Although inequity aversion includes disadvantageous and advantageous inequity aversion, researches about inequity aversion rarely refer to the advantageous inequity aversion. In this study, we would explore the effects of social distance and distribution differences on children’s advantageous inequity aversion, utilizing the forced-choice dictator game. Sixty children aged from 8 to 10 years old took part in this research. It’s a 3 (social distance) ×3 (distribution differences) repeated experimental design. And the independent variables of social distance included three levels in close (between self and close friend), mediate (between self and acquaintance) and far (between self and stranger), and the independent variables of distribution differences included three advantageous inequity proposals in low (distributing 60% to self and 40% to other), middle (distributing 80% to self and 20% to other) and high (distributing 100% to self and 0% to other). In the experiment, participants were showed some gifts (such as 10 candies) for distribution, then the social distance between you and the other people was presented, later an advantageous inequity proposal in high, middle or low distribution difference was displayed. At last, participants made a choice between accept or reject the proposal. If they accept the proposal, then they would get the gift corresponding to the proposal; if they reject the proposal, then they would get nothing. The mean rejection rate of the three advantageous inequity proposals was utilized to measure the advantageous inequity aversion, which was the dependent variable in this study. The higher rejection rate indicated the stronger advantageous inequity aversion. The results showed that: (1) the main effect of social distance was significant, F(2, 118) = 29.68, p < .01, ηp 2 = .34. The rejection rate of the distribution proposal between self and close friend (M = .87, SD = .17) was higher than that between self and acquaintance (M = .70, SD = .30), which was also higher than that between self and stranger (M = .57, SD = .32). (2) The main effect of distribution difference also significant, F(2,118) = 36.31, p < .01, ηp 2 = .38. The rejection rate of low distribution difference (M = .57, SD = .31) was significantly lower than the middle distribution difference (M = .74, SD = .24), which was also lower than the high distribution difference (M = .83, SD = .20). (3) The interaction between social distance and distribution difference was significant, F(4, 236) = 3.76, p < .05, ηp 2 = .06. The simple effects of social distance were significant on the three levels of distribution differences, too. This research revealed that social distance and distribution difference had significant effects on the children’s advantageous inequity aversion. The closer social distance and the greater distribution difference were, the stronger children’s advantageous inequity aversion was. Social distances moderated the children’s advantageous inequity aversion, and the moderating effect of social distance on the level of middle distribution difference was more obvious. Further research would select older child as subjects for describing the developmental situation of children’s advantageous inequity aversion in children of different ages.