Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study examined the association between children’s subjective socioeconomic status, their age, and their sharing decision with a needy recipient versus a recipient on whom no information about need had been provided. Children aged 7–12 (N = 222, 50% girls, M_Age = 9.60, SD = 1.52) participated in an experiment where they could share tokens with either a needy (poor) child or with one on whom no information about need had been provided. Results revealed that children’s sharing increased as a function of age, and that children shared more resources with a needy recipient than with one whose neediness was unknown. Children’s subjective socioeconomic status did not directly predict their sharing. However, the three-way interaction between children’s subjective socioeconomic status, recipient’s neediness and age was significant: only among older children (but not among younger ones), the higher they perceived their own socioeconomic status, the more they shared with a needy recipient. When older participants did not know how needy the recipient was, a higher subjective socioeconomic status was not associated with more sharing. The findings underscore the importance of the interaction between children’s subjective perception of their own status, and that of the recipient with whom they share, in shaping their sharing decisions.

Keywords

Prosocial development sharing decisions subjective socioeconomic status neediness

Do children share more when they have more, or perceive themselves as wealthier than others, or is the opposite true—that the higher their perceived status, the less they share? The socioeconomic status (SES) that children are born into and how they perceive themselves in that context (i.e., their subjective SES) has been linked to a wide range of developmental outcomes across various cognitive, emotional, and social domains (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Joffer et al., 2019). Accordingly, this study focused on children’s subjective socioeconomic status (SSS) and its association with their sharing decisions. Specifically, we sought to explore the role of the recipient’s socioeconomic status in that association—namely, does the association between children’s SSS and their sharing decision depend on the description of the recipient as a needy (poor) other?

The association between socioeconomic status and prosocial behavior has been a prominent focus of research among adult populations over the past decade. While early work suggested a negative relation between socioeconomic status and prosociality (e.g., Kraus & Keltner, 2009; Piff et al., 2010; Stellar et al., 2012), more recent studies have found either no evidence for this negative link (e.g., Greitemeyer, 2023; Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2018) or, conversely, a positive association (e.g., Andreoni et al., 2021;Korndörfer et al., 2015; Nettle et al., 2011; Vanags et al., 2023; Zwirner & Raihani, 2020). A recent meta-analytic review supports the latter, demonstrating a small but positive effect of social class on prosociality—particularly for costly forms of helping behavior rather than prosocial intentions (Wu et al., 2025). In addition, recent research has identified psychological mechanisms that appear to play a significant role in this association, above and beyond socioeconomic status itself (e.g., personal relative deprivation—that is, the belief that one is worse off than similar others, Callan et al., 2017; Gheorghiu et al., 2021; Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2016; perceived economic inequality—Côté et al., 2015; perceived Wang et al., 2021; perception of class mobility—Rao et al., 2022).

Socioeconomic status may be measured in two ways (Kraus & Stephens, 2012): by examining objective criteria such as access to education, employment, and income (Oakes & Rossi, 2003), or by subjective criteria—namely, how individuals perceive their status in comparison with others (subjective socioeconomic status—hereafter referred to as Adler et al., 2000). As suggested by the relative deprivation theory (Crosby, 1976), individuals’ perception of their socioeconomic status is not solely determined by how many resources they possess, but rather how they view their status in comparison with others. Such subjective perceptions are known to have a significant effect on people’s psychological experiences and their actual behaviors (e.g., Boyce et al., 2010; Elbæk et al., 2023; Kraus & Stephens, 2012; Tan et al., 2020).

In this study, we focused on children’s SSS due to its significant presence in day-to-day psychological experiences. Children, especially at a young age, are not always fully aware of their parents’ actual income and status. However, their psychological experience of status and a more developed understanding of its meanings emerges during middle childhood, and is associated with their behavioral inclinations, as we next discuss.

SSS and Prosociality in Children

Studies show that, as early as preschool age, children are already aware of socioeconomic status and recognize its indicators—although they cannot yet explain the reasons for these differences (Ahl & Dunham, 2019; Bigler et al., 2003; Li et al., 2014; Mookherjee & Hogan, 1981; Olson et al., 2012; Ramsey, 1991). As they grow older, children are exposed to ever-broader social circles (Lancy & Grove, 2011), and gain greater cognitive abilities. Thus, they are able to draw more complex comparisons between themselves and others in various respects in accordance with their developing social knowledge (Frey & Ruble, 1990; Harter, 2015; Ruble & Frey, 1991). Accordingly, research into children’s perceptions and understanding of inequality has revealed significant age-related differences in children’s reasoning and perceptions of poverty and wealth between the ages of 6 and 11 (Heberle & Carter, 2015; Sigelman, 2012; Sigelman & Waitzman, 1991). Specifically, only around the age of 8 do children exhibit more accurate social knowledge and descriptions of poor versus rich others, and around the age of 10 are capable of explaining these differences in psychological terms—such as ability, motivation, and effort (Sigelman, 2012). In line with these developmental transitions, children’s self-perceptions of their own status become more accurate during middle childhood. While kindergarten children tend to be positively biased and to perceive themselves as having a higher SES than they actually do (a positive bias found also in other domains—e.g., (Levy et al., 2021; Van Loon et al., 2017), this tendency diminishes as they grow older and develop a greater capacity for relative comparisons (Amir et al., 2019; Mandalaywala et al., 2020; Mistry et al., 2015).

Notably, little research has been done on the association between SES and prosociality in children, and the findings of existing studies have been mixed: while there is evidence for a positive link between socioeconomic status and prosocial behavior among children (Ahl et al., 2024; Benenson et al., 2007; Kuang et al., 2021), there is also support for the opposite association, with children of lower socioeconomic status sharing more than those of higher status (Guinote et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2015). Other studies have examined factors related to children’s SES—such as unequal surroundings—and found that experimental inequity manipulations resulted in inconsistent effects on the prosociality of children aged 4–9 years (Kirkland et al., 2020, 2021).

In summary, the literature on SES and prosociality among children is limited, and inconsistent in its findings. However, these studies mostly measured children’s SES by objective measures (such as information provided by the school—Benenson et al., 2007) or used experimental manipulation to enhance feelings or memories of wealth versus poverty (Ahl et al., 2024; Guinote et al., 2015). In this study, we measured children’s subjective perception of their status, aiming to capture their internal experience of social standing. Moreover, we sought to examine not only the association between children’s sharing and their perception of their own status, but also the interaction between their subjective social status and that of those with whom they share. Thus, while past studies typically involved helping a recipient who was described as needy (e.g., due to illness, or poverty), we directly manipulated the recipient’s neediness, that is, whether they were described as needy or not.

Prosocial Development and Awareness of Neediness Through Middle Childhood

As children grow older, they develop cognitive abilities and social awareness that result in a more nuanced reasoning and judgment of prosocial behaviors (Heyman et al., 2014; Schmidt et al., 2016; Sigelman, 2012). This developmental process is also characterized by greater sensitivity to social norms, which is evident in their increased sharing with age (Blake et al., 2015; House, 2018; House et al., 2013).

One of the quintessential prosociality norms is that of giving to the needy. By the age of 5, children have already internalized the normative expectation that one should give more to a poor than to a wealthy other (Worle & Paulus, 2018). This preference increases as they grow older (Kienbaum & Wilkening, 2009; Malti et al., 2016; Rizzo et al., 2016), along with a greater sensitivity to equal distribution of resources (Shaw & Olson, 2012). From the age of 8 onward, children exhibit a greater sensitivity and sympathy to economically disadvantaged peers, and a willingness to address economic disparities with corrective actions—both in hypothetical scenarios (Dys et al., 2019; Elenbaas, 2019) and in their actual sharing (Kienbaum & Wilkening, 2009; Kogut et al., 2016; Malti et al., 2016; Rizzo et al., 2016; Sabato & Kogut, 2018, 2019, 2020).

To date, less attention has been given to the potential interaction between the status of the giver and the status of a prospective recipient in children’s sharing decisions. Two recent studies have examined this interaction in younger children: Peng et al. (2025) examined the effect of manipulated status of both the prospective giver and the help recipient on resource allocation among 6- to 8-year-old children. They showed that 8 year olds, but not 6 and 7 year olds, shared more with a “poor” recipient (i.e., a child who had fewer resources than them) when they were “wealthier” (had more resources than the recipient). This pattern held true also in third-party distribution tasks. Focusing on children’s subjective perceptions of their status, Straka et al., (2024) examined the association between SSS and children’s social behavior (i.e., inclusion and distribution decisions) among children of the ages of 4–9. They found that children of lower SSS, and older children (ages 7–9, compared with ages 4–6), distributed more stickers to members of a low-SES group than to those of a high-SES group. However, they did not examine the three-way interaction between the recipient’s SES group, the child’s SSS and their age. Moreover, that study focused on distributing resources among low- versus high-SES group members, using cartoon children as the target stimuli, rather than examining actual sharing decisions, with the children’s own resources.

While both studies emphasize the importance of the interaction between the giver’s and the recipient’s status in shaping children’s sharing behavior, the differences in their findings may stem from the variables they focused on (manipulated resource amount vs. perceived status), the age groups they address, and the type of task presented (resource allocation vs. resource distribution). This study aimed to contribute to this limited body of research by investigating the role of the interaction between the giver’s perceived status and the recipient’s status in children’s actual, costly sharing decisions across middle childhood.

The Present Study

This study sought to better understand the role of the recipient’s neediness in the association between children’s SSS and their actual sharing decisions, by directly manipulating the recipient’s neediness and examining children’s actual sharing, at a real cost to themselves, rather than hypothetical distribution decisions. Moreover, we focused on middle childhood—a crucial period in prosocial development, marked by greater frequency (Blake & Rand, 2010; Fehr et al., 2008) and complexity of prosocial behavior (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2016), coupled with a greater awareness and internalization of social norms and values (e.g., Sabato & Eyal, 2022; Sabato & Kogut, 2018). During this period, children’s awareness of, and sensitivity to, their SES grows (Amir et al., 2019; Mandalaywala et al., 2020; Mistry et al., 2015) along with a more established awareness of their own social status in relation to others (Harter, 2015).

We predicted that (H1) with age children would share more resources overall. That is, we expected a positive main effect of age on the amount of resources shared; (H2) children would share more resources with a needy recipient compared with a recipient on whom no information has been provided, due to their sensitivity to the norm of helping those in need. That is, we expected a positive main effect of the recipient’s neediness on the amount of resources shared, and (H3) this effect would become more pronounced with age, as children’s social awareness and internalization of social norms emerge—that is, we expected a significant interaction between the recipient’s neediness and the child’s age on the amount of resources shared; (H4) regarding the association between children’s SSS and their sharing behavior—given the mixed findings in the literature among children mentioned earlier, we adopted an exploratory, bidirectional approach (rather than formulating a priori predictions) to examine the developmental nature of these relations. Specifically, we hypothesized that the interaction between children’s SSS and the recipient’s neediness may follow one of two theoretically plausible patterns: on the one hand, the recipient’s neediness may spark feelings of empathy and identification in individuals who perceive themselves as being of lower socioeconomic status, thus increasing their sharing. Conversely, children who perceive themselves as being wealthier may respond to the status gap between themselves and the prospective recipient by sharing more with a needy other. Thus, we sought to explore these two competing predictions. Moreover, we aimed to explore this interaction from a developmental perspective. Based on previous research that has demonstrated the role of social norms in children’s behavior throughout middle childhood (e.g., Blake et al., 2015; House et al., 2013), we expected this three-way interaction (i.e., between children’s SSS, their age and the recipient’s neediness) to shed a light on the developmental pattern of the association between SSS and neediness, as children grow older and become more aware of their environment’s expectations and values and follow them in their behavior.

The study was conducted at the Bloomfield Science Museum in Jerusalem, which is situated in an urban part of the city. All participating children were native Hebrew speakers and completed the session in that language. Demographics of parents’ sub-sample are presented in the Supplementary Materials file. Overall, the sample represents a WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) population. The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Seymour Fox School of Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Approval #2022Y0203). Data are available at https://osf.io/guhwk.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and twenty-two children took part in the experiment (50% girls, M_Age = 9.60, SD = 1.52). Participants were recruited during their visit to the Bloomfield Science Museum in Jerusalem, using a convenience sampling method: any child who wished to participate could stop at the lab station and take part in the study.

Sensitivity power analysis, conducted with G*Power (Faul et al., 2007) for linear regression analysis with seven predictors (the child’s age, SSS, the recipient’s neediness, all two-way interactions, and the three-way interaction), indicated that, given N = 222, α = .05, and a power of .85, statistical significance would be detected with a small-to-medium effect size (f² = .07, critical f = 2.05).

Procedure and Measurements

The experiment was conducted in privacy, in a separate room within the Bloomfield Science Museum. After obtaining parental consent, each child was interviewed individually by a trained experimenter, following a structured protocol. First, the experimenter introduced herself to the child and asked them if they were willing to take part. Next, participants answered several demographic questions and practiced the scale to be used throughout the experiment. The experimenter then presented the children with six tokens and told them that all participants receive tokens for their participation, which can be exchanged for prizes at the end of the experiment. She asked the child to count the tokens to ensure the number was accurate and presented them with the sharing task.

The Sharing Task

The task was based on the Dictator Game method (Kahneman et al., 1986) that has been successfully employed in research with children (e.g., Blake & Rand, 2010; Cowell et al., 2017; Kogut, 2012; Malti et al., 2016; Sabato & Kogut, 2018, 2021; Santamaría-García et al., 2018). The experimenter asked the child if they were willing to share their tokens with an unfamiliar child (of the same gender as themselves) who had not received any tokens, as they were not participating in the experiment.

We used a between-subjects design in which the recipient’s neediness was manipulated and the children assigned to one of two conditions (based on Sabato & Kogut, 2018, 2019, 2020) a Needy Recipient condition, in which the prospective recipient was presented as a poor child (whose parents cannot afford to buy him presents); and a No-Information Provided condition, in which the participant received no further information about the recipient’s family socioeconomic status. In both conditions, the experimenter explained to the child that they would receive six tokens and can take them all for themselves or, if they want, they may leave some of them for the other child. The experimenter then showed the child a sealed box with a small slit at the top (as in a charity box) and an empty envelope, and explained that the tokens that the child wanted to keep for themselves should be placed in the envelope, while the tokens they wished to give to the other child (should they choose to do so) were to be placed in the box. The experimenter then asked two comprehension questions to confirm that the child understood the task before the sharing decision. To give the children full privacy while making the decision, the experimenter stressed that their decision was private and then turned her back to the child while they completed the task. To enhance the sense of privacy still further, the experimenter instructed the child to place their box among other identical boxes (all empty) that were on the table. Once the child had completed the task and let the experimenter know that they had done so, she asked the child additional exploratory questions, and a few diversion questions that were aimed at distinguishing the child’s rating of their own SSS from their sharing decision (see Supplementary Materials). Finally, the child rated their SSS following the experimenter’s explanation.

SSS (Goodman et al., 2001; Quon & McGrath, 2014): the scale used to measure SSS was adapted from the MacArthur Scale (Adler et al., 2000; Adler & Stewart, 2007), a 10-rung ladder task widely used to assess SSS among adults and adolescents in various contexts (e.g., Cundiff & Matthews, 2017; Martin-Storey et al., 2018; (Sweeting & Hunt, 2014; Tan et al., 2020). The task was also adapted to younger children, from the ages of 4 to 10 (e.g., Amir et al., 2019; Peretz-Lange et al., 2022). The participants were presented with a drawing of a seven-rung ladder, representing different levels of socioeconomic status (see Supplementary Materials for the detailed text) and were asked to point to the level they felt best represented their own situation.

At the end of the experiment, the children were invited to choose a prize from a basket containing several high-value prizes, without being asked about the number of tokens they shared. This procedure was designed based on ethical considerations, to preserve the privacy of the children’s decisions and to avoid disappointment or discomfort that might arise if low-value prizes were offered. The experimenter thanked the child and provided a brief debriefing, explaining that she did not want to ask how many tokens they had decided to share. Therefore, she allowed all children to choose a prize from a basket of our most expensive options, each worth 10 tokens, so that no one would feel disappointed. Once the child had left the room, the experimenter counted the number of tokens left in the box for the other child.

Results

The number of tokens shared by the children ranged from zero to six (M = 2.47, SD = 1.38), see Table 1.

Table 1.

Distribution of Tokens Shared by the Children, in Each Condition.

