Edited by: J. Kiley Hamlin, University of British Columbia, Canada
Reviewed by: Nadia Chernyak, Boston College, United States; Peter R. Blake, Boston University, United States
This article was submitted to Developmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The present study examined how 2- to 4-year-old preschoolers in Singapore (
Two fundamental motivations underlie children’s decisions about resource distribution: fairness and ingroup loyalty. Fairness and ingroup loyalty represent central themes in human evolutionary history (
Researchers have proposed a principle-based conception of moral reasoning built on innate, domain-specific moral knowledge (
In the present study, we looked at how 2- to 4-year-old preschoolers balance concerns about fairness and ingroup loyalty in the context of resource distribution. Specifically, we investigated whether 2- to 4-year-old preschoolers would enact fair distributions as defined by equal distributions, or show partiality toward their ingroup when distributing resources, and the conditions under which one distributive strategy may take precedence over the other. Recent studies examined young infants’ rank-ordering of fairness and ingroup loyalty in distribution scenarios where the two principles lead to opposing outcomes (e.g.,
On the one hand, children demonstrate a strong preference for fairness. Preverbal infants expect others to act fairly (
On the other hand, children’s fairness preferences are heavily modulated by group membership. Young children exhibit biases favoring those of the same race (
Notably, there is evidence of cross-cultural variation in children’s fairness concerns during resource distribution. A study by
More interestingly, children’s perception of fairness appears to differ across cultures. While 4- to 6-year-old preschoolers in China preferred equal distributions over distributions that showed a consideration of recipient need (
The individualism-collectivism cultural distinction also contributes to the relative weight accorded to fairness versus ingroup loyalty. Fairness is classified as an “individualizing” principle that promotes the well-being of individual agents, while ingroup loyalty is classified as a “binding” principle that places collective group interests at the forefront, sometimes at the expense of those who exist outside a restricted social circle (
While current research on resource distribution has primarily targeted children living in homogeneous populations, these findings do not accommodate the full range of experiences encountered by children living in more diverse populations. Singapore, the testing ground for the present study, is positioned at the cultural crossroads of the East and West, receiving strong influences from both individualistic values of fairness and collectivistic values of ingroup loyalty (
In the present study, 2- to 4-year-old preschoolers in Singapore participated in an intergroup resource distribution task. The choice of sampling 2- to 4-year-olds was motivated by their ability to provide behavioral data, even though they are younger than what has been studied in the majority of work on behavioral equality. Children in this age group in Singapore have started to attend preschool and are thus regularly exposed to the dynamics of peer interactions which foster an appreciation of fairness and ingroup loyalty; in addition, classroom play often involves sharing toys, hence these children are well-acquainted with the act of giving and receiving resources. Moreover, children from 3 years of age have been found to engage in behavioral sanctions of harm transgressions (e.g.,
Minimal groups were assigned to children and two animal puppets using colored stickers, such that one puppet belonged to the same group as the child (
Participants in Experiment 1 were tasked to distribute different pairs of toys between the two puppets on four test trials. Toy distribution was compared between a Group condition and a No Group condition in which no groups were assigned, and distributions were assessed for whether the toys were fairly (equally) distributed or unfairly (unequally) distributed in favor of either puppet. Experiment 2 was identical to the Group condition of Experiment 1, except that we introduced a third identical toy following the distribution of each toy pair. This two-part distribution task allowed us to determine whether children would show ingroup loyalty when given the option to distribute a single limited resource to either an ingroup or an outgroup member.
Participants were 92 typically developing children (43 males;
Number of children in final and excluded samples, by age, condition, and experiment.
Experiment 1 |
Experiment 2 |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group |
No group |
|||||
Final | Excluded | Final | Excluded | Final | Excluded | |
2 years old | 23 | 11 | 15 | 6 | 40 | 8# |
3 years old | 22 | 2 | 27 | 1 | 59 | 13+ |
4 years old | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 0 |
The experiment was a between-subjects design with two conditions. Forty-six children were assigned to the Group condition (21 males;
A puppet stage was set up by mounting a rectangular wooden frame (105 cm wide × 75 cm high × 6.25 cm thick) upright on a table. The wooden frame was attached with strong adhesive Velcro to two weighted triangular blocks that held it securely in place. A black curtain covered the opening of the frame (95 cm × 65 cm). During the experiment, a puppeteer sat at the back of the puppet stage and was concealed behind the curtain. A camcorder was discreetly positioned to take video recordings for coding purposes.
