Children’s restorative justice in an intergroup context

Testing the generalizability of minimal group attitudes in minority and majority race children

The minimal group effect, in which people prefer ingroup members to outgroup members even when group membership is trivially constructed, has been studied extensively in psychological science. Despite a large body of literature on this phenomenon, concerns persist regarding previous developmental research populations that are small and lack racial/ethnic diversity. In addition, it remains unclear what role holding membership within and interacting with specific racial/ethnic groups plays in the development of children's group attitudes. Using a collaborative multi-site study approach, we measured 4- to 6-year-old children's (N = 716 across five regions in the United States; 47.1% girls; 40.5% White, 13.3% Black, 12.6% Asian, 24.6% Latine, 9.2% multiracial) minimal group attitudes and preference for real-world racial/ethnic ingroups and outgroups. We found that, as a whole, the minimal group effect was observed in the total sample, and no significant differences were found between racial/ethnic groups; yet exploratory analyses revealed that the minimal group effect was most strongly displayed among older children compared with younger children and, when considered separately, was more clearly present in some racial/ethnic groups (White) but not so in others (Black). In addition, there was no relationship between children's minimal group attitudes and racial group preferences, suggesting that factors other than ingroup/outgroup thinking may influence young children's racial bias. Taken together, results highlight the continued need for large and racially diverse samples to inform and test the generalizability of existing influential psychological theories.

Beyond punishment: psychological foundations of restorative interventions

Work on the psychology of justice has largely focused on punishment. However, punishment is not our only strategy for dealing with conflict. Rather, emerging work suggests that people often respond to transgressions by compensating victims, involving third-party mediators, and engaging in forgiveness. These responses are linked in that they are involved in more restorative than retributive justice practices: they center victims as well as (or instead of) perpetrators and can help repair fractured relationships. Work with non-human animals echoes these findings: reconciliation and intervention by third parties play a key role in conflict management across taxa. In this review, we focus on these restorative interventions, with the aim of painting a more complete picture of the psychology of justice.

Developing conceptions of forgiveness across the lifespan

Understanding how to respond to transgressions is central to cooperation, yet little is known about how individuals understand the consequences of these responses. Accordingly, the current study explored children's (ages 5-9), adolescents' (ages 11-14), and adults' (N = 544, predominantly White, ~50% female, tested in 2021) understandings of three such responses-forgiveness, punishment, and doing nothing. At all ages, participants differentiated between the consequences of these three responses. Forgiveness was associated with more positive and fewer negative outcomes, while the opposite was true for punishment and doing nothing. With age, participants were less likely to expect positive outcomes, and this effect was strongest for punishment and doing nothing. The results of this study allow novel insights into reasoning about three important response strategies.

The good, the rich, and the powerful: How young children compensate victims of moral transgressions depending on moral character, wealth, and social dominance

Theories of justice suggest that it serves two main purposes: punishment and restoration. Although punishment emerges early and has been well-documented, little is known about the contexts in which young children engage in restorative practices like compensation for victims. The current study investigated whether children's engagement in compensation and punishment (which often involve a redistribution of resources) was sensitive to characteristics of the perpetrator and victim known to shape distributive justice decisions (decisions about how resources should be distributed), such as social dominance, resource inequality, and moral character. A total of 54 children aged 3 to 7 years completed a series of moral judgment experiments. Each experiment featured interactions between a perpetrator and a victim, ending with the perpetrator stealing the victim's toy. In Experiment 1 (N = 44), social dominance did not affect punishment or compensation overall, but older children compensated the dominant victim (but not the subordinate victim) less than younger children. In Experiment 2 (N = 42), children compensated the poor victim more than the rich victim, but they did not punish the rich perpetrator more than the poor perpetrator. In Experiment 3 (N = 45), children compensated the victim with a good moral character more than the victim with a bad moral character, and the victim's moral character did not influence punishment. Altogether, these findings offer new insights into how children resort to compensation for victims as a complement to, rather than an alternative to, punishment.

