Children and adolescents rectify unequal allocations of leadership duties in the classroom.

Little is known about how children and adolescents evaluate unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties based on ethnicity-race and gender in the classroom. U.S. boys and girls, White (40.7%), Multiracial (18.5%), Black/African American (16.0%), Latine (14.2%), Asian (5.5%), Pacific Islander (0.4%), and other (4.7%) ethnic-racial backgrounds, 8-14 years, N = 275, evaluated teacher allocations of high-status leadership positions favoring specific ethnic-racial or gender groups during 2018-2021. Adolescents, more than children, negatively evaluated unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties that resulted in group-based inequalities, expected peers who shared the identity of a group disadvantaged by the teacher's allocation to view it more negatively than others, and rectified inequalities. Understanding perceptions of teacher-based bias provides an opportunity for interventions designed to create fair and just classrooms that motivate all students to achieve.

Teachers' Beliefs, Values, and Likelihood of Talking about Group-Based Discrimination.

A teacher survey (N = 290) based on the social reasoning developmental model investigated (1) beliefs and values about using class time for discussing discrimination and reported frequency of discussing discrimination based on different social identities and (2) factors predicting teachers' frequency for discussing racial discrimination in the classroom. Most participants reported beliefs that all five identities were worth discussing in class, yet teachers most strongly believed that wealth, race, and native language affect students' education. Higher beliefs that prejudice can change, school support, and beliefs that race affects students' education predicted higher teacher reports for talking about racial discrimination.

Perceived contact with friends from lower socioeconomic status reduces exclusion based on social class.

This study investigated children's and adolescents' reasoning about intergroup exclusion based on social class from educational opportunities in Türkiye. The role of children's and adolescents' perceived contact with friends from different socioeconomic backgrounds on their evaluations of exclusion and personal solutions to the exclusion was also examined. Participants (N = 270) included 142 children (8-10 years old, Mage = 9.80; SD = 0.82; 53.5% girls) and 128 adolescents (14-16 years old, Mage = 15.46; SD = 0.91, 61.7% girls) from lower (N = 144) and higher (N = 126) socioeconomic backgrounds. Results showed that while most participants viewed social class-based exclusion as wrong, adolescents were more likely to view it as wrong than were children. Adolescents from lower SES approached social class-based exclusion as less acceptable than did adolescents from higher SES who referred to expectations about conformity to authority and the status quo. Moderation analyses showed that for adolescents from higher SES, higher perceived contact with friends from lower SES was associated with decreased acceptability of exclusion and increased motivation to provide equity. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Overall, adolescents living in a country with economic instability evaluated social class-based exclusion from educational opportunities among peers as unfair and wrong. Adolescents from lower SES viewed social class-based exclusion as less acceptable than did adolescents from higher SES. Adolescents from higher SES expected that excluders' intentions were motivated by conforming to authority and supporting the status quo more frequently than did children. For adolescents from higher SES, perceived contact with friends from lower SES was associated with decreased acceptability of exclusion and increased motivation to provide equity.

Socioeconomic status biases among children and adolescents: The role of school diversity and teacher beliefs in Nepal.

Investigating socioeconomic status (SES) biases, Nepalese children and adolescents (N = 605, 52% girls, Mage  = 13.21, SDage  = 1.74) attending schools that varied by SES composition were asked to anticipate whether a peer would include a high or low SES character as a math partner. Novel findings were that students attending mixed SES schools were more likely to expect inclusion of a low SES character than were students attending high SES schools. With age, high SES participants attending mixed SES schools increasingly expected the inclusion of the low SES character. Moreover, teachers' democratic beliefs in high SES schools predicted inclusive expectations. Teacher beliefs and school diversity play a significant role for fostering students' inclusivity in educational contexts.

Testing the effectiveness of the Developing Inclusive Youth program: A multisite randomized control trial.

The Developing Inclusive Youth program is a classroom-based, individually administered video tool that depicts peer-based social and racial exclusion, combined with teacher-led discussions. A multisite randomized control trial was implemented with 983 participants (502 females; 58.5% White, 41.5% Ethnic/racial minority; Mage  = 9.64 years) in 48 third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classrooms across six schools. Children in the program were more likely to view interracial and same-race peer exclusion as wrong, associate positive traits with peers of different racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds, and report play with peers from diverse backgrounds than were children in the control group. Many approaches are necessary to achieve antiracism in schools. This intervention is one component of this goal for developmental science.

