Developmental psychologists tend to endorse a conventional narrative that children are acquirers of cultural knowledge, as taught by adults. Lew-Levy and Amir challenge this narrative by providing several examples of children creating cultural innovations. I agree that children can be quite inventive, but it is unclear how far-reaching children’s innovations are. Their paper leaves an important question unanswered: Whose innovations are adopted widely? I propose that the cultural innovations of a select few, high-status individuals are the ones that are most likely to catch on. This is true for both adults and children. Turning our research toward high-status children and their contributions could clarify how children’s innovations become widespread.

Higher-status people have tons of advantages that could make them better equipped to introduce cultural innovations. Compared to their lower-status counterparts, higher-status adults receive more attention (Dalmaso et al., Reference Dalmaso, Pavan, Castelli and Galfano2012) and are more influential (Cheng et al., Reference Cheng, Tracy, Foulsham, Kingstone and Henrich2013). High-status children may have similar sway (Lansu & Cillessen, Reference Lansu and Cillessen2015). For example, children copy what high-status people do. Children even engage in “high-fidelity imitation” of high-status people, meaning children imitate many, if not all, of their actions, including those that seem irrelevant to a given task (McGuigan, Reference McGuigan2013). This work suggests that when high-status people deviate from the norm and try something new, others are more willing to adopt their ways. Note that Lew-Levy and Amir allude to these ideas. They say that cultural evolution relies on “high-fidelity transmission” (Legare & Nielsen, Reference Legare and Nielsen2015). I am extending this argument—it is not all (or even many) who can achieve this high-fidelity transmission. It is primarily high-status people who wield the special power and influence that prompts high-fidelity imitation.

One may be cautious that this selective copying of a small group of high-status agents is merely a quirk of W.E.I.R.D. (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, Reference Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan2010). To this concern, Henrich and Gil-White (Reference Henrich and Gil-White2001) would offer a hard no. They surveyed several ethnographies and found that this copying of high-status others based on “prestige” occurs in numerous large-scale and small-scale societies. Prestigious agents are respected and admired, often due to their skills. Therefore, people orient their attention toward them and feel compelled to copy and learn from them.

Do children wield high social status that functions like prestige, and leverage it to spread innovations? At least one of the case studies offered by Lew-Levy and Amir provides preliminary evidence for, I posit, the selective uptake of prestigious children’s innovations. Older Zinacantec Mayan girls teach younger girls to weave textiles (Greenfield, Maynard, & Childs, Reference Greenfield, Maynard and Childs2000). These girls not only transmit existing knowledge but they also generate new knowledge (i.e., novel weaving patterns). I would argue, these new designs become widely embraced by other girls, and even adult women, because they perceive these girls as skilled weavers worth learning from.

This one example provides a proof of concept. But it would be especially compelling if developmental researchers could identify other kinds of high-status children who innovate and whose innovations are widely accepted. There is a growing body of research favoring this latter point. Specific kinds of high social status children are in a position to have their innovations adopted. They are targets of both imitation and learning more broadly.

Some of this research is from hunter-gatherer societies where older children teach younger children about foraging and hunting (Boyette & Hewlett, Reference Boyette and Hewlett2018; Imamura, Reference Imamura2016; Lew-Levy et al., Reference Lew-Levy, Kissler, Boyette, Crittenden, Mabulla and Hewlett2020). Of course, in these societies, it could be that older children are treated as younger adults. But one study by Dira and Hewlett (Reference Dira and Hewlett2016) calls this into question by asking: What do children look for in a role model? They asked Chabu children (of Southwest Ethiopia) who they would prefer to learn to hunt with. Even when children could have selected trusted adults or same-age friends, the most common response was someone who was skilled and knowledgeable. This study supports the notion that, at least Chabu children, may seek out other children as teachers. But they do so selectively, and they prioritize skilled teachers. So, it is clear that some children gain influence in these networks, perhaps because of their skills. But are these children cultural innovators or cultural transmitters? Do they create new knowledge or teach what they have been taught? Future work should explore how specific child innovations (many of them outlined in the target article) spread in these kinds of social networks.

Another kind of status worth looking at is popularity. At least in Western industrialized societies, so-called “popular kids” are influential (Sandstrom, Reference Sandstrom2011). Many peer relations researchers describe popularity as an early-emerging form of prestige (Cillessen, Reference Cillessen2011; Kwon & Lease, Reference Kwon and Lease2014; Zhou & McLellan, Reference Zhou and McLellan2021). Popular kids do share many features with prestigious leaders: Their peers pay more attention to them (Lansu & Cillessen, Reference Lansu and Cillessen2015) and copy them (Choukas-Bradley et al., Reference Choukas-Bradley, Giletta, Cohen and Prinstein2015; Gommans et al., Reference Gommans, Sandstrom, Stevens, Ter Bogt and Cillessen2017). But what kinds of things are they influencing? We know that children copy trends set by popular kids (Kwon & Lease, Reference Kwon and Lease2014). They also adopt their social attitudes (Cohen & Prinstein, Reference Cohen and Prinstein2006). But are popular kids innovative, and how? Do popular kids only decide what norms come and go, or do they invent new social rituals, new styles, and new language (i.e., slang)? It would be exciting to explore if any innovations are generated from these children’s minds and if they are propagated from popular kids to the larger society.

In conclusion, I agree with Lew-Levy and Amir. Children are not merely passive sponges absorbing the adult culture. They can be innovators of culture in their own right. But I qualify their argument by suggesting that specifically high-status children can lead cultural change (as is the case with cultural change introduced by adults). Even with this qualifier, we do not know the extent to which these children actually carry out cultural innovations that become widely recognized. Thus, future work will need to pinpoint how much high-status children spread new artifacts and ideas, as opposed to how much they spread existing ones.