HThe uman creatures can be a barbaric species when we want to, but we are also an extremely moral species, with a highly evolved sense of right and wrong, good and bad, crime and consequences. Few things illustrate this better than how we do third-party punishment: giving penalties to bad guys that don’t harm us. Entire criminal and civil justice systems are built around judges and juries who punish offenders who have wronged not them but others.
The instinct for third-party punishment emerges early in life — think preschoolers scuffle with classmates who broke rules or took toys from others — but times as early as how is still not clear. Now, one research published in june in Natural human behavior give an answer. According to research led by investigators from Osaka University and Otsuma Women’s University, in Japan, third-party punitive behavior can begin in infants as young as eight months old. It’s proof that ethics can be innate, researchers say.
Since it’s impossible to tell what’s going on in an infant’s head verbally by asking them, the study involved exposing 24 8-month-olds to a simple video game in which the pictures anthropomorphized shapes — squares with drawn eyes — move to the interactive screen. Where babies’ eyes moved were recorded by a gaze tracker, and as babies watched moving blocks, they learned an important feature of the game: if they keep their eyes on a shape long enough, a square with no eyes will fall from the top of the screen and crush it.
Once babies learned that feature of video games, the researchers made things more complicated. Now, as the kids watched, one of the squares with the eyes occasionally misbehaved, colliding with the other square and knocking it over the edge of the screen. After a number of such incidents, the children began to react, with about 75% of them directing their gaze to the wrongdoer and holding it there until the crushed square fell from the sky and destroy it — implement an effective punishment for its misconduct.
“The results were surprising,” lead author Yasushiro Kanakogi said in a blog post statement accompanying the research release. “We found that talking infants chose to punish the antisocial aggressor by increasing their gaze on the aggressor.”
That, at least, is what the study suggests, but there are other possible explanations. For example, suppose babies aren’t trying to punish the aggressor, but that their gaze is simply drawn because that’s the most active square on the screen. To test that theory, the investigators trained 24 other babies of the same age on a game where a square would still land on an invader, but it would fall slowly and harmlessly, not crushing – or punish – it. When given the same test under those conditions, babies staring at the wrongdoer were much less predictable, with the number of people turning their eyes in that direction dropping to 50% or less.
Similar lower results were obtained when the researchers repeated the variation in the study two more times with two other groups of 24 children each. In one trial, staring at the wrongdoer caused the crushed square to take only half the time — making the punishment less believable. On the other hand, the eyes have been removed from the character’s squares, making them less humanoid. In both of those trials, infants were less likely to stare at the male factor after it misbehaved. Finally, recruiting a fifth group of children, the researchers ran the original experiment again, with anthropomorphized squares that would be crushed every time the children stared at them. The babies responded accordingly, with the frequency of staring at a misbehaving character going back up to the level in the first test. It seems newborn babies don’t always like what they see and are acting as judge and jury to decide what’s right and wrong.
The researchers believe the results indicate that the possibility of third-party penalties is less learned than it is developed, part of universal moral grammar that many psychologists and ethologists believe that humans are born.
“The observation of this behavior in young children suggests that humans may have evolved a behavioral bias toward ethical behavior,” Kanakogi said in a statement. “Specifically, the punishment of antisocial behavior may have evolved as an important element of human cooperation.”
Other must-read stories from TIME