Children's group identity is related to their assessment of fair and unfair advantages.

Unfair advantages can be created either intentionally (e.g., cheating) or unintentionally (e.g., unintended benefit). Little is known regarding how children evaluate different types of advantages in situations where group identity and group membership are made salient. To investigate how children's group identity influences their evaluations and attribution of intentions in intergroup contexts, children were presented with three hypothetical advantages (unintentionally unfair, intentionally unfair, and fair) in a competitive context created by either an in-group member or an out-group member. Children (N = 120) were 4-6 years of age (n = 59; Mage = 5.29 years) and 7-10 years of age (n = 61; Mage = 8.34 years), including 64 girls and 56 boys. Participants were 67% European American, 18% African American, 11% Asian American, and 4% Hispanic. All participants were assigned to one of two teams in a contest in order to create an in-group/out-group manipulation prior to their evaluation of the actions. Out-group members viewed unintentional unfair and fair advantages as less acceptable than in-group members, but in-group and out-group members were equally negative in their assessment of an intentional transgression. When reasoning about unintentional and intentional unfair advantages, older children referenced the intentions of the advantage creator to justify their decisions more than younger children, whereas younger children reasoned about the impact of the behavior on their team more than older children. These novel findings shed light on developmental and social factors influencing children's understanding of fairness and intentionality in everyday contexts.

To Punish or Exclude? Children's Responses to Unfair and Fair Advantages Created in Competitive Contexts.

To determine whether children will exclude or punish a peer who creates an unfair advantage in an intergroup team context, four-to ten-year-old participants (N = 120, Mage = 6.87) were assigned a team membership and evaluated unintentional and intentional unfair advantages created by a character. Children were more likely to endorse punishment and exclusion responses when reasoning about an opponent than a teammate. This difference between groups was not observed when in-group and out-group members reasoned about punishing a character who intentionally created an unfair advantage. Older children were less likely to endorse exclusion than younger participants. Further, older children and in-group members utilized punishment more frequently than exclusion. Taken together this demonstrates that the group identity and the age of the child influences the ways in which children endorse responses to transgressions. These findings increase our understanding regarding children's conceptions of fairness responses to transgressions in intergroup contexts.

Children's and Adolescents' Evaluations of Intergroup Exclusion in Interracial and Interwealth Peer Contexts.

Children and adolescents (N = 153, ages 8-14 years, Mage  = 11.46 years) predicted and evaluated peer exclusion in interwealth (high-wealth and low-wealth) and interracial (African American and European American) contexts. With age, participants increasingly expected high-wealth groups to be more exclusive than low-wealth groups, regardless of their depicted race. Furthermore, children evaluated interwealth exclusion less negatively than interracial exclusion, and children who identified as higher in wealth evaluated interwealth exclusion less negatively than did children who identified as lower in wealth. Children cited explicit negative stereotypes about high-wealth groups in their justifications, while rarely citing stereotypes about low-wealth groups or racial groups. Results revealed that both race and wealth are important factors that children consider when evaluating peer exclusion.

The moral obligations of conflict and resistance.

Morality has two key features: (1) moral judgments are not solely determined by what your group thinks, and (2) moral judgments are often applied to members of other groups as well as your own group. Cooperative motives do not explain how young children reject unfairness, and assert moral obligations, both inside and outside their groups. Resistance and experience with conflicts, alongside cooperation, is key to the emergence and development of moral obligation.

Children's Perceptions of Economic Groups in a Context of Limited Access to Opportunities.

Children (N = 267, ages 8-14 years, M = 11.61 years, middle to upper-middle income) made predictions regarding groups of same-aged peers from high-wealth and low-wealth backgrounds. The context involved granting access to a special opportunity. From middle childhood to early adolescence children increasingly expected both high- and low-wealth groups to want access to opportunities for their own group. However, children viewed high-wealth groups as motivated in part by selfishness and low-wealth groups as concerned in part with broader economic inequality. Finally, the higher children's family income, the more they expected group-serving tendencies. These findings revealed children's perceptions of exclusive preferences between economic groups, negative stereotypes about high-wealth children, and awareness of some of the constraints faced by low-wealth children.

The Role of Competitive and Cooperative Norms in the Development of Deviant Evaluations.

