Do children think that rewards and penalties should be distributed based on behavior?

example of study stimuli

Research has shown that, when distributing resources such as rewards, even very young children are capable of considering concepts such as equality and deservingness. Additionally, young children have been shown to take into consideration concepts like motive and severity when distributing penalties. This study explores children’s reasoning about allocating both rewards (distributive justice) and penalties (retributive justice) and asks if children think similarly about these two forms of justice when making allocation decisions. It's possible, for example, that children might prefer to see rewards divided equally, but penalties distributed based on deservingness.

In this study, children (ages 4 – 10 years) heard a series of stories about pairs of students in a classroom and their behaviors. In some of the stories, both students showed an equal amount of good or bad behavior (e.g. passing out papers, breaking pencils), but in other stories, the students showed unequal amounts of good or bad behavior (e.g., one student picks up more toys than the other; one student tracks more mud into the classroom than the other). Participants were then asked to distribute 4 jobs between the two students – sometimes the jobs were “fun” (e.g. feeding the four class pets), and sometimes they were “yucky” and aversive (e.g. emptying four trash cans). Children were also asked about their justifications for the distributions they made for each scenario.

In this stimuli image, a participating child had to decide the fairest way to hand out four penalties (emptying four yucky garbage cans). One potential recipient (on the right) made more of a mess than the other, after the teacher had asked them both to keep the carpet clean.

In another part of the study, participants heard a series of stories in which one student in a class either displayed good behavior (e.g. carrying books for the teacher) or bad behavior (e.g. making noise during quiet time), and the teacher then distributed a reward (e.g. extra computer time) or penalty (e.g. stay inside for recess). In some of the stories the teacher rewarded or punished only the child who displayed the behavior, but in some stories s/he rewarded or punished the all the students in the class. Participants were then asked if the teacher’s decision was fair, and asked for justifications for their responses.

For the reward and penalty distribution phase of the study, the researchers found that when the two students acted similarly, children of all ages distributed the jobs equally between the students. However, when the students showed unequal behavior, younger children were more likely to distribute jobs based on a preference for equality (i.e., a 2-2 split regardless of behavior), whereas older children were more likely to distribute jobs based on a preference for equity (i.e., deservingness). The type of justifications given for the allocations also differed by age; as children got older, they were more likely to give justifications with regard to deservingness. Although there were significant age differences, overall, children tended to give over half of the rewarding jobs to the child that did more good, and over half of the penalties to the child that did more bad. Mirroring that behavior, children tended to give less than half of the rewards to the child that did more bad, and less than half of the penalties to the child that did more good.

For the second part of the study, where participants judged the fairness of a teacher’s use of rewards and penalties, endorsement of the teacher’s decisions differed across ages. For both the targeted reward and penalty scenarios, the youngest children were the least likely to say the teacher’s decisions were fair, but endorsement of targeted discipline practices increased with age. Collective rewards were viewed as more fair by all age groups than were collective penalties but, overall, collective discipline was increasingly seen as more unfair as children got older. For all the scenarios, justifications that referenced the importance of deservingness increased with age.

The researchers also explored associations between children’s own allocations and their judgments of the teacher’s discipline practices. Children who focused on equity in the job distribution part of the study were more likely to view targeted discipline as fair and collective discipline as unfair in the second part of the study.

This study found symmetry in how children chose to distribute rewards and penalties, and that children’s decisions shifted from preferences for equality to preferences for equity with increasing age. Children’s behavior in the distribution phase of the study was shown to be linked to their judgments of targeted vs. collective justice. Further, young children’s justifications showed that other processes (e.g., emotion) may be at play when deciding about distributing rewards and penalties, with preschool age children prioritizing different concepts than older children (e.g., other’s feelings and social harmony) when considering how to allocate rewards and penalties.

This research sheds new light on children’s developing concepts of fairness and their underlying beliefs about justice. This also opens the door for exciting future research. Next steps include testing how children reaction to targeted vs. collective discipline in real life. Further, the researchers hope to explore how children’s views on procedural justice (how decisions about rewards and punishments are made) influences their views on the fairness of rewards and punishments.

For more information about this research, contact Craig Smith, Living Laboratory collaborator now at the University of Michigan.