Cited by 540Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCultural Differences and Values

The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies

Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., Barry, O., Bowie, A., Kleutsch, L., Kramer, K. L. +4 more·2015·Nature

Abstract

A sense of fairness plays a critical role in supporting human cooperation. Adult norms of fair resource sharing vary widely across societies, suggesting that culture shapes the acquisition of fairness behaviour during childhood. Here we examine how fairness behaviour develops in children from seven diverse societies, testing children from 4 to 15 years of age (n = 866 pairs) in a standardized resource decision task. We measured two key aspects of fairness decisions: disadvantageous inequity aversion (peer receives more than self) and advantageous inequity aversion (self receives more than a peer). We show that disadvantageous inequity aversion emerged across all populations by middle childhood. By contrast, advantageous inequity aversion was more variable, emerging in three populations and only later in development. We discuss these findings in relation to questions about the universality and cultural specificity of human fairness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nature15703

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Children across studied cultures developed aversion to disadvantageous inequity, while advantageous inequity aversion was more prevalent in the West.

    “For instance, [40] compared the acquisition of fairness behaviour in seven different societies: Canada, India, Mexico, Peru, Senegal, Uganda, and the USA, and found that while children from all cultures developed aversion towards disadvantageous inequity (avoid receiving less than a peer), advantageous inequity aversion (avoid receiving more than a peer) was more prevalent in the West.”

    From Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., Barry, O., Bowie, A., Kleutsch, L., Kramer, K. L., Ross, E., Vongsachang, H., Wrangham, R., & Warneken, F.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Boston College (US)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
  • St. Francis Xavier University (CA)
  • Cheikh Anta Diop University (SN)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
  • Blake, P. R.
  • McAuliffe, K.
Venue
Nature
Published
2015-11-18
Volume
528
Issue
7581
Pages
258-261
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2177707862
Cited by
534
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 2
FWCI
96.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
fairness, ontogeny, children, cultural variation, resource sharing, cooperation, developmental timing, cross-cultural comparison
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Child, Child, Preschool, Cooperative Behavior, Culture, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Social Behavior, Social Change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review