“But the poor needed it more”: Children’s judgments on procedural justice to allocate resources between two candidates equal in merit, different in need

Abstract

The current study investigated children’s judgments on procedural justice and its outcomes when the candidates were equal in merit but different in need. A total of 88 children (41 girls and 47 boys) aged 7 to 11 years were individually interviewed (Mage = 8 years 9 months, SD = 14.065 months). Results showed that, regardless of age, children tended to give educational resources to the resource-poor candidates. However, children’s welfare consideration of the resource-poor candidates increased with age. Children also made differentiated judgments based on the resource type and treated educational materials as more necessary than educational experiences. Children’s age and socioeconomic status (SES) were associated with this differentiation. Younger and high-SES children were more likely to view the outcome of procedural justice (i.e., drawing a stick) for allocating an educational experience (i.e., summer camp) as fair when the result favored the resource-rich candidate. Overall, findings revealed that children do not use a unitary form of fairness in the procedural justice context. The shift from strict equality to welfare concerns continues to develop over middle childhood.