan, & Warneken, 2016; Presbie &
Coiteux, 1971; Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, &
Chapman, 1983; Rushton, 1975; Staub, 1971).
However, observational learning is also a strong
force much earlier in ontogeny. More specifically,
infants readily imitate simple activities such as
action sequences performed with toys (Elsner, 2014;
Gergely, Bekkering, & Kir" aly, 2002; Meltzoff, 1995;
Tomasello, 1999; Zmyj & Seehagen, 2013). But, so
far, only a few studies have looked at imitative
learning of early prosocial activities. In a first study,
Williamson, Donohue, and Tully (2013) found that
comforting in 30-month-olds was affected by obser-
vation of prosocial video models. In particular, chil-
dren who had observed a prosocial model showed
more comforting behavior toward their mothers
later on, compared to children in two different con-
trol conditions (i.e., without a prosocial model or
without any distress of their mothers).
On the basis of this literature, we assume that
observational learning is of primary importance in
children’s developing prosociality. However, no
previous study has actually investigated whether
observing prosocial models affects infant’s early
helping behavior, namely their instrumental assis-
tance toward others early in their second year
(Warneken & Tomasello, 2007; Warneken et al.,
2006). To fill this gap, the current experiments (both
Study 1 and Study 2) focus on how observing
others’ prosocial behavior affects subsequent help-
ing behavior. Furthermore, in Study 2 we specifi-
cally aim to differentiate whether infants just
imitate observed behavior or whether they are
more selective and take the target’s neediness into
account.
Study 1
In Study 1, we investigated 16-month-olds’ helping
behavior after they had observed helping actions
by others. In particular, we implemented one condi-
tion in which infants could repeatedly observe an
adult model helping an individual in need by mak-
ing desired objects assessable to her (i.e., prosocial
model condition); in a second (control) condition,
infants repeatedly observed a passive model where
the adult did not provide any help. In the subsequent
test phase, infants had the opportunity to instrumen-
tally assist a third, unfamiliar experimenter. We used
live models instead of video-mediated models,
because live models facilitate observational learning
in infants (see Barr & Hayne, 1999). We hypothesized
that infants in the prosocial model condition would
help the needy experimenter more readily than chil-
dren in the control condition.
Method
Sample and Study Design
Our sample consisted of N = 31 16-month-old
infants (18 boys; age: M = 16.32; SD = 0.71; range =
14 months; 25 days–17 months; 11 days). Due to
distress reactions (i.e., intense and/or repeated cry-
ing), one child had to be excluded from the final
sample (final N = 30 infants). Participants were
recruited from the database of the Developmental
Psychology Lab. Parents were fully informed about
the study’s goals and gave their written consent for
their child’s participation. Participation was volun-
tary, and children received a small gift after the
testing session. All participants came from Western
middle-class families living in a mid-sized city in
Germany. Data were collected between October
2015 and January 2016.
The study was based on a between-subjects
design with two conditions: (a) prosocial model condi-
tion (i.e., children observed a prosocial model prior
to the test phase; n = 15) and (b) no model control
condition (i.e., children saw no prosocial model;
n = 15). Children were distributed randomly to
each condition.
General Procedure
The experiment took place in the laboratory of
the Department of Developmental Psychology at
the University of M€ unster and lasted approxi-
mately 40 min. Each testing session began with an
initial warm-up, followed by two different experi-
mental imitation tasks (i.e., container task and
slider task), administered in a counterbalanced
order, and a transfer task in between (i.e., plate
task). Each experimental task consisted of a
modeling phase (in which children observed differ-
ent modeling behaviors depending on the condi-
tion) followed directly by a test phase (in which
children could assist E3). At the end of the
experiment, children received a small gift for their

participation. Four cameras recorded the sessions
for the subsequent analysis.
Warm-up phase. All three experimenters (E1 =
female, E2 = male, and E3 = female) welcomed the
parent and the child into the lab. The warm-up
phase began with a free play episode, in which the
child played with E1 using a standard set of toys
for about 10 min. In the meantime, E3 left the room
and E2 informed the mother about the study goals
and instructed her to remain passive during the
testing session.
To test for infants’ level of spontaneous helping
toward an unfamiliar experimenter (Cortes Barra-
gan & Dweck, 2014), we conducted a classic out-of-
reach task at the end of the warm-up session: E2
hung clothes on a clothesline and successively
dropped three clothespins. It was then observed
whether infants helped E2, who showed increas-
ingly ostensive cues within 45 s by reaching for the
clothespins (Warneken et al., 2006). This task
helped to assert that random assignment to experi-
mental and control condition created groups that
are initially similar regarding their spontaneous
helping toward an unfamiliar adult.
Experimental tasks. After the warm-up phase,
each child was presented with two experimental
tasks (i.e., container task, slider task). The order of pre-
sentation of these tasks was counterbalanced. Each
task consisted of two different phases: (a) a modeling
phase and (b) a test phase. During the modeling
phase children either observed a prosocial model
(i.e., prosocial model condition) or a passive model
(i.e., no model control). Infants were seated in a high
chair so that they could optimally observe the scene.
In the subsequent test phase children had the oppor-
tunity to assist an unfamiliar experimenter.
Modeling phase (prosocial model condition). In
the prosocial model condition, children observed a
prosocial model (E2 = helper) helping a target
(E1 = helpee). In the container task, E1 sat at a table
with three cups (or balls) in front of her (materials
were counter balanced across tasks; see also Fig-
ures 1 and 2). E1 subsequently took these cups and
stacked a tower with them (balls were placed into a
transparent tube). After completing the first tower,
the experimenter uttered “Now I want to build a
second tower. Therefore, I need more cups. But,
where are some more cups?” She then looked
around the room and spotted three additional cups,
each placed in a container on the floor in front of
her table. E1 leaned over the table and reached for
one of the cups (i.e., from E1’s perspective: the cup
in the leftmost container), commenting “Mhh, I can’t
reach it! It is too far away!” (approximately 10 s).
Observing a Prosocial Model Increases Helping 1791
Up to this point, the helper (E2) sat at the side and
observed the scene. He then got up from his seat
and helped E1 by putting the first container on the
table, so that E1 could now reach the cup in this
container. Then E1 said: “Great, now I can go on
building my tower.” E1 did not thank or socially
interact with E2 but focused on the cup and build-
ing her tower. E2 went back to his seat. The proce-
dure was repeated for the second and the third
container (i.e., overall E2 successively put three con-
tainers on the table).
In the slider task, the procedure was almost iden-
tical to the container task. The main difference was
in the way in which E2 helped E1 (see also Fig-
ures 1 and 2): A larger table was used and three
sliders (containing the cups or balls) were posi-
tioned on the table, at the opposite side of E1, out
of E1’s reach. In the modeling phase E1 leaned over
the table and unsuccessfully reached for the cups
(or balls) on the sliders and E2 helped E1 by sliding
the cups (or balls) toward her.
Modeling phase (no model control). In the no
model control condition infants observed a passive
model (E2) not helping the target (E1). Like in the
prosocial model condition, E1 initially built a tower
and then uttered that she wanted to build a second
tower and therefore she would need more cups. In
contrast to the prosocial model condition, the three
additional cups (or balls) for building the second
tower were positioned on the table (i.e., from E1’s
perspective: on the right side of the table) and not
in the containers on the ground (which were
empty). E1 looked around, spotted the cups on the
table and, similarly as in the prosocial mode condi-
tion, leaned over the table, reaching for the object.
After 10 s, E1 finally picked up the first cup while
commenting “Mhh, I can reach the cup! Although
it is quite far away!” E1 repeated this sequence for
the second and third cup. The model (E2) remained
passively on a seat during the whole scene.
Again, the slider task was structurally equivalent
but varied in the position of the cups (or balls);
namely, the sliders were positioned in the middle
of the table, such that E1 could reach them.
After the modeling phase, E1 and E2 set up the
room for the subsequent test phase. The parent
interacted with the infant in the meantime, to dis-
tract the child’s attention from the rebuilding of the
setup. E1 finally instructed mothers to take their
children out of the high chair at a prearranged sig-
nal during the test phase and otherwise remain pas-
sive.
Test phase (prosocial model condition, no model
control). Test phase was identical in both
1792 Schuhmacher, K€
oster, and K€artner

Observa!on Phase Test Phase

Prosocial model condi!on E2 (model: ac!ve)

E1

Child

No model control E2 (model: passive) All condi!ons

E1 E3

Child
Child

No neediness control E2 (model: ac!ve)

(only Study 2)

E1

Child

Figure 1. Sketch of initial room setup in each condition and phase for Study 1 and Study 2.
Note. Big rectangle = table; small squares = chairs; big circles = experimenters/child; small circles = containers for target objects (in sli-
der task, a bigger table was used and sliders were positioned on the table); small dots = target objects (i.e., cups, balls/bricks). In Study
1, only the prosocial model condition and no model control were conducted. Furthermore, only three objects were initially on the table
and tables were smaller. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

conditions. At the beginning of the test phase in
each task, E1 and E2 left the room and an unfamil-
iar experimenter (E3), blinded to the condition,
entered the room. The initial setup was identical to
the initial setup of the modeling phase (see Fig-
ure 2). E3 demonstrated an instrumental need that
was very similar to E1’s demonstration during the
modeling phase. However, in contrast to E1’s
demonstration, E3 modeled her need with increas-
ing ostensive cues, giving the infant the opportu-
nity to help. In Stage 1 (10 s) E3 stretched out,
focusing the object (“Mhh, I can’t reach it”), in
Stage 2 (10 s) E3 additionally alternated her gaze
between the target object and the child, and in
Stage 3 (10 s) E3 furthermore commented: “Look,
[name of the child]: I can’t reach the cup (ball)!”.
This sequence was repeated for all three objects.
Transfer task. The transfer task was administered
between the slider task and the container task. This
task was included to test whether observing a proso-
cial model in the first experimental task (i.e., out-of-
reach helping task; Warneken et al., 2006) would also
generalize to a different helping context, namely a
collaborative helping task that requires infants’ spon-
taneous assistance in jointly tiding up or collecting
items (Rheingold, 1982). In this task, E3 took a tray
with ten plastic plates and then tripped over a carpet
so that all the plates fell on the floor. She then sat
 Observing a Prosocial Model Increases Helping 1793

Prosocial Model Condition No Model Control

& No Neediness Control
Container Task (With Cups)

Slider Task (With Bricks)

Figure 2. Initial setups of modeling phase in Study 2.

