心理发展与教育 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 457-466.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2026.04.01

• 认知与社会性发展 •    

从善念到善行:4~7岁儿童社会善念与亲社会行为的发展关联

王堃炎1, 黄英航1, 邓珏2, 王璇3, 张向葵4   

  1. 1. 东北师范大学心理学院, 长春 130024;
    2. 福建警察学院刑罚执行系, 福州 350000;
    3. 昆明市盘龙区师大实验昆明湖中学, 昆明 650204;
    4. 内蒙古民族大学教育科学学院, 通辽 028000
  • 发布日期:2026-07-04
  • 通讯作者: 张向葵 E-mail:zhangxiangkui@126.com
  • 基金资助:
    奕阳教育研究院青年学者研究项目(SEI-QXZ-2023-18)。

From Social Mindfulness to Prosocial Behavior: The Developmental Association in Children Aged 4 to 7

WANG Kunyan1, HUANG Yinghang1, DENG Jue2, WANG Xuan3, ZHANG Xiangkui4   

  1. 1. School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024;
    2. Department of Penalty Execution, Fujian Police College, Fuzhou 350000;
    3. Experimental Kunming Lake Middle School attached to Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650204;
    4. College of Education Science, Inner Mongolia Minzu University, Tongliao 028000
  • Published:2026-07-04

摘要: 研究考察4~7岁儿童社会善念的发展特征及其与亲社会行为的关系,探讨决策情境对社会善念表达的影响。通过两个相互关联的实验对比儿童在双人互动情境与作为基线的单人选择情境下的行为表现,考察其社会善念及其与助人、分享等亲社会行为的关系。结果发现:(1)儿童的社会善念呈现非线性发展轨迹,6岁左右是重要发展期,6~7岁儿童比4~5岁儿童表现出更高的社会善念水平;(2)与仅反映个体偏好的单人基线情境相比,儿童在双人互动情境中表现出更高的社会善念水平,证实了社会情境对社会善念的激活作用;(3)为期一年的追踪研究发现社会善念与亲社会行为之间存在显著的双向预测关系,且社会善念对亲社会行为的预测作用强于反向预测作用。研究结果揭示了社会善念发展的年龄特征及其与亲社会行为的关系,为理解儿童早期社会认知发展机制提供了重要启示。

关键词: 4~7岁儿童, 社会善念, 决策情境, 亲社会行为

Abstract: This study investigated the developmental characteristics of social mindfulness in 4- to 7-year-old children, its relationship with prosocial behavior, and the influence of decision-making contexts on its expression. Through two interconnected experiments, we compared children’s performance in a dyadic interaction context versus an individual choice baseline context to examine their social mindfulness and its relationship with prosocial behaviors such as helping and sharing. The results revealed that: (1) Children’s social mindfulness followed a non-linear developmental trajectory, with age 6 emerging as a key developmental period; 6- to 7-year-olds demonstrated significantly higher levels of social mindfulness than their 4- to 5-year-old counterparts; (2) Compared to the baseline context reflecting only individual preferences, children exhibited higher levels of social mindfulness in the dyadic interaction context, confirming the activating effect of social situations; (3) A one-year longitudinal study found a significant bidirectional predictive relationship between social mindfulness and prosocial behavior, with the predictive effect of social mindfulness on prosocial behavior being stronger than the reverse effect. These findings elucidate the age-related characteristics of social mindfulness development and its dynamic relationship with prosocial behavior, offering important insights into the mechanisms of early social-cognitive development.

Key words: children aged 4~7 years, social mindfulness, decision-making contexts, prosocial behavior

中图分类号: 