Condition/category	Tokens shared	Needy	Number of children, %	No-information provided	Number of children, %
None	0	7	6.7	11	10.3
Less than Half	1–2	41	39.1	47	43.9
Half	3	37	35.2	35	32.7
More than Half (not all)	4–5	14	13.3	11	10.3
All tokens	6	6	5.7	3	2.8

Note. For the “Less than Half” category—in the Needy condition, 11 children (10.5%) shared one token, and 30 (28.6%) shared two tokens; In the No-Information Provided condition, 18 children (16.8%) shared one token, and 29 (27.1%) shared two tokens. For the “More than Half” category, in the Needy condition, 10 children (9.5%) shared four tokens, and 4 (3.8%) shared five tokens; in the No-Information provided condition, 9 children (8.4%) shared four tokens, and 2 (1.9%) shared five tokens.

To examine the role of the child’s SSS, the recipient’s neediness and the child’s age in predicting the number of tokens shared by the children, a linear hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. In Step 1, we included all main effects (the child’s age, SSS rating, the recipient’s neediness); in Step 2, we entered all two-way interactions; and in Step 3, we included the three-way interaction (see Table 2).¹

Table 2.

Results of the Linear Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Number of Tokens Shared with the Other Child (N = 212).

Predictors/ steps	Step 1 (main effects)						Step 2 (two-way interactions)						Step 3 (three-way interaction)
Predictors/ steps	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI	B	SE	β	t	p	95% CI
Age	.32	.06	.35	5.51	< .001	[.20, .43]	–.13	.32	–.14	–.41	.682	[–.76, .50]	.52	.41	.58	1.26	.207	[–.29, 1.34]
Child’s SSS	–.12	.09	–.08	–1.35	.177	[–.30, .05]	–.99	.62	–.70	–1.60	.113	[–2.21, .23]	.30	.81	.22	.37	.709	[–1.29, 1.90]
Recipient’s Neediness	.41	.17	.15	2.32	.021	[.06, .76]	–1.02	1.41	–.37	–.72	.470	[–3.81, 1.76]	13.16	5.97	4.78	2.20	.029	[1.38, 24.95]
Age × Child’s SSS	–	–	–	–	–	–	.08	.06	.75	1.34	.181	[–.04, .21]	–.05	.08	–.43	–.59	.554	[–.21, .11]
Age × Recipient's Neediness	–	–	–	–	–	–	.07	.12	.27	.64	.520	[–.15, .30]	–1.43	.62	–5.09	–2.28	.024	[–2.66, –.19]
Child’s SSS × Recipient’s Neediness	–	–	–	–	–	–	.15	.18	.27	.81	.419	[–.21, .51]	–2.73	1.19	–5.05	–2.29	.023	[–5.08, –.38]
Age × Child’s SSS ×X Recipient’s Neediness	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	.30	.12	5.52	2.44	.015	[.06, .55]

Note. SSS: subjective socioeconomic status; CI: confidence interval; SE: standard error.

The recipient’s Neediness was coded as 0 = No-Information Provided, 1 = Need.

In the first step of the model, F(3, 208) = 11.92, p < .001, $r^{2}$ = .15, the effect of the child’s age was significant—such that as they grow older, children shared more resources overall, in line with our hypothesis (H1). The effect of the recipient’s neediness was also significant, as predicted (H2) —such that, overall, children shared more resources with recipients who were described as needy (M = 2.65, SD = 1.40) than with recipients on whom no information about need had been provided (M = 2.29, SD = 1.34). In the second step of the model, F(6, 205) = 6.39, p > .001, $r^{2}$ = .16, none of the two-way interactions were significant. Thus, although the recipient’s neediness significantly affected children’s sharing, the data did not support the developmental hypothesis regarding the increase in sharing with a needy other with age (H3). Finally, in the third step of the model, F(7, 204) = 6.46, p < .001, $r^{2}$ = .18, the three-way interaction—which addressed the exploratory hypothesis (H4) concerning the association between the child’s SSS and the recipient’s neediness as moderated by the child’s age—was significant.²

To better understand this interaction, we examined the role of the interaction between the child’s age and their SSS in each of the two experimental conditions (i.e., the needy recipient condition and the no-information provided condition): this was found to be significant only in the Needy-Recipient condition (t = 2.75, β = 2.16, p = .007), but not in the No-Information Provided condition (t = -.59, β = -.46, p = .56). The interaction was plotted (Figure 1) as recommended by Aiken et al. (1991). As evident from the graph, the higher older children rate themselves on the SSS scale, the more they share with a needy other. This was not observed among younger children.

Figure 1.

The Interaction between Age, Socioeconomic Status (SSS) and the Recipient’s Neediness on Children’s Sharing Behavior (N = 212).

To detect the age ranges in which the interaction emerges, we conducted a moderated-moderation analysis, using PROCESS macro for SPSS model 3, with 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals, based on 5,000 iterations (Hayes, 2017), with age (Z) as a moderator of the link between the recipient’s neediness (X) and the child’s SSS (W) on children’s sharing (Y). The results indicate that older children, at 1 SD above the mean age, showed the above significant pattern (i.e., sharing more with a needy other the higher they rated themselves on the SSS scale), B = .67, F(1, 204) = 5.73, p = .017. A Johnson–Neyman analysis identified the age of 10.35 (32.5% of the children in the sample) as the threshold above which the interaction between the child’s SSS and the recipient’s neediness became statistically significant (p < .05). Younger children did not show this significant pattern, at the average age level: B = .20, F(1, 204) = 1.28, p = .26; 1 SD below the mean age: B = −.25, F(1, 204) = 1.10, p = .29. This analysis suggests that the moderating effect of the child’s SSS on the effect of the recipient’s neediness on sharing emerges during the later stages of middle childhood.

Discussion

This study examined the association between children’s SSS and their sharing behavior toward a needy recipient versus a recipient on whom no information about need has been provided, during middle childhood. Specifically, the study aimed to explore whether these effects differed for younger and for older children.

As predicted, we found an increase in sharing as children grow older, and greater sharing with a needy recipient than with one whose neediness is unknown. These findings are in line with previous research demonstrating the positive effects of age and recipient’s level of neediness on children’s prosocial behavior (e.g., Benenson et al., 2007; Kogut, 2012; Malti et al., 2016; Sabato & Kogut, 2018, 2019; Weller & Lagattuta, 2013). More importantly, we found that when the recipient was described as a poor child, the children’s SSS was positively associated with their sharing as they grow older. That is, among older children (but not among younger ones) the higher they perceived their own socioeconomic status, the more they shared with a needy recipient. This was not significant when the recipient was not described as needy.

This pattern extends previous developmental research that found a positive association between children’s SES and their prosocial behavior (e.g., Ahl et al., 2024; Benenson et al., 2007), by highlighting the recipient’s neediness as a key factor in understanding this link. The findings underscore the complex understanding of status that children demonstrate as they grow older and become more aware of their own status in relation to others (Frey & Ruble, 1990; Harter, 2015; Ruble & Frey, 1991). This awareness, coupled with their increasing aversion to inequity with age (Shaw & Olson, 2012) makes the difference between their perception of their own social status and of the other’s neediness more salient. However, when the difference between the giver and the recipient is not salient (i.e., the latter is not described as needy), the children’s SSS appears to be less relevant to their sharing behavior. Interestingly, children of lower SSS were less responsive to the recipient’s neediness. This ties in with findings of past studies that found that individuals are less attuned to the needs of others when they themselves experience the same ongoing need (Harel & Kogut, 2015). A similar pattern was observed among pre-adolescents during the COVID-19 lockdowns: those who reported fewer social connections were less willing to help a lonely peer, despite sharing similar feelings of loneliness (Sabato et al., 2021).

To date, only a few studies have directly compared the statuses of the prospective giver and the help-recipient. In a study by Kuang et al. (2021), children’s high- versus low-SES was determined by geographic residency (urban vs. rural area in China, respectively). They found that 11-year-old children from both urban and rural areas were willing to share more with a rural child than with an urban one, and this tendency was most pronounced among the urban children. Although this study examined children toward the end of elementary school years, and did not explicitly mention the neediness of the help recipient, its finding supports the positive association found in our study between SSS and sharing with a needy recipient, as children grow older. The findings of this study illustrate the developmental trend of this association during middle childhood, as reflected in children’s actual, costly, sharing decisions.

To the best of our knowledge, the present examination is the first to directly manipulate the recipient’s neediness in the context of SSS and sharing. The recipient’s neediness is a highly influential factor in children’s sharing decisions (Paulus, 2014; Paulus & Moore, 2017; Sabato & Eyal, 2022; Sabato & Kogut, 2018, 2019; Weller & Lagattuta, 2013), and—as our findings suggest—interact with the potential giver’s status in such decisions. Our findings align with those of Peng et al. (2025), who manipulated children’s status based on the number of resources they received in an allocation task. They found that 8 year-olds, but not younger children, shared more with a “poor” child (i.e., one with fewer resources), when they themselves had more. We found a similar developmental pattern across a broader age range, from 7 years onward, when examining children’s subjective perceptions of their own status.

Our findings are not in line with the findings of a recent study showing that children of lower SSS distributed more stickers to members of a low-SES group than to those of a high-SES group (Straka et al., 2024). This inconsistency may stem from the differences in age range (4–9 years in the study by Straka et al., 7–12 years in our study) and suggests a possible shift in children’s preferences between preschool and middle childhood, which should be explored in future research. It may also be related to the different methodologies used in the studies (distribution decisions between hypothetical figures in their study vs. actual resource allocation with another “real-world” child in ours). Specifically, the nature of the decision in their study involved a direct comparison between the two prospective recipients (i.e., a member of a low- vs. high-SES group) with the need to choose one cartoon child over another; whereas in this study, the between-subjects design did not require the children to make such a comparative assessment. Past research in decision-making has emphasized the unique effect of joint evaluation versus separate evaluation in prosocial decisions (e.g., in the context of donation behavior to an identified vs. unidentified victim—Kogut & Ritov, 2005), which also presents an interesting topic for further investigation in the study at hand.

This study innovatively focused on children’s subjective perceptions of their status. Individuals’ self-perceptions play a significant role in their psychological experiences and social behaviors (Boyce et al., 2010; Kraus & Stephens, 2012), and are powerful predictors of behavior in childhood, as well (e.g., Sabato & Kogut, 2019). Such subjective perceptions reflect the child’s perspective and experience, which does not necessarily align with the more “objective” reality (as evidenced by the non-significant correlation between the two in our data—see Supplementary Materials). Given its day-to-day importance, the subjective perception serves as a primary lens through which children view their social interactions and, accordingly, manage their behavior. Future research is needed, however, to systematically compare between the role played by different SES measures in children’s sharing behavior.

Study Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, it focused on one form of prosocial behavior—costly sharing. Although the sharing task is broadly used in research with children (e.g., Benenson et al., 2007; Blake & Rand, 2010; Kogut, 2012; Malti et al., 2016), it measures only one aspect of prosocial behavior. Therefore, future research is needed to measure different types of prosociality—such as helping or comforting—and to examine how these relate to the children’s perceptions of their socioeconomic status.

Second, in this study, SSS was measured rather than manipulated—which precludes causal conclusions. Future research should aim to manipulate individuals’ perceptions of their socioeconomic status to directly examine causal relationships. Such experimental designs should also consider possible psychological factors—such as personal relative deprivation—which may underlie the effect and were not examined in this study.

