Behavior and Indirect Reciprocity of Value-Based Resource Allocation in 5- to 6-Year-Old Preschoolers

Zhang Shuyue; Li Mingyang; Tang Wenqing

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250107

PDF(2600 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (1) : 64-74. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250107

Developmental & Educational Psychology

Behavior and Indirect Reciprocity of Value-Based Resource Allocation in 5- to 6-Year-Old Preschoolers

Zhang Shuyue^1,2, Li Mingyang¹, Tang Wenqing^1,2

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Resource allocation plays a crucial role in children’ socialization process, reflects the level of children's social development. Resources encompass both quantity and value attributes, and children’ development of cognitive and fair allocation based on resource value typically lags behind the cognitive and allocation based on resource quantity, represents a more advanced cognitive and behavioral approach. Reciprocity is one of the fundamental norms of social interaction, and can be divided into direct reciprocity and indirect reciprocity. Indirect reciprocity acts as a significant mechanism in fostering the development of prosocial behavior in children. Upstream indirect reciprocity pertains to individuals being more inclined to assist a third party due to past assistance received from others, while downstream indirect reciprocity refers to individuals having a higher likelihood of receiving help from a third party as a result of previously offering help to others. Previous research primarily focused on indirect reciprocity in quantity-based resource allocation, with limited exploration in value-based resource allocation. Examining children’s performance of indirect reciprocity in value-based resource allocation is instrumental in understanding their development of moral cognition and prosocial behavior within intricate social interaction settings, thereby plays a pivotal role in enhancing children’s prosocial behavior and socialization. Therefore, this study focused on the allocation behavior and indirect reciprocity based resource value, two experiments were designed to investigate the behavior and the indirect reciprocity of value-based resource allocation in 5- to 6-year-old children.
Experiment 1 aimed to examine the behavior characteristics of children's value-based resource allocation with controlling quantity of resources, and 60 children aged 5- to 6-year-old were recruited for experiment 1. On the first step, children were asked to choose the favorite(assigned with high-value) and least favorite (assigned with low-value ) sticker types, and then pick out four favorite stickers (high-quality resources) and four least favorite stickers (low-quality resources) from the chosen sticker types. On the second step, participants were tasked with allocating any four of the eight stickers to a virtual child. Encode children's allocation behavior into fairness, selfish, and altruistic patterns based on the proportion of allocated high and low value stickers. The results show that the proportion of children adopting selfish pattern is significantly higher than that of fairness and altruism.
Experiment 2 aimed to examine the indirect reciprocity of children's value-based resource allocation, and 180 children aged 5- to 6-year-old were recruited for the experiment. Initially, participants were asked to selecting four high- and four low-value stickers as owned resources. Subsequently, present the virtual participants' resource allocation patterns under two social interaction settings, and then asked participants to allocate resources. In the setting of upstream indirect reciprocity, participants were first allocated four of eight stickers(four high-value and four low-value) by virtual child A, according to fair, or selfish, or altruistic schemes, followed by instructions to assign four of eight stickers they owned(four high-value and four low-value) to virtual child C. In the downstream indirect reciprocity setting, participants observed virtual child A allocating four of eight stickers (four high-value and four low-value) fairly, or selfishly, or altruistically to virtual child B, then were tasked with allocating four of eight stickers to virtual child A. Chi-square and stratified chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion differences of children adopting fair, selfish, and altruistic patterns under different conditions. Results show that regardless of their role as recipients or observers, 5- to 6-year-old children could perceive others’ allocation patterns based on resource value, and exhibited upstream and downstream indirect reciprocity in subsequent resource allocation.
In summary, the 5- to 6-year-old children can perceive the value of resources clearly, and demonstrate them in value-based resource allocation. Without controlling any social context, 5- to 6-year-old children exhibit a tendency of selfish in value-based resource allocation. With considering the effects of social interaction contexts and allocation patterns of others, when being recipients of initial resources allocation, 5- to 6-year-old children exhibit a upstream indirect reciprocity in subsequent value-based resources allocation, and exhibit a downstream indirect reciprocity when being bystanders.