Puppets were a tiger and two identical rhinoceroses made of furry fabric, each measuring about 25 cm × 12 cm × 8 cm. The puppets emerged from behind the black curtain at marked locations – the tiger puppet appeared alone in a central spot equidistance from both sides of the stage frame, while the rhinoceros puppets appeared together, about 35 cm apart from each other, on the left and right of the stage, respectively.
The unoccupied table space in front of the stage frame was used as a platform for placing toys during distribution trials. The participating child was seated on a chair in a central position approximately 15 cm away from the puppet stage, where they could easily reach and place toys in front of the puppets. Other materials included a gray hedgehog, a blue ball, a yellow rubber duck, a small red car, two toy corns, two blocks, two toy apples, two toy rabbits and big round stickers (red and blue; 11 cm in diameter). A schematic representation of the experimental set-up is available in
Schematic representation of experimental set-up.
Children were tested one at a time at their respective preschools. Both experimenter and puppeteer were Chinese Singaporeans who spoke fluent English and Mandarin Chinese. The experiment was conducted in English with 71 participants and in Mandarin Chinese with 21 participants, depending on the child’s preferred language.
There were two warm-up trials for the child to practice give-and-take actions. First, the experimenter placed a toy hedgehog on the table and said, “
Next, there were two familiarization trials to familiarize the child with giving items to a puppet. A tiger puppet appeared in the center of the stage. The experimenter then introduced the puppet as Sam (if child was male) or Jessica (if child was female), took out a rubber duck, and said, “
Following familiarization, children took part in four test trials. In the Group condition, the experimenter gave the child a red or blue sticker. Two rhinoceros puppets, introduced as Matt and Adam (if child was male), or Amy and Katie (if child was female), appeared on the left and right of the stage. One of the puppets had a red sticker affixed to its front, while the other puppet had a blue sticker. The experimenter then pointed to the puppet of the same sticker color as the child and exclaimed that the puppet’s sticker was red or blue, “
Next, the experimenter took out two toy corns and said, “
Two independent observers coded children’s distributions on each of the four test trials from video recordings. Disagreements between observers were rare, resulted from human error, and were resolved by having both observers watch the videos again. Inter-observer agreement on the final coding was 100%.
On each test trial, toy distribution was coded using the following coding scheme: a 1:1 split reflects a
All statistical analyses were conducted with R statistical software (version 3.4.1;
Preliminary analyses confirmed that counterbalanced variables and language used for testing did not predict distribution outcomes, hence these variables were not included in subsequent analyses. The final model comprised the following predictors of interest: age in months, condition (
Estimates and standard error of fixed effects in generalized linear mixed models predicting children’s distribution outcomes in Experiment 1.
Estimate | Std. Error | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 1.16 | 17.24 | 0.07 | 0.95 |
Age in months | -0.36 | 0.53 | -0.69 | 0.49 |
Condition | 1.76 | 31.70 | 0.06 | 0.96 |
Gender | 1.19 | 3.00 | 0.40 | 0.69 |
Age in months × Condition | -0.07 | 0.97 | -0.08 | 0.94 |
Further analyses were conducted to examine the specific distribution pattern within each condition. Proportion of test trials with fair distribution was calculated for each child by dividing the number of trials coded as
Two-tailed one-sample
Mean proportion of trials on which children distributed two toys fairly (equally) versus unfairly (unequally) between puppets in Group and No Group conditions in Experiment 1. Error bars denote standard errors. ∗∗∗
In Experiment 1, children who distributed resources in an intergroup context did not employ a different distributive strategy from children who distributed resources in the absence of a salient intergroup context. Almost all children, regardless of whether group membership had been assigned to themselves and the recipient puppets, showed a robust tendency to distribute two toys equally between the two recipients rather than favor either recipient through unequal distribution, and this tendency was consistent across multiple trials.
