= 160, 64% White), we manipulated the justifiability of disadvantageous inequality. Six- to 9-year-olds received less than a peer despite winning a game (Unjustified-DI), less after losing (Justified-DI), more after losing (Unjustified-AI), or equal outcomes following a tie (Justified-E). They then shared stickers with a new, neutral child. Children evaluated Justified-DI as fairer than Unjustified-DI and Unjustified-AI, and as fair as Justified-E. Crucially, although the inequality conditions did not significantly impact sharing, children's fairness evaluations predicted their generosity: the more unfair they perceived the distribution, the less they shared. Thus, by school age, children's prosocial behavior may be shaped less by objective resource disparities and more by children's perception of the injustice of those disparities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: