Young children’s inclusion decisions in moral and social–conventional group norm contexts

Abstract

Being a member of a peer group involves making decisions about whom to include in or exclude from the group. Sometimes these decisions are related to whether members of the group support or challenge the norms of the group. To examine how young children weigh concerns for group norms and group membership in both moral and social–conventional norm contexts, children (3- to 6-year-olds; N=73) were asked to decide between including an ingroup member who challenged the group’s norm or an outgroup member who supported the norm. Groups held either moral (equal or unequal resource allocation) or social–conventional (traditional or nontraditional) norms. In the moral contexts, children were more likely to include the peer who advocated for the moral concern for equality regardless of the peer’s group membership or their group’s specific norm. In the social–conventional contexts, however, children were more likely to include the peer who advocated for the conventional concern for maintaining traditions but only at the group-specific level. Furthermore, with age children increasingly based their inclusion decisions on normative concerns, rather than on group membership concerns, and differed in their inclusion decisions for ingroups and outgroups. Finally, children reasoned about their decisions by referencing concerns for fairness, group norms, and group membership, suggesting that preschool children weigh multiple concerns when deciding whom to include in their groups. Overall, the current study revealed differences in how preschool children weigh moral and social–conventional concerns in intergroup contexts.