Children’s recognition of fairness and others’ welfare in a resource allocation task: Age related changes.

Abstract

The present study investigated age-related changes regarding children’s (N = 136) conceptions of fairness and others’ welfare in a merit-based resource allocation paradigm. To test whether children at 3- to 5-years-old and 6- to 8-years-old took others’ welfare into account when dividing resources, in addition to merit and equality concerns, children were asked to allocate, judge, and reason about allocations of necessary (needed to avoid harm) and luxury (enjoyable to have) resources to a hardworking and a lazy character. While 3- to 5-year-olds did not differentiate between distributing luxury and necessary resources, 6- to 8-year-olds allocated luxury resources more meritoriously than necessary resources. Further, children based their allocations of necessary resources on concerns for others’ welfare, rather than merit, even when one character was described as working harder. The findings revealed that, with age, children incorporated the concerns for others’ welfare and merit into their conceptions of fairness in a resource allocation context, and prioritized these concerns differently depending on whether they were allocating luxury or necessary resources. Further, with age, children weighed multiple moral concerns including equality, merit, and others’ welfare, when determining the fair allocation of resources.

Children rectify inequalities for disadvantaged groups.

“…However, denial of resources is considered a moral transgression in childhood and adulthood (Smetana et al, 2014; Turiel, 2006), and it is likely that the importance of adequate medical supplies for ensuring child wellbeing overpowered children’s tendency to distribute more resources to their social ingroup. Supporting this interpretation, emerging research also drawing on the social reasoning developmental model indicates that, by 6–8 years of age, children recognize that unequal distribution of resources that are needed to avoid harm has negative implications for individuals’ welfare (Rizzo, Elenbaas, Cooley, & Killen, in press). Previous studies also suggest that ingroup bias is less influential in children’s judgments and reasoning in rights-related contexts (e.g., Helwig & Jasiobedzka, 2001).…”

Rectifying social inequalities in a resource allocation task

“…With age, children also recognize some circumstances under which it would be fair to allocate resources unequally, such as when one individual has worked harder and merits a greater reward (e.g., Baumard, Mascaro, & Chevallier, 2012; Rizzo, Elenbaas, Cooley, & Killen, 2016). But less research has examined how children conceptualize disadvantaged status regarding access to resources or recognize when it would be fair to rectify inequalities between groups (e.g., racial groups).…”

“…In this study, children allocated luxury resources meritoriously (more to the hard working character), and allocated necessary resources equally, based on a concern for recipients’ welfare (Rizzo et al, 2016). This study, however, did not have an intergroup component.…”

“…We tested these questions with a sample of 5–6 and 10–11 year-olds because research from the SRD perspective (Horn, 2003; Mulvey et al, 2014; Rizzo et al, 2016) as well as related work (Brown, 2006; Helwig & Jasiobedzka, 2001; Peterson-Badali et al, 2004) has demonstrated that understanding of the broader implications of an inequality of important resources (i.e., educational supplies) emerges and develops during this age span. To date, however, less is known about how children choose to distribute educational resources in a context of pre-existing intergroup inequality.…”

“…We predicted that (H2) older children (10–11 year-olds) would not differ significantly in their judgments of the inequality, their allocation decisions, or their evaluations of others’ decisions to perpetuate or rectify the inequality as a function of whether they had witnessed their racial ingroup or the outgroup receiving fewer school supplies. This hypothesis was based on research from the SRD perspective indicating that, with age, children support fair allocation, even when their group could benefit from inequality (Mulvey et al, 2014), and support fair access to resources that have important implications for recipients’ wellbeing (Rizzo et al, 2016). This does not mean that older children would find racial group membership or intergroup relations irrelevant to their decisions.…”