Third, as reflected in the analysis, the main focus of the current study was on the developmental pattern captured in the significant three-way interaction between age, SSS, and recipient’s neediness. However, the non-significant two-way interactions should be interpreted with caution, as detecting such effects may often require greater statistical power. While several studies have found significant two-way interactions involving the recipient’s neediness (e.g., with age—Sabato & Kogut, 2018; with children’s SWB—Sabato & Kogut, 2019), others did not reveal such significant interaction effects (e.g., Sabato & Eyal, 2022; Sabato & Kogut, 2020). All these studies—like the present one—based their sample sizes on small-to-medium effect sizes. Thus, it is conceivable that with a larger sample size, the two-way interaction effects in this study might have reached significance. Future research should consider this limitation and aim to detect smaller effect sizes when examining similar interactions.

Finally, the procedure was conducted within the specific cultural context of a science museum. The current sample represents WEIRD societies (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic)—which may limit the generalization of the findings. While the patterns discussed in this study may be applicable within WEIRD societies, cross-cultural research revealed sociocultural effects on costly sharing during middle childhood (Blake et al., 2015; Callaghan & Corbit, 2018). Therefore, although the study focused on children’s subjective perspective of their own SES (which indeed was not correlated with the objective family indicators in the parents’ subsample—see Supplementary Materials), future research should investigate the association between children’s SSS and sharing across diverse cultural contexts, and in more inclusive surroundings as well—such as schools from diverse SES populations.

In summary, this study contributes to the existing literature by proposing a new perspective on the role of the recipient’s neediness in the association between children’s SSS and their actual sharing decisions. The results underline the importance of age in this process, as it is only from middle childhood that children’s awareness of their status in relation to others plays a significant role in their sharing decisions with needy others.

***

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jbd-10.1177_01650254251361788 – Supplemental material for Children’s subjective socioeconomic status and their sharing decisions: The role of the recipient’s neediness

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jbd-10.1177_01650254251361788 for Children’s subjective socioeconomic status and their sharing decisions: The role of the recipient’s neediness by Tal Genzel Toberman and Hagit Sabato in International Journal of Behavioral Development

Footnotes

Consent to Participate

Parents provided written consent for their child's participation, and children provided their verbal assent before taking part in the study

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Ethical Considerations

The study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Seymour Fox School of Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Approval #2022Y0203).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) Grant #1830/22, awarded to H.S.

ORCID iD

Hagit Sabato

Data Availability

Data are available at

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Adler

N. E.

Epel

E. S.

Castellazzo

Ickovics

J. R.

(2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586

Adler

N. E.

Stewart

(2007). The Macarthur Scale of subjective social status. https://macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/subjective.php

Ahl

R. E.

Amir

McAuliffe

(2024). Recalling experiences of scarcity reduces children’s generosity relative to recalling abundance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 243, Article 105914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2024.105914

Ahl

R. E.

Dunham

(2019). “Wealth makes many friends”: Children expect more giving from resource-rich than resource-poor individuals. Child Development, 90(2), 524–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12922

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE.

Amir

Valeggia

Srinivasan

Sugiyama

L. S.

Dunham

(2019). Measuring subjective social status in children of diverse societies. PLOS ONE, 14(12), Article e0226550. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226550

Andreoni

Nikiforakis

Stoop

(2021). Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24519-5

Benenson

J. F.

Pascoe

Radmore

(2007). Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.10.003

Benozio

Diesendruck

(2015). Parochialism in preschool boys’ resource allocation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(4), 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.12.002

10.

Bigler

R. S.

Averhart

C. J.

Liben

L. S.

(2003). Race and the workforce: Occupational status, aspirations, and stereotyping among African American children. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 572–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.572

11.

Blake

McAuliffe

Corbit

Callaghan

T. C.

Barry

Bowie

Kleutsch

Kramer

K. L.

Ross

Vongsachang

Wrangham

Warneken

(2015). The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies. Nature, 528(7581), 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15703

12.

Blake

P. R.

Rand

D. G.

(2010). Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.012

13.

Boyce

C. J.

Brown

G. D. A.

Moore

S. C.

(2010). Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21, 471–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610362671

14.

Bradley

R. H.

Corwyn

R. F.

(2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233

15.

Burford

H. C.

Foley

L. A.

Rollins

P. G.

Rosario

K. S.

(1996). Gender differences in preschoolers’ sharing behavior. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(5), 17–25‏.

16.

Callaghan

Corbit

(2018). Early prosocial development across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 102–106‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.039

17.

Callan

M. J.

Kim

Gheorghiu

A. I.

Matthews

W. J.

(2017). The interrelations between social class, personal relative deprivation, and prosociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 660–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616673877

18.

Côté

House

Willer

(2015). High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(52), 15838–15843. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511536112

19.

Cowell

J. M.

Lee

Malcolm-Smith

Selcuk

Zhou

Decety

(2017). The development of generosity and moral cognition across five cultures. Developmental Science, 20(4), Article e12403. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12403

20.

Crosby

(1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.85

21.

Cundiff

J. M.

Matthews

K. A.

(2017). Is subjective social status a unique correlate of physical health? A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 36(12), 1109–1125‏. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000534

22.

Dys

S. P.

Peplak

Colasante

Malti

(2019). Children’s sympathy and sensitivity to excluding economically disadvantaged peers. Developmental Psychology, 55(3), 482–487. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0000549

23.

Elbæk

C. T.

Mitkidis

Aarøe

Otterbring

(2023). Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 5453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41007-0

24.

Elenbaas

(2019). Against unfairness: Young children’s judgments about merit, equity, and equality. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 186, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.05.009

25.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

26.

Fehr

Bernhard

Rockenbach

(2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454, 1079–1083. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07155

27.

Frey

K. S.

Ruble

D. N.

(1990). Strategies for comparative evaluation: Maintaining a sense of competence across the life span. In Sternberg

R. J.

Kolligian

Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 167–189). Yale University Press.

28.

