Buttelmann,Bobm than real.However.there is evidence that children if they predominantly care about derogating the out- younger than 9 years of age do not have sufficient self- group absolutely or relatively,they should allocate more control to suppress o1er whs (Houser 201 olds nle tive co likely not to discriminate between real and fictitious to that in the domain of positive resources,provides an outcomes. unambiguous index of children's pure out-group hate.To estimate e age and gender differenc we calculated alge Coding and analyses ems to the all The dependent variable was participants'allocations of member and the aggregated allocations to the box and the out-group (vs.the in-group)member and then com pared these scores among groups of participants item to the in-gr Results For positive resources,the 6-year-olds (n=45)allocated 10%of the resources co se Detwee ber,and 15% allocation (putting the item in the box).or a (o-D indicated a substantial in-group bias when we directly allocation (giving the item to the out-group member).We compared the percentages of resources given to the ageeaedalocatondecisicrsncfthe5poeicamdinl in-group member with negative resources separately and tra on test positive-and negative-resource domains,we compared between positive resources allocated to the in-groun items given to the in-group member with those given to member relative to the neutral box and the out-group Although revea membe W1 070 001,r it ig nple if allocating 90%of the items to the in a child allocated 2%of all positive items to the in-group to the out-group member.and%to the box. out-group cal statistical results for both types of analyses,Wilcoxon member,the ulting an in est, 0.0,p<0 88.T difference betwee msto the ev-51250 box,an egalitarian allocation (in which no one received versus neutral box and the positive item),in the majority of trials.Therefore,to out-group:Mann-Whitney =528.00,p=006,r .30 shed light on child ominant motivation, intergroup th age ith tions of items to the neutral box and to the out-group stronger level of discrimination among the 8-year-olds member and tested this sum against the allocations to the than among the 6-year-olds. in-group membe Asn previous research. ting scenario is one in which in serve as a motivatio in-grould Likewise.for negative resources.we agg regated the allo- (n=45)allocated 12%of the items to the in-group mem cations of items to the neutral box and to the in-group ber,51%of the items to the out-group member,and 37% member and tested th ns to the ems to the box (see Fig.2),which again revea of thei should not allocate negative resources to their in-g However,when we investigated whether out-group hate member and should not distinguish between allocations was the underlying motive for this behavior by also con to the neutral box and the out-group member.However, sidering egalitarian allocations (i.e.,we aggregated4 Buttelmann, Böhm than real. However, there is evidence that children younger than 9 years of age do not have sufficient self￾control to suppress their personal preferences (Houser, Montinari, & Piovesan, 2012). In other words, 6-year-olds and 8-year-olds, as represented by our sample, are very likely not to discriminate between real and fictitious outcomes. Coding and analyses The dependent variable was participants’ allocations of resources in two types of third-party mini–dictator games: allocation of positive resources and allocation of negative resources. In the case of positive resources, participants could choose between a (+1, 0) allocation (giving the item to the in-group puppet), a (0, 0) allocation (putting the item in the box), or a (0, +1) allocation (giving the item to the out-group puppet). In the case of negative resources, participants could choose between a (−1, 0) allocation (giving the item to the in-group member), a (0, 0) allocation (putting the item in the box), or a (0, −1) allocation (giving the item to the out-group member). We aggregated allocation decisions of the 15 positive and 15 negative resources separately and transformed them into percentages. For participants’ level of intergroup discrimination in positive- and negative-resource domains, we compared items given to the in-group member with those given to the out-group member. Although this difference reveals participants’ relative preference for the in-group over the out-group, it ignores egalitarian motives. For example, if a child allocated 20% of all positive items to the in-group member and 10% of all positive items to the out-group member, the resulting 2-to-1 ratio would suggest an in￾group bias. However, this analysis ignores the fact that the child allocated 70% of all positive items to the neutral box, an egalitarian allocation (in which no one received the positive item), in the majority of trials. Therefore, to shed light on children’s dominant behavioral motivation, one also needs to consider their egalitarian motives. Thus, for positive resources, we aggregated the alloca￾tions of items to the neutral box and to the out-group member and tested this sum against the allocations to the in-group member. As in previous research, this measure revealed children’s behavioral intergroup discrimination motivated by in-group love, out-group hate, or both. Likewise, for negative resources, we aggregated the allo￾cations of items to the neutral box and to the in-group member and tested this sum against the allocations to the out-group member. If children care only about the abso￾lute outcomes of their in-group (in-group love), they should not allocate negative resources to their in-group member and should not distinguish between allocations to the neutral box and the out-group member. However, if they predominantly care about derogating the out￾group absolutely or relatively, they should allocate more negative resources to the out-group member relative to the box and the in-group member combined. This com￾parison in the domain of negative resources, in contrast to that in the domain of positive resources, provides an unambiguous index of children’s pure out-group hate. To estimate age and gender differences, we calculated alge￾braic difference scores from the allocations of positive (vs. negative) items to the in-group (vs. the out-group) member and the aggregated allocations to the box and the out-group (vs. the in-group) member and then com￾pared these scores among groups of participants. Results For positive resources, the 6-year-olds (n = 45) allocated 75% of the items to the in-group member, 10% of the items to the out-group member, and 15% of the items to the box (see Fig. 2 for allocation percentages), which indicated a substantial in-group bias when we directly compared the percentages of resources given to the in-group member with those given to the out-group member, Wilcoxon test, T + = 990.00, p < .001, r = .86. Furthermore, in-group love and out-group hate clearly dominated egalitarianism, as indicated by the contrast between positive resources allocated to the in-group member relative to the neutral box and the out-group member, Wilcoxon test, T + = 907.50, p < .001, r = .66. The 8-year-olds (n = 36) also showed a clear in-group bias by allocating 90% of the items to the in-group member, 4% to the out-group member, and 6% to the box, with identi￾cal statistical results for both types of analyses, Wilcoxon test, T + = 666.00, p < .001, r = .88. The difference between the age groups was significant—allocations to in-group versus out-group: Mann-Whitney U = 512.50, p = .004, r = .32; allocations to in-group versus neutral box and out-group: Mann-Whitney U = 528.00, p = .006, r = .30. Thus, if intergroup discrimination can be motivated by both in-group love and out-group hate, both age groups showed considerable in-group-biased allocations, with a stronger level of discrimination among the 8-year-olds than among the 6-year-olds. The more interesting scenario is one in which in￾group love may not serve as a motivation for in-group￾biased behavior: For negative resources, the 6-year-olds (n = 45) allocated 12% of the items to the in-group mem￾ber, 51% of the items to the out-group member, and 37% of the items to the box (see Fig. 2), which again revealed a significant preference for the in-group relative to the out-group, Wilcoxon test, T + = 832.00, p < .001, r = .78. However, when we investigated whether out-group hate was the underlying motive for this behavior by also con￾sidering egalitarian allocations (i.e., we aggregated Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 13, 2014