Note. Materials (i.e., cups, bricks) were counterbalanced between children. Initial setup for the test phase was identical to initial setup of
the modeling phase in the prosocial model condition (see left pictures). However, in comparison to the modeling phase, the three left-
most cups/bricks were missing. Furthermore, the initial setup was similar in Study 1. However, in comparison to Study 2, in Study 1
(a) there was no “no neediness control” condition, (b) only one chair, one table (container task) or two tables (slider task) were used, (c)
there were balls instead of bricks and two transparent tubes to throw balls in, (d) handles of the sliders were longer (approximately
50 cm), (e) children observed the scene from a different angle, and (f) three leftmost cups/bricks were not present. [Color figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

down and slowly began to collect the plates, com-
menting on her actions (E3: “Oh no, now I have to
collect all plates . . . So, I take this plate and put it
back on the tray. Now I take that plate . . .” etc.).
Children now had the opportunity to spontaneously
assist E3 in collecting plates and/or putting them
back on the tray. After 60 s, E3 finished the task by
putting the tray on a table.
Data coding
Initial clothespin task. Children could pick up
and hand over up to three dropped clothespins to
E1 during the warm-up phase. Thus, the resulting
initial helping score ranged from 0 to 3.
Experimental tasks. Children could help E3 by
offering her up to three objects in each experimental
task (i.e., slider task and container task). Helping
was coded if children either directly handed E3
the target object (i.e., cup or ball) or moved the
slider or container with the target objects closer
to E3. The score given was based on the number
of objects the child helped with: 0 to 3 for each
task.
Transfer task. Children could assist the experime-
nter by handing E3 the plates or by putting the plates
on the tray. The score was the sum of all the plates
the child helped clean up, ranging from 0 to 10 (ten
total plates fell on the ground).
Interrater reliability for 30% of the data was per-
fect for helping scores, all Cohen’s js = 1.0.
Results
Preanalyses
Age was not significantly associated with chil-
dren’s helping rates, all |r|s < .19, all ps > .10.
1794 Schuhmacher, K€
oster, and K€artner

Furthermore, there was no significant gender
effect in the experimental tasks, both |t|s < 1.71, all
ps > .05. However, there was a significant gender
effect in the transfer task; that is, boys helped at
higher rates than girls in this task, Mgirls = 0.25,
SD = 0.62 and Mboys = 1.94, SD = 2.12, t(28) =
!2.67, p = .012. In addition, there were no signifi-
cant effects for target objects across tasks, MBalls =
0.43, SD = 0.73, and MCups = 0.70, SD = 1.12, t(28) =
!1.49, p = .147. There was also no order effect; that
is, children’s helping rates did not significantly dif-
fer whether slide task was administered first and
container task second or vice versa, t(29) = 0.47,
p = .641. Because these control variables did not
affect infants’ helping rates in the experimental
tasks, they were not considered in further analyses.
Finally, infants’ initial helping rates during the
clothespin task did not significantly differ between
conditions. Because initial helping rates were very
low (Mtest = 0.06, SD = 0.26, and Mcontrol = 0.20,
SD = 0.77), we analyzed the percentage of infants
that helped at least once initially (7% helpers in
both conditions, v2 = 0.00, p > .99).
Infants’ Imitation Behavior
During the test phase, infants showed very low
helping rates as well (see Table 1)—on average,
infants provided only 1.2 of 6 objects during the
test phase. Thus, we used dichotomous scores for
further analyses; namely, we categorized helpers
(i.e., children who helped with at least one object)
and nonhelpers (see Supporting Information for
analyses based on frequencies). We computed a
generalized linear mixed model using lme4 package
in R Version 3.2 (Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker,
2015) with three fixed effect factors, namely condi-
tion (i.e., experimental condition vs. no model con-
trol) as the between-subjects factor, task (i.e., slider
vs. container task) as the within-subjects factor and
Condition 9 Task as interaction term. Subjects were
set as random effect factor. The full model had a
significantly better model fit than the unrestricted
model (i.e., null model with no fixed effects),
v2(3) = 26.887, p < .001. Further model fit indices
also indicated better fit for the full model (Akaike’s
information criterion [AIC] = 53.94, Bayesian infor-
mation criterion [BIC] = 64.49; unrestricted model:
AIC = 74.82, BIC = 79.05). There is a significant
main effect by task and condition, and there was a
significant interaction effect Task 9 Condition (see
Table 2). Post hoc tests revealed that, during the sli-
der task, significantly more children helped in the
experimental condition (i.e., 47% helpers) than in
the control condition (i.e., 13% helpers), v2 = 3.97,
p = .046, two-sided (see Figure 3), x = .36, 95% CI
for the differences between the two proportions
[2.78, 63.88], whereas there was no significant dif-
ference between conditions for the container task,
v2 = 0.60, p = .439, x = .14, 95% CI [!46.73, 20.07].
Finally, there were no significant differences
between conditions in the transfer task, that is, 27%
helpers in the experimental condition versus 47%
helpers in the control condition, v2 = 1.29, p = .27,
two-sided, x = .21, 95% CI [!55.7, 15.7].
Table 2
Results From GLMM on Infant’s Helping Behavior in Study 1
Fixed effects b SE [CI 95%] z Value
Condition 14.285 6.091 [2.35, 26.22] 2.345*
Trial type 14.492 4.871 [2.94, 24.04] 2.975**
Condition 9 !30.036 8.926 [!21.47, !48.15] !3.365***
Trial Type
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
100%
80%

*
60%
Table 1 47% 47%
40% 40%
Children’s Helping Rates in Each Condition by Task in Study 1 40%
27%
Prosocial No model 20% 13%
model condition control
Task type M (SD) M (SD) 0%
Slider Task Container Task Overall
Experimental tasks Prosocial Model Condition No Model Control
Container task (0–3 objects) 0.40 (0.83) 0.80 (1.08)
Slider task (0–3 objects) 0.80 (1.01) 0.27 (0.80) Figure 3. Percentage of helpers during test phase in Study 1.
Overall (0–6 objects) 1.20 (1.70) 1.07 (1.58) Note. Overall describes the percentage of children that helped in
Transfer task (0–10 objects) 0.87 (1.68) 1.67 (2.02) at least one task. *p < .05. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Discussion
Study 1 provides the first, although mixed, evi-
dence that observing a prosocial model helping a
needy person significantly influences infants’ early
instrumental helping. In the slider task, significantly
more children helped in the experimental condition
than in the control condition. This finding extends
previous studies on the positive effect of prosocial
models to, first, younger ages, and, second, another
domain of prosocial behavior, namely instrumental
helping (e.g., Radke-Yarrow et al., 1983; Williamson
et al., 2013).
Yet, the effect in the present study was task
dependent. Namely, we found a clear effect for the
slider task but not for the container task or the
transfer task. In addition, children’s overall helping
rate was relatively low. Because helping during the
test phase occurred under zero acquaintance, that
is, the infant and E3 did not socially interact up to
that point, this finding supports the assumption by
Cortes Barragan and Dweck (2014), namely that
mutual engagement provides the necessary grounds
for prosocial interaction. In particular, they com-
pared 25-month-olds’ helping behavior between a
joint play condition (i.e., toddlers initially played
jointly with an experimenter, e.g., rolling a ball
back and forth) and a parallel play condition (i.e.,
toddlers did not play jointly with the experimenter,
but both played in parallel, e.g., each one played
solitary with his or her ball) and found that tod-
dlers less frequently assisted a needy experimenter
in a subsequent test phase in the parallel play con-
dition (on average, they helped in only 1.2 of 4 out-
of-reach trials in this condition), which proposes
that mutual engagement in terms of joint play with
an unfamiliar adult likely elicits instrumental help-
ing in children. Based on these considerations,
Study 2 includes a standardized familiarization
phase to increase infants’ helping rates.
Moreover, the design of Study 1 does not resolve
if infants considered helpers’ prosocial intention
during the modeling phase, which was to assist the
helpee in fulfilling her need. Although previous
research has established that 9- to 18-month-old
infants have a prosocial understanding of helping
actions (i.e., they understand others’ needs and
actors’ prosocial intentions; K€
oster, Ohmer, Nguyen,
& K€ artner, 2016), infants might alternatively have
understood the helper’s behavior during the model-
ing phase as driven by different goals, for example,
following a behavioral rule that “objects must be
put on tables” or a motive to socially interact with
the other person (Paulus, 2015). In consequence,
Observing a Prosocial Model Increases Helping 1795
children in the prosocial model condition might not
have imitated the observed actions in a narrow
sense (i.e., copying both correct means and goals;
Tomasello, 1999; Want & Harris, 2002) but rather
imitated observed actions based on a different
understanding of goals. To address these issues and
to further elaborate on our research question we
conducted a second study.
Study 2
The main goal of Study 2 was to replicate and
thereby substantiate the findings of Study 1 with
improved materials and an optimized procedure.
Among others, we included an initial warm-up
phase with E3 to prevent a floor effect of infant’s
helping rate (see Discussion above). Furthermore,
we wanted to explore to which extent infants’ pro-
clivity to imitate helping actions is based on a gen-
uine prosocial understanding of the modeled
helping action. Toward this end, we added a sec-
ond control condition (i.e., no neediness control) in
which children observed exactly the same target
behavior, but in this condition, the “helpee” did not
need the model’s help (see description of no needi-
ness control below).
Method
Sample and Design
The sample in Study 2 consisted of N = 60 16-
month-old infants (M = 16.11 months; Range: 15;0–
18;0). Nine children were excluded, due to distress
during testing (i.e., intense and/or repeated crying,
n = 8) or due to technical problems (n = 1), result-
ing in a final sample of N = 51 children. Children
were recruited in a similar way to Study 1 and thus
had comparable socioeconomic backgrounds. Data
were collected between March 2016 and October
2016. Children were randomly assigned to one of
three conditions (prosocial model condition, n = 16; no
model control, n = 16; no neediness control, n = 19).
General Procedure
The general procedure was almost identical to
the procedure in Study 1 (see above); that is, we