Gheorghiu

A. I.

Callan

M. J.

Skylark

W. J.

(2021). Having less, giving less: The effects of unfavorable social comparisons of affluence on people’s willingness to act for the benefit of others. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(9), 946–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12813

29.

Goodman

Adler

N. E.

Kawachi

Frazier

Huang

Colditz

G. A.

(2001). Adolescents’ perception of social status: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), Article e31. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.2.e31

30.

Greitemeyer

(2023). The relationship between social class and unethical and prosocial (traffic) behavior: Two naturalistic replication studies. Social Influence, 18(1), Article 2203947. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2023.2203947

31.

Greitemeyer

Sagioglou

(2016). Subjective socioeconomic status causes aggression: A test of the theory of social deprivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 178–194. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pspi0000058

32.

Greitemeyer

Sagioglou

(2018). Does low (vs. high) subjective socioeconomic status increase both prosociality and aggression? Social Psychology, 49(2), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000331

33.

Guinote

Cotzia

Sandhu

Siwa

(2015). Social status modulates prosocial behavior and egalitarianism in preschool children and adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(3), 731–736. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414550112

34.

Harel

Kogut

(2015). Visceral needs and donation decisions: Do people identify with suffering or with relief? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 24–29‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.08.005

35.

Harter

(2015). A model of mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In Collins

W. A.

(Ed.), Aspects of the development of competence (pp. 215–255). Psychology Press.

36.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

37.

Heberle

A. E.

Carter

A. S.

(2015). Cognitive aspects of young children’s experience of economic disadvantage. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 723–746. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000010

38.

Heyman

Barner

Heumann

Schenck

(2014). Children’s sensitivity to ulterior motives when evaluating prosocial behavior. Cognitive Science, 38(4), 683–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12089

39.

House

B. R.

(2018). How do social norms influence prosocial development? Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 87–91‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.011

40.

House

B. R.

Silk

J. B.

Henrich

Barrett

H. C.

Scelza

B. A.

Boyette

A. H.

Hawlett

B. S.

McElreath

Laurence

(2013). Ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(36), 14586–14591‏. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1221217110

41.

Joffer

Flacking

Bergström

Randell

Jerdén

(2019). Self-rated health, subjective social status in school and socioeconomic status in adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 19, Article 785‏. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7140-3

42.

Kahneman

Knetsch

J. L.

Thaler

(1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829118-011

43.

Kienbaum

Wilkening

(2009). Children’s and adolescents’ intuitive judgements about distributive justice: Integrating need, effort, and luck. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(4), 481–498. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/17405620701497299

44.

Kirkland

Jetten

Nielsen

(2020). The effect of economic inequality on young children’s prosocial decision-making. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 512–528. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/bjdp.12334

45.

Kirkland

Jetten

Wilks

Nielsen

(2021). How economic inequality affects prosocial behavior in children across development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 210, Article 105202. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105202

46.

Kogut

(2012). Knowing what I should, doing what I want: From selfishness to inequity aversion in young children’s sharing behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.10.003

47.

Kogut

Ritov

(2005). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.02.003

48.

Kogut

Slovic

Västfjäll

(2016). The effect of recipient identifiability and neediness on children’s sharing behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(4), 353–362. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/bdm.1879

49.

Korndörfer

Egloff

Schmukle

S. C.

(2015). A large scale test of the effect of social class on prosocial behavior. PLOS ONE, 10(7), Article e0133193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133193

50.

Kraus

M. W.

Keltner

(2009). Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science, 20(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x

51.

Kraus

M. W.

Stephens

N. M.

(2012). A road map for an emerging psychology of social class. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(9), 642–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00453.x

52.

Kuang

Wang

Z. J.

(2021). Social class and children’s prosociality: A study in the context of China’s dual urban–rural structure. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887698

53.

Lancy

D. F.

Grove

M. A.

(2011). Getting noticed. Human Nature, 22(3), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9117-5

54.

Levy

Sabato

Bereby-Meyer

Kogut

(2021). Who’s more generous than me? Children’s self-evaluation of their prosociality in normative social comparisons. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 201, Article 104996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104996

55.

Spitzer

Olson

K. R.

(2014). Preschoolers reduce inequality while favoring individuals with more. Child Development, 85(3), 1123–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12198

56.

Malti

Gummerum

Ongley

Chaparro

Nola

Bae

N. Y.

(2016). “Who is worthy of my generosity?” Recipient characteristics and the development of children’s sharing. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 31–40. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0165025414567007

57.

Mandalaywala

T. M.

Tai

Rhodes

(2020). Children's use of race and gender as cues to social status. PLOS ONE, 15(6), Article e0234398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234398

58.

Martin-Storey

Marcellin

Purtell

K. M.

Tougas

A. M.

Lessard

(2018). “It's about having money, but also happiness”: A qualitative investigation of how adolescents understand subjective status in themselves and others. Journal of Adolescence, 68, 198–206‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.08.004

59.

Miller

J. G.

Kahle

Hastings

P. D.

(2015). Roots and benefits of costly giving: Children who are more altruistic have greater autonomic flexibility and less family wealth. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1038–1045. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0956797615578476

60.

Mistry

R. S.

Brown

C. S.

White

E. S.

Chow

K. A.

Gillen-O’Neel

(2015). Elementary school children’s reasoning about social class: A mixed-methods study. Child Development, 86(5), 1653–1671. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12407

61.

Mookherjee

H. N.

Hogan

H. W.

(1981). Class consciousness among young rural children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 114(1), 91–98. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/00224545.1981.9922730

62.

Nettle

Colléony

Cockerill

(2011). Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city. PLOS ONE, 6(10), Article e26922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026922

63.