Key words

preschooler / resource value / allocation behavior / upstream indirect reciprocity / downstream indirect reciprocity

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Zhang Shuyue, Li Mingyang, Tang Wenqing. Behavior and Indirect Reciprocity of Value-Based Resource Allocation in 5- to 6-Year-Old Preschoolers[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025, 48(1): 64-74 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250107

References

[1] 康丹, 郭炀炀, 陈杰, 蔡术, 张颖杰, 曹诗悦. (2023). 分配对象和分配情境对4~6岁幼儿分配行为的影响. 心理发展与教育, 39(5), 609-616.
[2] 李卓. (2020). 资源价值不等情境下道德情绪对4~6岁儿童分配行为的影响 (硕士学位论文). 湖南师范大学, 长沙.
[3] 李祚山, 陈雪. (2021). 亲子依恋和人际距离知觉对幼儿公平分配行为的影响. 重庆师范大学学报(社会科学版), 3, 70-79.
[4] 刘希平, 云薏霏, 柴凯轩, 李楠, 唐卫海. (2021). 幼儿在不同规范标准下的意图判断: “副作用”效应. 心理与行为研究, 19(2), 237-243.
[5] 刘璐, 肖雪, 刘丽莎, 徐良苑, 张旭然, 李燕芳. (2019). 儿童在不同卷入情境下基于资源价值的分配行为特点: 内群体偏爱的作用. 心理学报, 51(5), 584-597.
[6] 孙王, 莫秀锋. (2017). 感恩对中班幼儿资源分配行为的影响. 学前教育研究, 12, 24-36.
[7] 孙熠譞, 张建华, 李菁萍. (2022). 间接互惠理论研究进展. 经济学动态, 1, 146-160.
[8] 王斯, 苏彦捷. (2011). 儿童面对不同对象的公平性选择: 心理理论的作用. 西南大学学报(社会科学版), 37(4), 26-32.
[9] 肖雪, 刘璐, 刘丽莎, 徐良苑, 张旭然, 李燕芳. (2021). 内群体偏爱与儿童基于贡献的分配公平性: 心理理论的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 37(4), 498-507.
[10] 谢东杰, 路浩, 苏彦捷. (2018). 学龄前儿童分配模式的传递效应: 心理理论和共情的作用, 心理学报, 50(9), 1018-1028.
[11] 徐霜. (2023). 分配者意图和分配结果对3~8岁儿童互惠行为的影响: 人际感恩的中介作用 (硕士学位论文). 浙江理工大学, 杭州.
[12] 张雪, 刘文, 朱琳, 张玉. (2014). 基于贡献原则的幼儿分配公平性. 心理科学进展, 22(11), 1740-1746.
[13] 朱娜平, 刘雁伶, 熊红梅, 赵攀. (2023). “公无远近”有早晚: 不同资源分配情境中儿童公平规范执行行为发展特点. 心理发展与教育, 39(6), 772-780.
[14] 朱娜平, 王文平, 李丽琼, 刘雁伶. (2022). 数量让位价值: 5~10岁儿童公平分配发展的“此消彼长”. 心理与行为研究, 20(2), 233-239.
[15] Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systems. Routledge.
[16] Beeler-Duden, S., & Vaish, A. (2020). Paying it forward: The development and underlying mechanisms of upstream reciprocity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 192, Article 104785.
[17] Benenson J. F., Pascoe J., & Radmore N. (2007). Children' s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 168-175.
[18] Beugré, C. D. (2009). Exploring the neural basis of fairness: A model of neuro-organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 129-139.
[19] Blake, P. R. (2018). Giving what one should: Explanations for the knowledge-behavior gap for altruistic giving. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 1-5.
[20] Blake P. R., McAuliffe K., & Warneken F. (2014). The developmental origins of fairness: The knowledge-behavior gap. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(11), 559-561.
[21] Blake, P. R., & Rand, D. G. (2010). Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 210-218.
[22] Chernyak N., Harris P. L., & Cordes S. (2019). Explaining early moral hypocrisy: Numerical cognition promotes equal sharing behavior in preschool-aged children. Developmental Science, 22(1), Article e12695.
[23] Chernyak, N., & Kushnir, T. (2013). Giving preschoolers choice increases sharing behavior. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1971-1979.
[24] Chernyak N., Sandham B., Harris P. L., & Cordes S. (2016). Numerical cognition explains age-related changes in third-party fairness. Developmental Psychology, 52(10), 1555-1562.
[25] Chernyak, N., & Sobel, D. M. (2016). Equal but not always fair: Value-laden sharing in preschool-aged children. Social Development, 25(2), 340-351.
[26] Engelmann, D., & Fischbacher, U. (2009). Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game. Games and Economic Behavior, 67(2), 399-407.
[27] Essler S., Lepach A. C., Petermann F., & Paulus M. (2020). Equality, equity, or inequality duplication? How preschoolers distribute necessary and luxury resources between rich and poor others. Social Development, 29(1), 110-125.
[28] Fehr, E., & Camerer, C. F. (2007). Social neuroeconomics: The neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), 419-427.
[29] Fujisawa K. K., Kutsukake N., & Hasegawa T. (2008). Reciprocity of prosocial behavior in Japanese preschool children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(2), 89-97.
[30] Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