The present study examined how peer group norms influence children's evaluations of deviant ingroup members. Following the manipulation of competitive or cooperative norms, participants (children, Mage  = 8.69; adolescents, Mage  = 13.81; adults, Mage  = 20.89; n = 263) evaluated deviant ingroup members from their own and the group's perspective. Children rated cooperative deviancy positively and believed their group would do the same. Adolescents and adults believed that their group would negatively evaluate cooperative deviancy when their group supported a competitive allocation strategy. Reasoning varied based on norm and participants' agreement with deviancy. Understanding an ingroup may not be favorable toward a cooperative deviant in a competitive context is a developmental challenge requiring the coordination of social and moral norms.

Unintentional and intentional falsehoods: The role of morally relevant theory of mind.

This study investigated how theory of mind (ToM) competence is related to children's ability to differentiate between intentional and unintentional false statements regarding claims to resources. Participants (4-10 years old; N = 122) heard about individuals who had different access to knowledge about resource ownership when making resource claims, and they were asked to make an evaluation, attribute intentions, assign punishment, and predict the teacher's assigned punishment. Two measures of ToM were assessed: a prototypic false belief ToM assessment and a contextually embedded, morally relevant false belief theory of mind (MoToM) assessment. Children's ToM competence reliably predicted more favorable evaluations of the individual who made the unintentional false claim than of the one who did so intentionally. Furthermore, the contextually embedded MoToM assessment predicted children's responses for all of the assessments above and beyond age and prototypic ToM competence. The findings indicate that children's contextually embedded MoToM competence bears on their moral assessments of the intentions of transgressors and underscores the importance of ToM in the ability to discriminate intentional and unintentional false statements.

Effort or outcome? Children's meritorious decisions.

How individuals determine what is fair and just when allocating resources is a fundamental aspect of moral development. Decisions about fairness involve considerations such as merit, which includes effort (one's own exertion to achieve a goal) and outcome (one's product). Previous research has described merit in terms of both effort and outcome (e.g., a meritorious individual is both hard-working and productive). Crucially, no research has documented whether children give priority to being hard-working (high effort) or to being productive (high outcome or product) when allocating resources. This gap in the literature obfuscates two constructs that reflect how individuals allocate resources. The current study examined this process by which children (3- to 10-year-olds, N = 100; Mage = 7.27 years, SD = 2.39) weighed these two different aspects of merit in their fairness decisions in several situations where levels of effort and outcome were varied. When there was a discrepancy between effort and outcome, children increasingly prioritized effort over outcome with age and allocated more resources to hard-working peers than to productive peers. Effort and outcome were also examined. In situations where only effort varied (i.e., outcome was controlled), with age children were more likely to incorporate effort into their fairness decisions; however, in situations where only outcome varied (i.e., effort was controlled), with age children were less likely to incorporate effort into their fairness decisions. Taken together, the findings suggest that as children get older, they increasingly focus on effort of individuals rather than on their productivity when distributing resources.

A Developmental Neuroscience Study of Moral Decision Making Regarding Resource Allocation.

Distinguishing between equity and equality is essential when making social and moral decisions, yet the related neurodevelopmental processes are unknown. Evaluations of contextually based third-party distributions incorporating recipient need and resource importance were examined in children and adolescents (N = 82; 8-16 years). Spatiotemporal neurodynamic responses show distinct developmental profiles to viewing such distributions. Event-related potentials (ERPs) differentially predicted real-life behaviors based on age, where older children's (8-10 years) evaluations were related to a fairly rapid, automatic ERP component (early posterior negativity), whereas adolescent and preadolescent (11-16 years) evaluations, first-person allocations, and prosocial behaviors were predicted by later, cognitively controlled ERP components (P3 and late positive potential). Together, these results reveal age-related changes regarding the neural responses that correspond to distributive justice decisions.

How social status influences our understanding of others' mental states.

The current study investigated whether children's relative social status within a context influences their ability to identify others' mental states. Across two experiments, 3- to 7-year-olds (N = 103) were randomly assigned to hold either an advantaged or disadvantaged social status and were assessed on their ability to accurately identify others' mental states (via false-belief and belief-emotion "theory of mind" assessments). When participants' status was manipulated by a structural factor (gender; Experiment 1), participants with disadvantaged status were more likely than participants with advantaged status to pass the false-belief and belief-emotion assessments. When status was manipulated by an individual factor (performance; Experiment 2), participants with disadvantaged status were more likely to pass the false-belief assessment but not the belief-emotion assessment. Results provide the first empirical evidence that an individual's contextualized perspective (i.e., his or her social status situated within a given context) influences the individual's ability to identify others' mental states.