Oakes

J. M.

Rossi

P. H.

(2003). The measurement of SES in health research: Current practice and steps toward a new approach. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00073-4

64.

Olson

K. R.

Shutts

Kinzler

K. D.

Weisman

K. G.

(2012). Children associate racial groups with wealth: Evidence from South Africa. Child Development, 83(6), 1884–1899. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01819.x

65.

Paulus

(2014). The early origins of human charity: Developmental changes in preschoolers’ sharing with poor and wealthy individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 344. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00344

66.

Paulus

Moore

(2017). Preschoolers’ generosity increases with understanding of the affective benefits of sharing. Developmental Science, 20(3), Article e12417. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12417

67.

Peng

(2025). Wealth promotes generosity? The role of individual wealth on children’s allocation decisions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254251314761

68.

Peretz-Lange

Harvey

Blake

P. R.

(2022). From “haves” to “have nots”: Developmental declines in subjective social status reflect children’s growing consideration of what they do not have. Cognition, 223, Article 105027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105027

69.

Piff

P. K.

Kraus

M. W.

Côté

Cheng

B. H.

Keltner

(2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0020092

70.

Quon

E. C.

McGrath

J. J.

(2014). Subjective socioeconomic status and adolescent health: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 33(5), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033716

71.

Ramsey

P. G.

(1991). Young children’s awareness and understanding of social class differences. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152(1), 71–82. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/00221325.1991.9914679

72.

Rao

T. T.

Yang

S. L.

B. X.

Wei

(2022). Perception of class mobility moderates the relationship between social class and prosocial behaviour. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12466

73.

Rizzo

M. T.

Elenbaas

Cooley

Killen

(2016). Children’s recognition of fairness and others’ welfare in a resource allocation task: Age related changes. Developmental Psychology, 52(8), 1307. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0000134

74.

Ruble

D. N.

Frey

K. S.

(1991). Changing patterns of comparative behavior as skills are acquired: A functional model of self-evaluation. In Suls

Wills

T.A.

(Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 79–113).Lawrence Erlbaum.

75.

Sabato

Abraham

Kogut

(2021). Too lonely to help: Early adolescents’ social connections and willingness to help during COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12655

76.

Sabato

Eyal

(2022). Proud to help when I should: Children’s positive emotions following sharing decisions with a needy versus not-needy other. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 219, Article 105400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105400

77.

Sabato

Kogut

(2018). The association between religiousness and children’s altruism: The role of the recipient’s neediness. Developmental Psychology, 54(7), 1363–1371. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000526

78.

Sabato

Kogut

(2019). Feel good, do good? Subjective well-being and sharing behavior among children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 335–350. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.08.009

79.

Sabato

Kogut

(2020). The development of prosociality among Christian Arab children in Israel: The role of children’s household religiosity and of the recipient’s neediness. Developmental Psychology, 56(8), 1509–1517. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000914

80.

Sabato

Kogut

(2021). Sharing and belonging: Children’s social status and their sharing behavior with in-group and out-group members. Developmental Psychology, 57(12), 2082–2092‏. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001260

81.

Santamaría-García

González-Gadea

M. L.

Di Tella

Ibáñez

Sigman

(2018). The interplay between sharing behavior and beliefs about others in children during dictator games. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 451–464. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.016

82.

Schmidt

M. F.

Svetlova

Johe

Tomasello

(2016). Children’s developing understanding of legitimate reasons for allocating resources unequally. Cognitive Development, 37, 42–52‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.11.001

83.

Shaw

Olson

K. R.

(2012). Children discard a resource to avoid inequity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 382–395. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0025907

84.

Sigelman

C. K.

(2012). Rich man, poor man: Developmental differences in attributions and perceptions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(3), 415–429. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.011

85.

Sigelman

C. K.

Waitzman

K. A.

(1991). The development of distributive justice orientations: Contextual influences on children’s resource allocations. Child Development, 62(6), 1367–1378. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130812

86.

Stellar

J. E.

Manzo

V. M.

Kraus

M. W.

Keltner

(2012). Class and compassion: Socioeconomic factors predict responses to suffering. Emotion, 12(3), 449–459. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0026508

87.

Straka

B. C.

Albuja

Leer

Brauher

Gaither

S. E.

(2024). The rich get richer? Children’s reasoning about socioeconomic status predicts inclusion and resource bias. Developmental Psychology, 60(3), 505–521. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0001655

88.

Sweeting

Hunt

(2014). Adolescent socio-economic and school-based social status, health and well-being. Social Science & Medicine, 121, 39–47‏. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.037

89.

Tan

J. J.

Kraus

M. W.

Carpenter

N. C.

Adler

N. E.

(2020). The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 970–1020. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000258

90.

Vanags

Cutler

Kosse

Lockwood

(2023). Greater wealth is associated with higher prosocial preferences and behaviours across 76 countries. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zc5a3

91.

Van Loon

de Bruin

Leppink

Roebers

. (2017). Why are children overconfident? Developmental differences in the implementation of accessibility cues when judging concept learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 158, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.01.008

92.

Wang

Yang

Zhang

(2021). Socioeconomic status and prosocial behavior: The mediating roles of community identity and perceived control. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), Article 10308. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910308

93.

Weller

Lagattuta

K. H.

(2013). Helping the in-group feels better: Children’s judgments and emotion attributions in response to prosocial dilemmas. Child Development, 84(1), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01837.x

94.

Worle

Paulus

(2018). Normative expectations about fairness: The development of a charity norm in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 165, 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.016

95.

Balliet

Yuan

Chen

Jin

Luan

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2025). Social class and prosociality: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(3), 285–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000469

96.

Zwirner

Raihani

(2020). Neighbourhood wealth, not urbanicity, predicts prosociality towards strangers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1936), Article 1359. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1359

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB