Children recognize and reject favoritism in norm enforcement

被引:0
|
作者
Huff, Louisa [1 ]
Deniz, Tindaya [1 ]
Gronem, Linda [1 ]
Grueneisen, Sebastian [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leipzig, Fac Educ, Marschnerstr 31 A, Leipzig, Germany
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Norm enforcement; Punishment; Fairness; Social cognition; Moral development; Child development; WORKING-MEMORY; PRESCHOOLERS; RESOURCE; ACCOUNT; PUNISHMENT; FAIRNESS; JUSTICE; BIAS;
D O I
10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105981
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The impartial enforcement of norms and laws is a hallmark of fair societies, yet partial, unequal norm enforcement is common, for example as a result of corruption. While children condemn norm violations and value impartiality in resource allocation contexts, children's understanding of unequal norm enforcement is currently underexplored. In three vignette studies, we investigated 4- to 8-year-old's (N = 192) developing recognition and condemnation of unequal norm enforcement, which presupposes a sensitivity to impartiality as a meta-norm. Children evaluated the actions of characters who enforced different norms equally or unequally. From age 5, children disapproved of unequal norm enforcement but approved of unequal treatment when justified (Study 1). Children of all ages accepted a lack of punishment when applied equally to all transgressors, suggesting that their negative evaluations of unequal norm enforcement were specifically guided by the element of partiality and not the desire to see transgressors sanctioned (Study 2). Further, children aged 6 years and older were sensitive to the reasons behind unequal punishment, condemning instances of favoritism while accepting selective leniency due to mitigating circumstances (Study 3). The findings show that, from around 5 to 6 years of age, children condemn unequal sanctions for equal transgressions, thereby demonstrating a deep appreciation of impartiality as a foundational principle of fair norm enforcement.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Identification of Alloreactive Macrophages In Vivo That Recognize and Reject Allogeneic Non-Self
    Liu, W.
    Xiao, X.
    Demirci, G.
    Madsen, J.
    Li, X. C.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2012, 12 : 115 - 115
  • [42] How to Dax? Preschool Children's Prosocial Behavior, But Not Their Social Norm Enforcement Relates to Their Peer Status
    Paulus, Markus
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 8
  • [43] Development of group favoritism in children with neurodevelopmental disorders
    Vaucheret-Paz, Esteban
    Hyland, Martin
    Petracca, Luciana
    Corleto, Mariela
    Martino, Maximiliano
    Leist, Mariana
    Garcia-Basalo, Maria
    ACTA PEDIATRICA DE MEXICO, 2021, 42 (06): : 280 - 288
  • [44] Caste and Punishment: the Legacy of Caste Culture in Norm Enforcement
    Hoff, Karla
    Kshetramade, Mayuresh
    Fehr, Ernst
    ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2011, 121 (556): : F449 - F475
  • [45] Norm enforcement in social dilemmas: An experiment with police commissioners
    Dickinson, David L.
    Masclet, David
    Villeval, Marie Claire
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 2015, 126 : 74 - 85
  • [46] Cross-societal variation in norm enforcement systems
    Molho, Catherine
    De Petrillo, Francesca
    Garfield, Zachary H.
    Slewe, Sam
    PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2024, 379 (1897)
  • [47] Cooperation and norm enforcement - The individual-level perspective
    Albrecht, Felix
    Kube, Sebastian
    Traxler, Christian
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 2018, 165 : 1 - 16
  • [48] Norm enforcement on minorities: Evidence from traffic violations
    Deng, Xiaoyang
    Wang, Tao
    Xue, Lian
    Yang, Shuo
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2025, 231
  • [49] Problems with the Enforcement of Copyright Law: Is there a Social Norm Backlash?
    Depoorter, Ben
    Parisi, Francesco
    Vanneste, Sven
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ECONOMICS OF BUSINESS, 2005, 12 (03) : 361 - 369
  • [50] Norm enforcement in the public sphere: The case of handicapped parking
    Miller, GP
    GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW, 2003, 71 (06) : 895 - 933