[31] Grueneisen, S., & Warneken, F. (2022). The development of prosocial behavior—from sympathy to strategy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 323-328.
[32] Kato-Shimizu M., Onishi K., Kanazawa T., & Hinobayashi T. (2013). Preschool children' s behavioral tendency toward social indirect reciprocity. PLoS ONE, 8(8), Article e70915.
[33] Kenward, B., & Dahl, M. (2011). Preschoolers distribute scarce resources according to the moral valence of recipients' previous actions. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1054-1064.
[34] Kenward B., Hellmer K., Winter L. S., & Eriksson M. (2015). Four-year-olds' strategic allocation of resources: Attempts to elicit reciprocation correlate negatively with spontaneous helping. Cognition, 136, 1-8.
[35] Killen M., Elenbaas L., Rizzo M. T., & Rutland A. (2017). The role of group processes in social exclusion and resource allocation decisions. In A. Rutland, D. Nesdale, & C. S. Brown (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of group processes in children and adolescents (pp. 99-123). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
[36] Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2015). Origins and development of morality. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 701-749). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[37] Kolm S. C.(2000). Introduction: The economics of reciprocity, giving and altruism. In: L. A. Gérard-Varet, S. C. Kolm, & Y. Mercier Ythier (Eds.), The economics of reciprocity, giving and altruism (pp. 115-141). Palgrave Macmillan.
[38] Leimgruber K. L., Ward A. F., Widness J., Norton M. I., Olson K. R., Gray K., & Santos L. R. (2014). Give what you get: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) and 4-year-old children pay forward positive and negative outcomes to conspecifics. PLoS ONE, 9(1), Article e87035.
[39] Li J., Hou W. W., Zhu L. Q., & Tomasello M. (2020). The development of intent-based moral judgment and moral behavior in the context of indirect reciprocity: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(6), 525-533.
[40] McAuliffe K., Raihani N. J., & Dunham Y. (2017). Children are sensitive to norms of giving. Cognition, 167, 151-159.
[41] Nowak, M. A., & Roch, S. (2007). Upstream reciprocity and the evolution of gratitude. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1610), 605-610.
[42] Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573-577.
[43] Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.
[44] Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of cooperation in young children. Cognition, 108(1), 222-231.
[45] Pfeiffer T., Rutte C., Killingback T., Taborsky M., & Bonhoeffer S. (2005). Evolution of cooperation by generalized reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1568), 1115-1120.
[46] Rheingold H. L., Hay D. F., & West M. J. (1976). Sharing in the second year of life. Child Development, 47(4), 1148-1158.
[47] Shaw A., DeScioli P., & Olson K. R. (2012). Fairness versus favoritism in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 736-745.
[48] Shaw, A., & Olson, K. R. (2012). Children discard a resource to avoid inequity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 382-395.
[49] Sheskin M., Nadal A., Croom A., Mayer T., Nissel J., & Bloom P. (2016). Some equalities are more equal than others: Quality equality emerges later than numerical equality. Child Development, 87(5), 1520-1528.
[50] Smith C. E., Blake P. R., & Harris P. L. (2013). I should but I won' t: Why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PLoS ONE, 8(3), Article e59510.
[51] Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.
[52] Ule A., Schram A., Riedl A., & Cason T. N. (2009). Indirect punishment and generosity toward strangers. Science, 326(5960), 1701-1704.
[53] Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2013). The emergence of contingent reciprocity in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 338-350.
[54] Xiong M. R., Shi J. N., Wu Z., & Zhang Z. (2016). Five-year-old preschoolers' sharing is influenced by anticipated reciprocation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 460.