Win-win or lose-lose: Children prefer the form of equality

In middle childhood, children's sense of fairness further develops, they are willing to pay a cost to maintain equality. Win-win and lose-lose are two forms of equality. Win-win equality refers to both parties maximizing benefits, while lose-lose equality means both parties incurring the maximum loss. Win-win equality allows third party upholding fairness to gain more reputational benefits without the violator being punished, embodying the principle of "benefiting oneself without harming others". On the other hand, lose-lose equality is a more deterrent form of fairness with the violator getting punished, and the third-party might experience a situation of "effort without appreciation." However, the specific form of equality which school-aged children prefer still requires further exploration. Therefore, adopting the dictator game paradigm of third-party punishment, we design two experiments to investigate the fairness preference of first to fourth-grade children when acting as a third party and to clarify patterns of age-related changes. Study 1 (N = 111) explored children's preferred form of fairness under advantageous inequity conditions. Study 2 (N = 122) further examined children's fairness preferences in disadvantageous inequity situations. The findings suggest that when confronted with inequitable distributions, whether rooted in disadvantageous or advantageous inequity, children display a notable tendency to utilize third-party punishment to achieve an equal allocation. Meanwhile, this tendency strengthens as they progress in grade levels. Notably, children consistently manifest a preference for win-win equality, highlighting their inclination towards mutually beneficial outcomes.

Children cooperate more with in-group members than with out-group members in an iterated face-to-face Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Adults are more likely to cooperate with in-group members than with out-group members in the context of social dilemmas, situations in which self-interest is in conflict with collective interest. This bias has the potential to profoundly shape human cooperation, and therefore it is important to understand when it emerges in development. Here we asked whether 6- to 9-year-old children (N = 146) preferentially cooperate with in-group members in the context of a well-studied social dilemma, the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game. We assigned children to minimal groups and paired them with unfamiliar same-age and same-gender peers. Consistent with our predictions, children were more likely to cooperate with in-group members than with out-group members in this minimal group context. This finding adds to the current literature on group bias in children's prosocial behavior by showing that it affects decision making in a context that calls on strategic cooperation. In addition, our analyses revealed an effect of gender, with girls more likely to cooperate than boys regardless of the group membership of their partner. Exploring this gender effect further, we found an interaction between gender and age across condition, with older girls showing less sensitivity to the group membership of their partner than younger girls and with older boys showing more sensitivity to the group membership of the partner than younger boys. Our findings suggest that risky cooperation in the face of social dilemmas is shaped by group bias during childhood, highlighting the potentially deeply rooted ties between cooperation and parochialism in humans.

Children endorse deterrence motivations for third-party punishment but derive higher enjoyment from compensating victims

Children's punishment behavior may be driven by both retribution and deterrence, but the potential primacy of either motive is unknown. Moreover, children's punishment enjoyment and compensation enjoyment have never been directly contrasted. Here, British, Colombian, and Italian 7- to 11-year-old children (N = 123) operated a Justice System in which they viewed different moral transgressions in Minecraft, a globally popular video game, either face-to-face with an experimenter or over the internet. Children could respond to transgressions by punishing transgressors and compensating victims. The purpose of the system was framed in terms of retribution, deterrence, or compensation between participants. Children's performance, endorsement, and enjoyment of punishment and compensation were measured, along with their endorsement of retribution versus deterrence as punishment justifications, during and/or after justice administration. Children overwhelmingly endorsed deterrence over retribution as their punishment justification irrespective of age. When asked to reproduce the presented frame in their own words, children more reliably reproduced the deterrence frame rather than the retribution frame. Punishment enjoyment decreased while compensation enjoyment increased over time. Despite enjoying compensation more, children preferentially endorsed punishment over compensation, especially with increasing age and transgression severity. Reported deterrent justifications, superior reproduction of deterrence framing, lower enjoyment of punishment than of compensation, and higher endorsement of punishment over compensation together suggest that children felt that they ought to mete out punishment as a means to deter future transgressions. Face-to-face and internet-mediated responses were not distinguishable, supporting a route to social psychology research with primary school-aged children unable to physically visit labs.

Bright side of the MAOA-uVNTR on trait and situational forgiveness

The stress-and-coping theory of forgiveness posits that forgiveness and aggression are alternative ways of coping with stress of interpersonal offences. Inspired by the link between aggression and MAOA-uVNTR (a genetic variant involving in catabolism of monoamines), we investigated the relationship between this variant and forgiveness with two studies. Study 1 examined the relationship between the MAOA-uVNTR and trait forgiveness in students, and study 2 examined the effect of this variant on third-party forgiveness in response to situational offences in male inmates. The results showed that the MAOA-H (a high activity allele) was associated with higher trait forgiveness in male students and greater third-party forgiveness to accidentally committed harm and attempted but failed harm in male inmates than the MAOA-L. These findings highlight the bright side of MAOA-uVNTR on trait and situational forgiveness.

The sense of belonging reduces ingroup favoritism in children

Belonging is an important motive for intergroup behavior. Adults display pronounced ingroup favoritism when the sense of inclusion by an ingroup is decreased or threatened. The present study investigated whether ingroup belonging reduces ingroup favoritism in 6-year-old children in terms of costly sharing. Children were allocated to a novel group in a minimal-group paradigm. In two conditions, children played a brief ball-tossing game and were either included (ingroup-inclusion condition) or excluded (ingroup-exclusion condition) by their ingroup members. Children in a no-interaction condition did not have any interactions with the members of the ingroup. After this manipulation, we tested the extent to which children shared resources with ingroup and outgroup members. We found that children in the ingroup-exclusion and no-interaction conditions shared more resources with their ingroup member than their outgroup member, while children in the ingroup-inclusion condition shared equally with the ingroup and outgroup members. These results could inform interventions aimed at fostering positive intergroup relations.

Children's judgments of interventions against norm violations: COVID-19 as a naturalistic case study

The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant influence on social interactions, introducing novel social norms such as mask-wearing and social distancing to protect people's health. Because these norms and associated practices are completely novel, it is unknown how children assess what kinds of interventions are appropriate under what circumstances and what principles they draw on in their decisions. We investigated children's reasoning about interventions against individuals who failed to adhere to COVID-19 norms. In this pre-registered study (N = 128), 4- to 7-year-olds heard stories about a norm violator, that is, a person who refuses to wear a mask in class (COVID condition) or wear indoor shoes in class when his or her shoes are muddy (Muddy Shoes condition). Children evaluated four different interventions-giving a mask/indoor shoes (Giving), preventing the person from entering (Exclusion), throwing a paper ball at the person (Throwing), and not intervening (Doing Nothing)-in terms of their rightness, niceness, and effectiveness. We found that across measures children evaluated Giving most positively, whereas they viewed Throwing most negatively. Doing Nothing and Exclusion received mixed evaluations across measures, revealing nuanced judgments of these interventions in children. In most measures, there was no difference between the COVID and Muddy Shoes conditions, suggesting that children's evaluations are not specific to the novel COVID-19 context. Together, our results show that children dynamically evaluate each intervention, taking multiple factors into account. The current study has implications for the development of interventions against norm violations.

Young Children's Understanding of Restorative Justice

The present study investigated how young children understand the sophisticated concept of restorative justice in unintentional moral transgressions. A sex-balanced sample of 5-year-old (M = 5.67, SD = 0.34, 49.3% girls) and 8-year-old (M = 7.86, SD = 0.29, 46.0% girls) Chinese children (N = 193) participated in the study. In designing the materials, we distilled the multidimensional meanings of restorative justice into two stories, one addressing the theme of property violation and the other physical harm; both stories were set in an animal community. We then engaged the children in joint reading and an interview, during which they showed preference for the given treatments for the transgressor (two restorative treatments vs. two retributive treatments) and ranked two further sets of restorative vs. retributive treatments at the community level. The results indicated that most children favored restorative treatments over retributive treatments for a transgressor, and the 8-year-olds viewed psychological restoration more favorably and behavioral punishment less favorably than the 5-year-olds. The children also tended to endorse restorative treatments at the community level, revealing an understanding of the needs, and obligations of all parties concerned. Notably, more 8- than 5-year-olds showed a consistency in restorative orientation at this level. Interpreting our data through the lens of the Representational Redescription model, we attained a more refined account of young children's levels of understanding regarding restorative justice. These results provide insights for the early cultivation of restorative justice among young children, which is a cornerstone for its successful practice in any society.

To Punish or to Restore: How Children Evaluate Victims' Responses to Immorality

Punishment is important for deterring transgressions and maintaining cooperation, while restoration is also an effective way to resolve conflicts and undo harm. Which way do children prefer when evaluating others' reactions to immorality? Across four experiments, Chinese preschoolers (aged 4–6, n = 184) evaluated victims' different reactions to possession violations (i.e., punishing the perpetrator or restoring the belongings). Children evaluated restorative reactions more positively than punitive ones. This tendency to favor restoration over punishment was influenced by the degree of punishment, with more pronounced patterns observed when punishment was harsher (Experiments 1–3). Indeed, when different degrees of punishment were directly contrasted (Experiment 4), children viewed victims who imposed milder punishment (“steal one object, remove one or two objects”) more positively than those who imposed harsh punishment (“steal one object, remove three objects”). These patterns were especially manifested in preschoolers who chose restoration when being put in the victim's situation, suggesting a consistency between evaluations and behaviors. Taken together, the current study showed that children prioritize protecting the victim over harshly punishing the perpetrator, which suggests an early take on the preferred way to uphold justice.