Young children's inclusion decisions in moral and social-conventional group norm contexts.

Being a member of a peer group involves making decisions about whom to include in or exclude from the group. Sometimes these decisions are related to whether members of the group support or challenge the norms of the group. To examine how young children weigh concerns for group norms and group membership in both moral and social-conventional norm contexts, children (3- to 6-year-olds; N=73) were asked to decide between including an ingroup member who challenged the group's norm or an outgroup member who supported the norm. Groups held either moral (equal or unequal resource allocation) or social-conventional (traditional or nontraditional) norms. In the moral contexts, children were more likely to include the peer who advocated for the moral concern for equality regardless of the peer's group membership or their group's specific norm. In the social-conventional contexts, however, children were more likely to include the peer who advocated for the conventional concern for maintaining traditions but only at the group-specific level. Furthermore, with age children increasingly based their inclusion decisions on normative concerns, rather than on group membership concerns, and differed in their inclusion decisions for ingroups and outgroups. Finally, children reasoned about their decisions by referencing concerns for fairness, group norms, and group membership, suggesting that preschool children weigh multiple concerns when deciding whom to include in their groups. Overall, the current study revealed differences in how preschool children weigh moral and social-conventional concerns in intergroup contexts.

Young people's reasoning about exclusion in novel groups.

This study examined children's and adolescents' reasoning about the exclusion of others in peer and school contexts. Participants (80 8-year-olds, 85 11-year-olds, 74 14-year-olds, and 73 20-year-olds) were asked to judge and reason about the acceptability of exclusion from novel groups by children and school principals. Three contexts for exclusion between two groups were systematically varied: unequal economic status, geographical location, and a control (no reason provided for group differences). Regardless of condition, participants believed that exclusion was less acceptable in peer contexts than in school contexts and when children were excluded rather than principals. Participants also used more moral and less social conventional reasoning for peer contexts than for school contexts. In terms of condition, whereas 8-year-olds rated exclusion based on unequal economic status as less acceptable than exclusion based on geographical location or no reason when enacted by a principal, 14-year-olds rated the unequal economic condition as more acceptable than the other two contexts. The 11- and 20-year-olds did not distinguish economic status differences. The findings suggest that children and adolescents are sensitive to context and take multiple variables into account, including the type of group difference (socioeconomic status or other reasons), authority status of the perpetrator of exclusion, and setting (school or peer group). Patterns may have differed from past research because of the sociocultural context in which exclusion was embedded and the contexts of group differences.

Theory of Mind and Resource Allocation in the Context of Hidden Inequality.

In many situations, children evaluate straightforward resource inequalities as unfair. It remains unclear, however, how children interpret hidden inequalities (i.e., inequalities that are unknown to allocators and/or recipients). Children 3-9-years-old (N = 87) evaluated and attributed intentions to a naïve resource allocator who, while unaware of a hidden inequality, made three hypothetical resource allocations: 1) an unknowingly equitable allocation (which rectified the inequality), 2) an inequitable allocation (which perpetuated the inequality), and 3) an equal allocation (which maintained the inequality). Children without false belief morally-relevant theory of mind (FB MoToM) attributed more positive intentions to the unknowingly equitable allocation than to the inequitable allocation. Children with FB MoToM, however, did not differ in their attributions of intentions to the unknowingly equitable and inequitable allocations, reflecting their knowledge that the naïve allocator was not aware of the hidden inequality. Further, children's attributions of intentions were related to their evaluations of the allocations. These findings underscore the importance of children's social cognitive inferences to their evaluations of resource allocation decisions.

Children's and Adolescents' Expectations about Challenging Unfair Group Norms.

Youth often hold group norms that perpetuate inequality. One way these norms can be changed is by challenging these norms by choosing to include new members into these groups who hold morally just norms. In the current study, children's and adolescents' inclusion decisions and social reasoning about challenging group norms through inclusion were investigated. The sample included 9-10 (children) and 13-14 year-olds (adolescents) (N = 673, 54.4% female). Participants supported including challengers into groups holding norms supporting relational aggression and unequal allocation of resources, but they were less likely to support including a challenger into a physically aggressive group. Age-related differences and gender differences were found: children and female participants were more likely to include challengers than were adolescents and male participants. The findings indicate that youth support including new members who would challenge morally questionable group norms, but that their support depends on the specific norm the group holds.