Because the items in the distribution task were perfectly divisible between recipients, it remains unclear how children would distribute resources between an ingroup and an outgroup member when there is a limited quantity of items that does not permit equal distribution. For example, in a study by
A second consideration is that perhaps children did not demonstrate partiality in their distributions because the minimal groups were not sufficiently distinct and thus the puppets were not truly perceived as ingroup or outgroup members. Experiment 2 addressed this consideration using a two-part distribution task, such that children were required to distribute a third toy following the first two toys. In distributing the third toy, children had to make a forced choice between benefiting the ingroup or outgroup member. If children showed consistent ingroup favoritism on third-toy distribution, it was unlikely that the minimal group paradigm in Experiment 1 had failed to elicit clear group distinctions.
Experiment 2 was identical to the Group condition of Experiment 1, except that we introduced a third identical toy following the distribution of each toy pair. We also increased the sample size from 46 participants in the Group condition of Experiment 1 to 110 participants in Experiment 2. The rationale for increasing the sample size was that we intended for two-toy distribution in Experiment 2 to serve as a replication for the Group condition in Experiment 1, where we found close to 90% mean proportion of fair trials. We wanted to confirm those results with a larger sample that would provide greater power.
One hundred and ten children (58 males;
The same puppet stage and puppets in Experiment 1 were used. Materials were identical, except that there were three instead of two of each toy (corns, blocks, apples, and rabbits).
The experiment was conducted in English with 85 participants and in Mandarin Chinese with 25 participants, depending on the child’s preferred language. The procedure was identical to the Group condition in Experiment 1, except that on each test trial, after the child had distributed the first two toys, the experimenter took out an identical third toy and said, “
Children’s distributions of the first two toys on each of the four test trials were observed and coded from video recordings using the same coding scheme in Experiment 1. In addition, each test trial was coded for whether the
Experiment 2 followed the same analyses as Experiment 1. In addition, on third-toy distribution, each child had four data points, entered using a binary response term (1 =
Preliminary analyses confirmed that counterbalanced variables and language used for testing did not predict outcomes on both two-toy and third-toy distribution, hence these variables were not included in subsequent analyses. The final model comprised the following predictors of interest: age in months and gender (
A generalized linear mixed model yielded no significant predictor of two-toy distribution outcomes. The full model performed no better than a null model [LRT, χ2(2) = 0.02,
Estimates and standard error of fixed effects in generalized linear mixed models predicting children’s distribution outcomes in Experiment 2.
Two-toy distribution |
Third-toy distribution |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | Std. Error | Estimate | Std. Error | |||||
Intercept | -8.75 | 5.16 | -1.70 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 1.34 | 0.23 | 0.82 |
Age in months | -0.02 | 0.13 | -0.14 | 0.89 | -0.02 | 0.03 | -0.68 | 0.49 |
Gender | -0.002 | 1.48 | -0.002 | 1.00 | -0.71 | 0.41 | -1.76 | 0.08 |
To further examine the distribution pattern, proportion of test trials with fair two-toy distribution was calculated for each child by dividing the number of trials coded as
Mean proportion of trials on which children distributed fairly (equally), favored the ingroup, or favored the outgroup on two-toy distribution (on left); mean proportion of trials on which children distributed the third toy favorably to ingroup versus outgroup (on right), in Experiment 2. Error bars denote standard errors. ∗∗∗
A generalized linear mixed model found no significant predictor of third-toy distribution outcomes. The full model performed no better than a null model [LRT, χ2(2) = 3.62,
To further examine the distribution pattern, proportion of test trials on which the third toy was distributed to ingroup instead of outgroup puppet was calculated for each child by dividing the number of trials coded as
A two-tailed one-sample
In Experiment 2, we found that children alternated between fairness and ingroup loyalty on a two-part distribution task: they tended to be fair by distributing the first two items equally between the two recipients but exhibited ingroup loyalty by distributing the third item preferentially to the ingroup recipient. Since group membership influenced to whom children distributed the third limited resource, it is unlikely that the same minimal groups had been ineffective in creating an intergroup setting in Experiment 1. Therefore, the results in Experiment 1, which were replicated by two-toy distribution in Experiment 2, truly reflected children’s choice of fairness over ingroup loyalty when distributing an evenly divisible quantity of resources. This finding also highlights the role of resource availability as a contextual cue in guiding children’s distributive decisions.
In the present study, we examined how preschoolers in Singapore weigh concerns about fairness and ingroup loyalty in an intergroup resource distribution task. Our main finding was that the vast majority of children abided by an equality rule when resources were precisely enough for two recipients but demonstrated ingroup loyalty when distribution involved a single, non-divisible resource. Overall, we found evidence that preschoolers in Singapore are predominantly fair when distributing resources and ingroup loyalty only becomes apparent under conditions of limited resource availability.
In Experiment 1, a comparison of distributive patterns between children in Group and No Group conditions suggested that group membership did not result in greater ingroup favoritism at the expense of fairness. Regardless of whether groups were assigned to the distributor and recipients, children’s distributions were largely fair (equal). One possible explanation is that resources, or the lack thereof, signal reward or punishment, such that there is resistance against unequal outcomes in resource distribution where equal outcomes are a possibility, unless the recipient demonstrates a clear lack of deservingness through inadequacies in performance or culpable conduct. There is some support for this speculation (e.g.,
Our findings are consistent with prior studies on children’s expectations of resource distribution. A study by
Our findings are also consistent with prior studies on children’s resource distribution. In a study by
While there is reason to expect that ingroup loyalty may be dominant in Singapore because of a collectivistic orientation, our findings on two-toy distribution suggest otherwise, echoing most of the work in Western samples where fairness trumps other types of concerns early in development (e.g.,
Although the present study defines fairness based on an equality rule (i.e., ensuring each recipient gets the same number of resources), this is a restrictive definition, because unequal distributions may sometimes be perceived as fair, such as when one recipient has a greater need for the resource, has worked harder to earn the resource, has rightfully won the resource from a competitive interaction, or has been assigned a greater amount of the resource through an impartial procedure. With age, children develop a nuanced perspective of what fairness entails, one that is not restricted to absolute equality but that appeals to principles related to need, merit, impartiality, norms and social justice (
Across both experiments in the present study, recipients were identical except for group membership, which was established using superficial group markers (i.e., sticker colors). The lack of other meaningful social information about the recipients or about the nature of intergroup relations could have led children to rely more heavily on an equal distributive strategy when resources were evenly divisible. Future research should look at a wider range of distributive contexts in which ingroup loyalty may exert greater dominance over fairness. Some factors include: group dynamics (e.g., presence of intergroup conflict, relative group status), type of resource (e.g., value and function of resource), and recipient characteristics (e.g., prosociality or antisociality, work contributions). Additionally, natural group markers like speech accent or collaborative interactions could strengthen the influence of ingroup loyalty on children’s distributive decisions, in comparison to the static presentation of ingroup and outgroup members in the present study.
A final limitation of our study relates to the use of two items to represent a state of sufficiency, in that there were sufficient resources to be distributed equally among recipients, while one item was taken to represent limited resource availability. Two items can, however, still be construed as being limited in quantity, as giving both items to one recipient leaves the other recipient with none while having four items or more would alleviate such a concern. Future studies can vary the number of distributable items to convey varying degrees of resource sufficiency and scarcity, which may in turn elicit nuanced portrayals of generosity and parochial behaviors.
In summary, preschoolers in Singapore relied largely on the fairness principle to guide distributive decisions involving an evenly divisible quantity of resources but showed ingroup loyalty when distributing a limited resource. Our results converge with findings from other resource distribution studies with preschoolers and similar studies measuring young infants’ expectations of distributive behaviors in third-party observations. Taken together, there is evidence suggesting stability in the development of knowledge to behavior in the subdomains of fairness and ingroup loyalty.
PS and KL developed the study concept and design. Data collection and data analysis were performed by KL, who also drafted a first manuscript. PS and GE provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Many thanks to the children, parents, teachers, and preschools for participating in this research; to our partner NTUC My First Skool for their support; and to Renée Baillargeon for her comments on a previous draft of this manuscript.