Social influence and the adaptation of parochial altruism: a dictator-game experiment on children and adolescents under peer influence

Priming attachment and diversity ideologies: Effects on ethnic bias in children's altruistic sharing in a dictator game

Children often show a positive ingroup bias in altruistic behaviors such as sharing. Insight in factors related to ethnic bias in sharing can help towards understanding the origins of inequality in the distribution of resources in society. The present study examined the effect of priming secure attachment (versus positive affect) and multiculturalism (versus color-evasiveness) on ingroup bias in dominant ethnic group children's altruistic sharing. One hundred twenty-five White Dutch children (45 % boys, 55 % girls) between 7 and 11 years old (M_age = 8.47, SD_age = 0.87) participated in a Dictator game after being primed. The Dictator game was played against three same-gender children with different ethnic backgrounds (White, Black, Middle Eastern). Results support the idea that priming secure attachment and multiculturalism can decrease ingroup bias in dominant ethnic group children's altruistic sharing, although the effects do not strengthen each other and are effective in situations with different trade-offs and interaction partners. Future research is needed to disentangle the effectiveness of secure attachment and multiculturalism messages in different sharing situations and with interaction partners with different ethnic backgrounds. Results from the present study provide starting points from which to further examine which messages potentially positively impact children's interethnic relations.

Does parochial cooperation exist in childhood and adolescence? A meta-analysis

Although previous meta-analytic evidence supports the existence of parochialism in cooperation among adults, the extent to which children and adolescents are more willing to incur a personal cost to benefit ingroups, compared to outgroups, is not yet clear. We provide the first meta-analysis on the existence and magnitude of parochialism in cooperation among pre-adults. Based on 20 experimental economics studies (k = 69, N = 5268, age = 3-19, 12 countries, published 2008-2019), a multilevel meta-analytic model revealed a small overall effect size indicating that children and adolescents were more cooperative towards ingroups (d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.38]). A series of single-moderator analyses tested for the following conditions: participant age and sex; game type ([mini-]dictator game, prisoner's dilemma, public goods dilemma, trust game, ultimatum game); outcome interdependence; membership manipulation (between- vs. within-subjects); group type (natural vs. experimental); reward type (monetary vs. non-monetary); and country of the participant. Parochial cooperation did not vary with participants' age. Parochialism was larger in non-interdependent (dictator-type) compared to interdependent (bargaining and social dilemma) games. There were no moderating effects of group type, membership manipulation or reward type. To provide more data on how parochialism develops, primary studies should report age ranges more precisely and use more restricted age groups.

Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement

A hallmark of human social cognition is the tendency for both adults and children to favour members of their own groups. Critically, this in-group bias exerts a strong influence on cooperative decision-making: people (i) tend to share more with members of their in-group and (ii) differentially enforce fairness norms depending on the group membership of their interaction partners. But why do people show these group biases in cooperation? One possibility is that the enforcement of cooperative norm violations is an evolved mechanism supporting within-group cooperation (Norms-Focused Hypothesis). Alternatively, group bias in cooperation could be a by-product of more general affective preferences for in-group members (Mere Preferences Hypothesis). Here, we appraise evidence from studies of both adults and children with the goal of understanding whether one of these two accounts is better supported by existing data. While the pattern of evidence is complex, much of it is broadly consistent with the Mere Preferences Hypothesis and little is uniquely supportive of the Norms-Focused Hypothesis. We highlight possible reasons for this complexity and suggest ways that future work can continue to help us understand the important relationship between group bias and cooperation.