1 Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.
2 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
3 Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
4 Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
5 Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
6 School of Psychological Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
7 Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands.
8 Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
9 Center for Research in Cognition and Neurosciences, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
10 ARISA Foundation, Baner, Maharashtra, India.
11 Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK.
12 Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
13 Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
14 Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Scarborough, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.
15 Department of Psychology, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada.
16 Jacobs Center for Productive Youth Development, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
17 Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
18 School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
19 Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
20 Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
21 Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK.
22 Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
23 Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
24 Department of Educational Sciences, University of Catania, Catania, Sicily, Italy.
25 Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy.
26 Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
27 Minerva Fast Track Group Milestones of Early Cognitive Development, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Sachsen, Germany.
28 School of Psychological Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
29 Center for Child Development, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
30 School of Psychology, The University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau, Auckland, New Zealand.
31 Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
32 Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA.
33 Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland.
34 Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Vienna, Austria.
35 Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
36 Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
37 School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Pentrith, New South W

Evaluating whether someone's behavior is praiseworthy or blameworthy is a fundamental human trait. A seminal study by Hamlin and colleagues in 2007 suggested that the ability to form social evaluations based on third-party interactions emerges within the first year of life: infants preferred a character who helped, over hindered, another who tried but failed to climb a hill. This sparked a new line of inquiry into the origins of social evaluations; however, replication attempts have yielded mixed results. We present a preregistered, multi-laboratory, standardized study aimed at replicating infants' preference for Helpers over Hinderers. We intended to (1) provide a precise estimate of the effect size of infants' preference for Helpers over Hinderers, and (2) determine the degree to which preferences are based on social information. Using the ManyBabies framework for big team-based science, we tested 1018 infants (567 included, 5.5-10.5 months) from 37 labs across five continents. Overall, 49.34% of infants preferred Helpers over Hinderers in the social condition, and 55.85% preferred characters who pushed up, versus down, an inanimate object in the nonsocial condition; neither proportion differed from chance or from each other. This study provides evidence against infants' prosocial preferences in the hill paradigm, suggesting the effect size is weaker, absent, and/or develops later than previously estimated. As the first of its kind, this study serves as a proof-of-concept for using active behavioral measures (e.g., manual choice) in large-scale, multi-lab projects studying infants.