had an initial warm-up phase followed by two
experimental tasks (i.e., slider task and container
task) and a transfer task in between. Each experi-
mental task consisted of a modeling phase (in which
children observed different modeling behaviors
1796 Schuhmacher, K€
oster, and K€artner
depending on condition) followed directly by a test
phase (in which children could assist E3). Critically,
conditions only differed in the modeling phase.
In contrast to Study 1 we included a standard-
ized warm-up play between the child and E3. After
the warm-up with E1, children interacted with E3
(i.e., before test phases) based on a standardized
script. Namely, E3 and the child first played
together with a spinning top. E3 activated the spin-
ning top for approximately 10 s, then handed it
over to the child for 20 s, after which E3 requested
the toy back from the child. This sequence of recip-
rocal play was repeated twice. The procedure was
repeated with a second toy (i.e., mechanical snail,
mechanical caterpillar, or jingle bell), overall result-
ing in approximately 5 min of standardized recipro-
cal play between the child and E3.
Second, we adapted materials as follows: We
used bricks (which E1 and E3 needed for stacking
towers) instead of balls, as Study 1 indicated that
balls might have been too attractive for children
(i.e., experimenters noticed that children often
started playing with balls during the test phase;
preanalyses in Study 1 indicated that there was a
tendency for children to help less with balls than
cups). In addition, we cut the handle of the slider
to further improve usability for infants and opti-
mized the setup of the tables.
Finally, we added a control condition (i.e., no
neediness control, see Figures 1 and 2). During the
modeling phase in the no neediness control condi-
tion, infants saw exactly the same modeling actions
by E2 as in the prosocial model condition. How-
ever, in contrast to the prosocial model condition,
there was an alternative set of three objects (i.e.,
cups or bricks) on the leftmost side of the table (i.e.,
in addition to the set on the floor; see Figure 2).
Furthermore, E1 did not communicate any need for
the objects on the floor but used the three addi-
tional objects on the table instead: In particular, as
E1 started building the second tower, she leaned
over the table and, similarly as in the other two
conditions, stretched out for the first alternative
object. After 10 s, she finally took the object and
said: “Mhh, I can reach the cup! Although it is
quite far away!”. Simultaneously, E2 (i.e., model)
got up, went over to the table, took the (from his
perspective) rightmost container off the ground and
put it on the table. E1 and E2 did not interact
as both experimenters basically focused on their
actions. This sequence was repeated for the second
and third target object.
Test phase in all conditions was identical to test
phase in Study 1.
Data Coding
Helping scores. Helping scores were identical to
those in Study 1, that is, 0–3 cups or bricks could
be passed over to E3 by the child in each
experimental task, and children could assist in tid-
ing up 0–10 plates during the transfer task. 20% of
videos were coded by two observers. Interrater reli-
ability was perfect for all helping scores, Cohen’s
js = 1.0.
Results
Preanalyses
Preanalyses indicated that age was not signifi-
cantly associated with children’s helping rates, all |r|
s < .17, all ps > .05. In addition, there were no signif-
icant gender, order, or material effects, all |t|s < 1.97,
all ps > .05. Finally, children did not differ in initial
helping (i.e., clothespin task) between conditions,
Mprosocial model = 0.31, SD = 0.87, Mno model control =
0.06, SD = 0.25, and Mno neediness control = 0.20,
SD = 0.66, F(2, 48) = 0.56, p = .572. Because initial
helping rates were very low, we analyzed the per-
centage of infants that helped at least once initially
and found no significant differences between condi-
tions (11% helpers in prosocial model, 6% helpers in
no model control, and 11% helpers in no neediness
control condition; Freeman-Halton extension of Fish-
er’s exact test: p > .99).
Infants’ Imitation Behavior
As expected, average helping rates were higher
than in Study 1 (across tasks: Mstudy1 = 1.1, SD =
1.6 versus Mstudy2 = 2.7, SD = 2.5, t(90) = !3.25,
p < .001, d = .72, CI 95% [0.26, 1.19]). A 2 9 2
mixed-analysis of variance (ANOVA) with condi-
tion as the between-subjects factor (i.e., experimen-
tal condition vs. no model control vs. no neediness
control) and task (i.e., slider vs. container task) as
the within-subject factor yielded a significant
main effect of condition, F(2, 48) = 3.98, p = .025,
g2p = .14, 90% CI [0.01, 0.27] (see Figure 4). The
main effect of task was nonsignificant, F(1,
48) = 0.54, p = .466, g2p = .01, 90% CI [0.00, 0.10].
Post hoc comparisons indicated that infants in the
experimental condition helped significantly more
often than in the no model control, Tukey honestly
significant different (HSD) = 1.13, p = .022. Further-
more, the no neediness control condition was in
between and did not differ from the experimental
or the no model control condition, Tukey-
 Observing a Prosocial Model Increases Helping 1797

Helping Score (# of Objects Given to E3)

5

4
* *
3

0
Helping Slider Task Helping Container Task Helping Overall

Prosocial Model Condition No Model Control No Neediness Control

Figure 4. Number of objects given to the experimenter during test phase in Study 2. *p < .05. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonli-
nelibrary.com]

6 control condition (56.25%), v2 = 6.0, p = .014, two-

sided, 95% CI [7.22, 61.14], whereas both conditions
Helping Score (= # of Plates Given to E3)

5
did not differ significantly from the no neediness
4
control condition (73.68%), v2 = 2.46, p = .12, x = .27,
95% CI [!6.35, 43.12], and v2 = 1.17, p = .28, x = .18,
3 95% CI [!13.09, 44.69].

2
Discussion
1
In summary, the adaptations in Study 2 were
0 successful: (a) the overall helping rate was higher
Prosocial Model Condition No Model Control No Neediness Control than in Study 1, (b) the pattern of results was con-
Figure 5. Number of objects given to the experimenter in transfer
sistent across tasks, and (c) the significant main
task in Study 2. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrar- effect for condition could be replicated, that is,
y.com] infants in the prosocial model condition helped sig-
nificantly more often than infants in the no model
control condition (i.e., they reached on average 3.9
HSD = !0.36, p = .625, and Tukey-HSD = 0.76, p = compared to 1.6 of 6 objects). Overall, these find-
.14, respectively. ings further strengthen our conclusion that observ-
Finally, the pattern of results in the transfer task ing a prosocial model (i.e., observing a needy
was similar to the pattern for the main helping person and a prosocial model assisting the person
tasks (see Figure 5). An ANOVA with condition as fulfilling her need) substantially affects early help-
the between-subjects factor and helping (i.e., ing behavior in 16-month-old infants.
infants’ assistance with dropped plates) as the Moreover, findings from the plate task indicated
dependent variable yielded no significant main that infants also generalized imitation to different
effect of condition, F(2, 48) = 1.79, p = .18, g2p = .07, helping contexts, as they helped more sponta-
90% CI [0.00, 0.18]. When dichotomizing the data neously in collecting plates after having observed a
from the transfer task (i.e., helpers vs. nonhelpers), prosocial model in a different context (i.e., model
there were significantly more helpers in the proso- assisting helpee in typical out-of-reach situa-
cial model condition (93.75%) than in the no model tion), zalthough this effect was only significant for
1798 Schuhmacher, K€
oster, and K€artner
dichotomous scores—possibly due to a lack of suffi-
cient power.
In Study 2, we used a no neediness control con-
dition in order to shed some light on the question
of whether infants selectively imitate prosocial
actions by considering the helpee’s neediness and
the actors’ prosocial intention. Our results showed
that in the no neediness control condition, infants’
helping rates (i.e., on average, 3.2 of 6 objects) were
somewhere in between the helping rates in the
experimental condition and the no model control
condition. If infants’ helping had been similar as in
the no model control condition (and significantly
different from the prosocial model condition), this
would have supported the idea that infants particu-
larly imitate genuinely prosocial behavior that is
oriented at the neediness of the other. However, the
present findings do not clearly answer this question
and can be interpreted in at least two different
ways: (a) Infants may attribute alternative goals to
the modeled behavior that they then imitate, for
instance, that things should be put on a table. How-
ever, recent findings indicate that infants do not
simply help to restore order (Hepach, Vaish, Gross-
man, & Tomasello, 2016). (b) In the no neediness
control condition, some infants might (erroneously)
have ascribed an unfulfilled need to E1 and, in con-
sequence, understood E2’s action as prosocial.
In Study 2, we included a standardized warm-
up phase including reciprocal play between the
infant and the individual requiring help later,
which led to increased helping rates in Study 2 as
compared to Study 1, possibly by establishing an
atmosphere of mutual care and commitment (see
Cortes Barragan & Dweck, 2014). Although this
interpretation is speculative, our experiments
clearly substantiate the importance of former social
interaction for infant’s subsequent willingness to
assist others. Thereby, we hope to sensitize experi-
menters to the relevance of warm-up phases and
initial play, as 3–5 min of reciprocal play might be
sufficient to boost infant’s helping behavior.
General Discussion
The presented experiments provide the first evidence
that 1-year-olds’ helping behavior is influenced by
observing a prosocial model that helps a needy per-
son. The current findings extend the seminal findings
by Bandura and others on the importance of observa-
tional learning in children (in the context of antisocial
behavior) to the domain of helping behavior at a
younger age than studied previously.
These findings raise the intriguing question of
what infants actually learn from observing prosocial
models. According to the sociocognitive learning
model proposed by Bandura (1986), the discovered
effects may indicate that the observation of proso-
cial models affects (a) infants’ acquisition of new
skills (i.e., observation extends behavioral repertoire
to help others), as well as (b) the performance of
acts that are already a part of infants’ behavioral
repertoire (i.e., observation increases motivation to
perform the observed helping actions). According
to the first explanation, some children certainly
acquired the new skill of handling an arbitrary and
novel slider to assist the needy experimenter, indi-
cating that infants had learned new means to help
others by observing others. According to the second
explanation, children may have imitated the help-
ing action because of an increased motivation to
perform this behavior after repeated observation;
that is, infants were more willing to help others if
they had observed prosocial models earlier. This
motivational interpretation is further supported by
the finding that infants in the prosocial model con-
dition also tended to help more in the transfer task.
Alternatively, one could also argue that infants in
the no model control condition had a decreased
motivation to intervene, as they had observed a
passive experimenter in this condition. This
observed passivity might have led children to
assume that the “right” behavior is to remain pas-
sive and not help the needy person in the test
phase (i.e., infants imitated E2’s passive behaviors).
Note that these alternatives would still be the result
of social learning and would thus also support the
conclusion that modeling affects infant’s helping.
However, the very low initial helping rates during
the warm-up phase in both studies make the proso-
cial learning interpretation more plausible. Regard-
ing future studies, it would be interesting to
differentiate whether infants imitate others passivity
or others helping behavior or whether both effects
add up.
Furthermore, the observation of the needy per-
son might also play a crucial role in affecting
infant’s helping behavior in at least two ways.
First, it might be the case that observing the needy
person alters infant’s empathic arousal, which
likely affects their motivation to help the experi-
menter in the subsequent test phase (see Hepach,
Vaish, Grossman, & Tomasello, 2016). However,
the actor in the no model condition similarly
expressed her need for the object, before she
helped herself. In consequence, in all conditions,
infants have seen a needy other. Second, it could

be that having observed a person who, in the end,
helps herself (as in the no model control condition)
lowers children’s subsequent helping tendencies,
because the agent could help herself previously.
We think that this explanation is unlikely, because
the infants see different experimenter in the mod-
eling and the test phase. Having said this, future
research could explicitly address the question
whether observing others’ neediness alone (i.e.,
their need for external help) might increase infant’s
helping.
The present findings complement recent research
on the role of social learning processes in infants’
early helping behavior, as they suggest that chil-
dren’s prosocial development is potentially affected
not only by direct and active structuring of helping
situations by others (e.g., Dahl, 2015; Dahl et al.,
2017; Hammond & Carpendale, 2015; K€ artner, 2018;
K€oster, Cavalcante, et al., 2016; K€ oster, Schuh-
macher, & K€ artner, 2015; Pettygrove, Hammond,
Karahuta, Waugh, & Brownell, 2013; Waugh, Brow-
nell, & Pollock, 2015) but also through learning by
the observation of prosocial models. In particular,
our experimental studies show that observing
prosocial models is an effective social learning
mechanism by which infant’s early helping behav-
iors, and possibly, their prosocial motivation can be
influenced. Moreover, observational learning
might be particularly effective in older infants
(i.e., 16-month-olds) whereas scaffolding more
strongly affects helping in younger infants (i.e., 12–
15 months; see Dahl, 2015; Dahl et al., 2017).
Thereby, our findings also refer to the importance
of prosocial role models (i.e., caretakers and other
persons that children can observe regularly), as
they critically affect children’s early prosocial devel-
opment. Thus, the current data provide a proof of
principle for the role of prosocial models for
infants’ early helping behavior. Future studies may
further look at the role of imitation in more natural-
istic settings, for example, in the scope of home
observations, interviewing caretakers and longitudi-
nal correlational studies on caretakers’ prosocial
behavior during infant’s everyday activities (see
Dahl, 2017).
Of course, our study comes with both specific
strengths and limitations. Besides complementing
the existing literature on a critical social learning
mechanism in infants’ early helping behavior, the
strengths of the presented studies are the live
model method, which is adequate for infants (Barr
& Hayne, 1999) and the replication of evidence
using the refined methods in Study 2 (Open Science
Collaboration, 2015), substantiating the robustness
Observing a Prosocial Model Increases Helping 1799
of the uncovered effect. Regarding limitations, fur-
ther adaptations of the procedure in the no needi-
ness control condition might be useful to prevent
potential misinterpretation in infants (i.e., minimize
probability that children erroneously ascribe unful-
filled instrumental need to E2 in this condition;
also, see above). Finally, one could implement
further control conditions, for example, a control
condition in which E1 repeatedly expresses an
unfulfilled need (e.g., E1 stretches out for an object,
but is finally unable to reach it autonomously) and
E2 (i.e., the model) remains passive. Such a condi-
tion could be useful to strengthen the interpreta-
tion, that observing prosocial models is an effective
social learning mechanism in infants’ early helping
behavior. More specifically, with such a condition
one could test whether observing prosocial models
is more effective than simply observing needy but
helpless persons, which generally induces high
levels of empathic arousal in infants (Hepach et al.,
2016).
The presented findings give rise to intriguing
future research questions on the role of observa-
tional learning in infants’ helping behavior. Future
studies could particularly address the following
questions: (a) How effective are potential “interven-
tions” in the short and the long term? Is there
something like deferred-imitation of prosocial acts?
(b) How effective is repeated observation of paren-
tal prosocial activities at home? Finally, (c) How do
models’ characteristics (e.g., age, competence level,
reputation, etc.) affect infants’ imitation of helping
behavior?
Conclusion
To conclude, our findings show that observing
prosocial models helping a needy other shapes 16-
month-olds’ helping activities. Thereby, our find-
ings point to the relevance of observational learning
in the socialization of infants’ earliest prosocial
behavior, beyond much studied effects of direct
socialization, such as parental scaffolding or parent-
ing style. Thereby the present findings set an
important direction for future research on the role
of social learning in the early ontogeny of human
prosocial behavior.
References
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement
contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022070
1800 Schuhmacher, K€
oster, and K€artner
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:
A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall Inc.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of
film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 66, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.
1037/h0048687
Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Developmental changes in
imitation from television during infancy. Child Develop-
ment, 70, 1067–1081. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8624.00079
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.(2015).
Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal
of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https//doi.org/10.
18637/jss.v067.i01.
Blake, P. R., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., & Warneken, F.
(2016). Give as I give: Adult influence on children’s giv-
ing in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 152, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.
2016.07.010
Brownell, C. A. (2016). Prosocial behavior in infancy: The
role of socialization. Child Development Perspectives, 10,
222–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12189
Cortes Barragan, R., & Dweck, C. S. (2014). Rethinking
natural altruism: Simple reciprocal interactions trigger
children’s benevolence. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111,
17071–17074. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419408111
Dahl, A. (2015). The developing social context of infant
helping in two US samples. Child Development, 86,
1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12361
Dahl, A. (2017). Ecological commitments: Why develop-
mental science needs naturalistic methods. Child Devel-
opment Perspectives, 11, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdep.12217
Dahl, A., Satlof-Bedrick, E. S., Hammond, S. I., Drum-
mond, J. K., Waugh, W. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2017).
Explicit scaffolding increases simple helping in younger
infants. Developmental Psychology, 53, 407–416.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000244
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Proso-
cial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M.
Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3:
Social, emotional, and personality development (6th
ed., pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Elsner, B. (2014). Theorien zu Imitation und Hand-
lungsverst€andnis. In L. Ahnert (Ed.), Theorien in der
Entwicklungspsychologie [Theories of imitation and
action-understanding] (pp. 310–329). Berlin, Germany:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34805-1_12
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kir"aly, I. (2002). Develop-
mental psychology: Rational imitation in preverbal
infants. Nature, 415, 755. https://doi.org/10.1038/
415755a
Grusec, J. E., & Davidov, M. (2010). Integrating different
perspectives on socialization theory and research: A
domain-specific approach. Child Development, 81, 687–709.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01426.x
Hammond, S. I., & Carpendale, J. I. (2015). Helping chil-
dren help: The relation between maternal scaffolding
and children’s early help. Social Development, 24,
367–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12104
Hepach, R., Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Tomasello, M.
(2016). Young children want to see others get the help
they need. Child Development, 87, 1703–1714. https://d
oi.org/10.1111/cdev.12633
K€
artner, J. (2018). Beyond dichotomies—(M)others’ struc-
turing and the development of toddlers’ prosocial
behavior across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology,
20, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.040
K€
oster, M., Cavalcante, L., Vera Cruz de Carvalho, R., D^ ogo
Resende, B., & K€ artner, J. (2016). Cultural influences on
toddlers’ prosocial behavior: How maternal task assign-
ment relates to helping others. Child Development, 87,
1727–1738. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12636
K€
oster, M., Ohmer, X., Nguyen, T. D., & K€ artner, J.
(2016). Infants understand others’ needs. Psychological
Science, 27, 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797
615627426
K€
oster, M., Schuhmacher, N., & K€ artner, J. (2015). A cul-
tural perspective on prosocial development. Human Ethol-
ogy Bulletin, 30, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.22330/heb.
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of
others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old
children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 838–850. https:
//doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the repro-
ducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 943.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Paulus, M. (2015). Children’s inequity aversion depends
on culture: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Exper-
imental Child Psychology, 132, 240–246. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jecp.2014.12.007
Pettygrove, D. M., Hammond, S. I., Karahuta, E. L.,
Waugh, W. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2013). From cleaning
up to helping out: Parental socialization and children’s
early prosocial behavior. Infant Behavior and Develop-
ment, 36, 843–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.
2013.09.005
Presbie, R. J., & Coiteux, P. F. (1971). Learning to be gen-
erous or stingy: Imitation of sharing behavior as a func-
tion of model generosity and vicarious reinforcement.
Child Development, 42, 1033–1038. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1127789
Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M.
(1983). Children’s prosocial dispositions and behavior.
In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology
4: Socialization, personality and social development (4th ed.,
pp. 469–545). New York, NY: Wiley.
Rheingold, H. L. (1982). Little children’s participation in the
work of adults, a nascent prosocial behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 53, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129643
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rushton, J. P. (1975). Generosity in children: Immediate
and long-term effects of modeling, preaching, and

moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 31, 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076466
Staub, E. (1971). A child in distress: The influence of nur-
turance and modeling on children’s attempts to help.
Developmental Psychology, 5, 124–132. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0031084
Tomasello, M. (1999). The human adaptation for culture.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 509–529. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.509
Want, S. C., & Harris, P. L. (2002). How do children ape?
applying concepts from the study of non-human pri-
mates to the developmental study of “imitation” in
children. Developmental Science, 5, 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-7687.00194
Warneken, F., Chen, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Coopera-
tive activities in young children and chimpanzees. Child
Development, 77, 640–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2006.00895.x
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and
cooperation at 14 months of age. Infancy, 11,
271–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00
227.x
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of
human altruism. British Journal of Psychology, 100,
455–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X379061
Observing a Prosocial Model Increases Helping 1801
Waugh, W., Brownell, C., & Pollock, B. (2015). Early
socialization of prosocial behavior: Patterns in parents’
encouragement of toddlers’ helping in an everyday
household task. Infant Behavior and Development, 39,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.12.010
Williamson, R. A., Donohue, M. R., & Tully, E. C. (2013).
Learning how to help others: Two-year-olds’ social
learning of a prosocial act. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 114, 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jec
p.2012.11.004
Zmyj, N., & Seehagen, S. (2013). The role of a model’s
age for young children’s imitation: A research review.
Infant and Child Development, 22, 622–641. https://doi.
org/10.1002/icd.1811
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in
the online version of this article at the publisher’s
website:
Appendix S1. Study 1—Is the Significant Differ-
ence (Between Conditions) Dependent on Dichoto-
mizing Helping Rates?