  • B844
Aknin,L. B., Van De Vondervoort, J. W., & Hamlin, J. K. (2018). Positive feelings reward and promote prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 55-59.
Batson, C. D. (2010). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
Blake, P. R. (2018). Giving what one should: Explanations for the knowledge-behavior gap for altruistic giving.Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.041
Blake, P. R., & McAuliffe, K. (2011). I had so much it didn’t seem fair: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition, 120(2), 215-224.
Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., & Warneken, F. (2014). The developmental origins of fairness: The knowledge-behavior gap. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 559-561.
Brownell, C. A.,Svetlova, M., & Nichols, S. (2009). To share or not to share: When do toddlers respond to another’s needs? Infancy, 14(1), 117-130.
Buon, M., Seara-Cardoso, A., & Viding, E. (2016). Why (and how) should we study the interplay between emotional arousal, theory of mind, and inhibitory control to understand moral cognition? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1660-1680.
Chernyak, N., & Kushnir, T. (2018). The influence of understanding and having choice on children’s prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 107-110.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
Dunfield, K. A. (2014). A construct divided: Prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E.,Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557-559.
Mischkowski, D., Thielmann, I., & Glöckner, A. (2018). Think it through before making a choice? Processing mode does not influence social mindfulness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 85-97.
Paulus, M., & Moore, C. (2014). The development of recipient-dependent sharing behavior and sharing expectations in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 914-921.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365-392.
Rochat, P., Dias, M. D. G., Guo, L., Broesch, T., Passos-Ferreira, C., Winning, A., & Berg, B. (2009). Fairness in distributive justice by 3- and 5-year-olds across seven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(3), 416-442.
Sabbagh, M. A., Xu, F., Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Lee, K. (2006). The development of executive functioning and theory of mind: A comparison of Chinese and U.S. preschoolers. Psychological Science, 17(1), 74-81.
Sheskin, M., Nadal, A., Croom, A., Mayer, T., Nissel, J., & Bloom, P. (2016). Some equalities are more equal than others: Quality equality emerges later than numerical equality. Child Development, 87(5), 1520-1528.
Smith, C. E., Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2013). I should but I won’t: Why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059510
Svetlova, M., Nichols, S. R., & Brownell, C. A. (2010). Toddlers’ prosocial behavior: From instrumental to empathic to altruistic helping. Child Development, 81(6), 1814-1827.
Ulber, J., Hamann, K., & Tomasello, M. (2017). Young children, but not chimpanzees, are averse to disadvantageous and advantageous inequities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 155, 48-66.
Vaish, A., Hepach, R., & Tomasello, M. (2018). The specificity of reciprocity: Young children reciprocate more generously to those who intentionally benefit them. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 167, 336-353.
VanDoesum, N. J., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 86-103.
VanDoesum, N. J., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Verburgh, L., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). Social hostility in soccer and beyond. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0153577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153577
Van Lange, P. A., & VanDoesum, N. J. (2015). Social mindfulness and social hostility. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 18-24.
Warneken, F. (2018). How children solve the two challenges of cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 205-229.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2013). The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 338-350.
Wellman, H. M. (2014). Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford University Press.
Wellman, H. M., Fang, F., Liu, D., Zhu, L., & Liu, G. (2006). Scaling of theory-of-mind understandings in Chinese children. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1075-1081.
Wellman, H. M., & Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Development, 75(2), 523-541.
Wu, Z., & Su, Y. (2014). How do preschoolers’ sharing behaviors relate to their theory of mind understanding? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 120, 73-86.
Yagmurlu, B., & Sanson, A. (2009). Parenting and temperament as predictors of prosocial behaviour in Australian and Turkish Australian children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 77-88.
Zhao, X., Zhao, X.,Gweon, H., & Kushnir, T. (2021). Leaving a choice for others: Children’s evaluations of considerate, socially-mindful actions. Child Development, 92(4), 1238-1253.
窦凯, 刘耀中, 王玉洁, 聂衍刚. (2018). “乐”于合作:感知社会善念诱导合作行为的情绪机制. 心理学报, 50(1), 101-114.
刘文, 张雪, 张玉, 俞睿玮. (2017). 4~8 岁儿童公平认知与行为差距:社会比较的作用. 心理学报, 49(12), 1504-1512.
张姝玥, 赵峰, 黄骏青, 彭春花, 王军利. (2024). 积极道德情绪对 3~5 岁幼儿分享行为的影响. 心理与行为研究, 22(1), 79-85.
赵欣, 李丹丹, 杨向东. (2022). 学龄前儿童社会善念理解的发展与心理理论的关系. 心理学报, 54(8), 892-904.
[1] 谭瑞峰, 陈穗清, 郭新颖, 李梦娜. 特质视角下学前幼儿同伴选择的社会善念偏好[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 305-314.
[2] 赵泰格, 盛靓, 高君杰, 辛素飞. 父母情感温暖与青少年亲社会行为倾向的纵向关系:上行社会比较的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 437-446.
[3] 何震, 詹林, 曾子豪, 胡义秋. 羞耻心对青少年主观幸福感的影响——亲社会行为和人际关系的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 172-181.
[4] 李蓓蕾, 林彤, 赖梅艳, 车猛, 邓林园. 初中生欺凌、受害与亲社会行为的关系:基于发展级联理论的交叉滞后分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 264-273.
[5] 李强强, 胡耿丹. 加工模式对亲社会行为的影响——社会价值取向和代价的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 791-798.
[6] 罗玉晗, 徐梓婧, 周晴, 杨政乾, 柯李, 王耘, 陈福美. COVID-19疫情压力对青少年生命史策略的影响及其行为表现[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 398-409.
[7] 游志麒, 郭宇顺, 张陆, 李晓军. 父母冲突与青少年亲社会行为的关系: 人际信任与共情的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 51-59.
[8] 刘倩文, 高晗晶, 王振宏. 亲子关系与CLOCK基因rs1801260多态性对学前儿童亲社会行为的交互影响:性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(5): 625-635.
[9] 常保瑞, 黄江喜, 林培钿, 方建东. 关爱自己,更关爱他人:自我同情的“利他”机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(3): 324-334.
[10] 章洁敏, 陶云, 杨舒涵, 陈睿. 亲社会行为的概念表征及其方法述评[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 298-304.
[11] 银小兰, 周路军, 朱翠英. 学校环境对农村留守儿童亲社会行为的影响:心理资本与生活满意度的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 497-504.
[12] 赵纤, 王志航, 王东方, 袁言云, 尹霞云, 黎志华. 贫困家庭儿童在青少年早期的亲社会行为发展轨迹:性别及父母教养方式异质性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 323-332.
[13] 李强强, 胡佳. 时间定价启动与主观社会阶层对亲社会行为的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 360-368.
[14] 雷晓玲, 赵冬梅, 杨文娇, 田晓红. 青少年家庭功能与亲社会行为的关系:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 786-792.
[15] 严益霞, 刘颜蓥, 丁芳. 心理理论与社会互动方式对初中生社会善念发展的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 485-494.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!