Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T18:10:39.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infant representations of social relationships: the need to consider the social world

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2026

Ashley M. Groh Open the ORCID record for Ashley M. Groh [Opens in a new window]  and
Yuyan Luo Open the ORCID record for Yuyan Luo [Opens in a new window]
Ashley M. Groh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA groha@missouri.edu luoy@missouri.edu
Yuyan Luo*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA groha@missouri.edu luoy@missouri.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present three challenges to Thomas’ theory leveraging our expertise in social and cognitive development. First, Thomas’ theory fails to capture defining relationship characteristics, necessitating consideration of relationship science. Second, we argue that declaring innate knowledge of relationships is premature. Third, we propose that in the core domain of social cognition, relationship and sociomoral representations exist simultaneously without need for replacement.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e32
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., He, Z., Sloane, S., Setoh, P., Jin, K., Wu, D., & Bian, L. (2015). Psychological and sociomoral reasoning in infancy. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Borgida, E., & Bargh, J. A. (Assoc. Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 79–150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54(4), 260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borowski, S. K., Groh, A. M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Fearon, P., Roisman, G. I., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Vaughn, B. E. (2021). The significance of early temperamental reactivity for children’s social competence with peers: A meta-analytic review and comparison with the role of early attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 147(11), 1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization. In Hirschfeld, L. & Gelman, S. (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 85–116). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2015). Editorial overview: Relationship science. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2019). The science of intimate relationships. John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groh, A. M., Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Steele, R. D., & Roisman, G. I. (2014). The significance of attachment security for children’s social competence with peers: A meta-analytic study. Attachment & Human Development, 16(2), 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlin, J. K. (2013). Moral judgment and action in preverbal infants and toddlers: Evidence for an innate moral core. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jin, K. S., & Baillargeon, R. (2017). Infants possess an abstract expectation of ingroup support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(31), 8199–8204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, TL, et al. (1983). Close relationships. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Laursen, B., & Bukowski, W. M. (1997). A developmental guide to the organisation of close relationships. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(4), 747–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., vanMarle, K., & Groh, A. M. (2024). The cognitive architecture of infant attachment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916241262693.Google ScholarPubMed
Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework. In Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, (2nd ed., pp. 131–157). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (Eds.). (2013). The oxford handbook of close relationships. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2024). Précis of what babies know. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sroufe, L. A. (2000). Early relationships and the development of children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 21(1–2), 67–74.3.0.CO;2-2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48(4), 1184–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasimi, A. (2020). Connecting the dots on the origins of social knowledge. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, A. J., Saxe, R., & Spelke, E. S. (2022a). Infants infer potential social partners by observing the interactions of their parent with unknown others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(32), e2121390119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, A. J., Woo, B., Nettle, D., Spelke, E., & Saxe, R. (2022b). Early concepts of intimacy: Young humans use saliva sharing to infer close relationships. Science, 375(6578), 311–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ting, F., Dawkins, M. B., Stavans, M., & Baillargeon, R. (2020). Principles and concepts in early moral cognition. In Decety, J. (Ed.), The social brain: A developmental perspective (pp. 41–65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, M. K., & Rosen, L. H. (Eds.). (2013). Social development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Völter, C. J., Tomašić, A., Nipperdey, L., & Huber, L. (2023). Dogs’ expectations about occlusion events: From expectancy violation to exploration. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 290, 20230696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, B. M., Tan, E., & Hamlin, J. K. (2022). Human morality is based on an early-emerging moral core. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2014). The moral baby. In Killen, M. & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 435–453). Psychology Press.Google Scholar