Buttelmann,Bobm 2012).However.given that all of these studies have member.In our research,in contrast,participants'giving focused on adole more negative items to an out-group membe r than to an group love and out-group ha ite dev In-group member and the neutral box sole indicate ently of e (e.g.,through reciprocal benefits:Trivers. 1971 important because it excluded the children's individual ren (Buttelmann,Zmyj.Daum,Carpen 2007. stech.1978) cedures used have not focused on revealing the spe cific motivations that underlie children's behavior. Materials and Method out-g oup hate is n not onl Participants and design For instance.to develop effective programs that may The participants were 45 children aged 6(mean age=6 reduce prejudice and discrimination in childhood.it is years 0 month age range =5 years 6 months to 6 years important to know 9 months;19 girls s,20 Doys)and 5o children age 8 (mea nee phenomen. 19 girls.17 dditi with members of the in-groun exceed interactions with 6-vear-olds were tested but were not included in the final members of the out-group in frequency and importance mple because they did not understand the experimer aporael,Caporael,9),in-group love tal game eover,as a resu of technical proble of the this hypothesis in a behavioral experiment in which6 and 8-year-olds participated in a computer-mediated participate in child-development studies in We chose these um-s V.Ihere were there 3 to 10 .e.g..Fehr et al..2008).Children subiects)(resources:positive vs.negative:within sub in each experimental session were randomly assigned to jects)design one of two groups (green or yellow).The use of artificial udes confounding vari Procedure real g ins acquired thre induction After the children had been Killen,2010)or the transmission of group-based attitudes the laboratory,they entered the laboratory and drew a parentsto childre n(C telli,Zogm heir group co ade third tor decisions when allocating 15 positive resources (e.g. one with a rreen and one with a vellow T-shirt wel. a balloon,a cookie,a teddy bear)and 15 negative comed the c hildren to their assigned groups in opposite (e.g..piec moldy f the laboratory. The puppe interacte uPpt【ha or a real mem the out-group member or a neutral box (ie an egalitarian their hair color (lack ys blond.counterbalanced with allocation)】 respect to group color between experimental sessic To investigate the underl ying group-ba d motiv. S1 in the Supplem nta availabl the cns e pup a in h the chil of a neutral option (ie.,the box).In previous research dren's identification with their un we rovided ther in-group love,out-group hate,or both could motivate the with a T-shint in their group's color and took pictures of dominant allocation of positive resources to an in-group each child wearing his or her T-shirt.Moreover,children2 Buttelmann, Böhm 2012). However, given that all of these studies have focused on adolescents or adults, the stage at which in￾group love and out-group hate develop in early child￾hood, as well as whether these developments occur jointly or independently of each other, remains an open question. Although behavioral research has shown strong in-group bias and discrimination effects among infants and children (Buttelmann, Zmyj, Daum, & Carpenter, 2013; Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach, 2008; Kinzler, Dupoux, & Spelke, 2007; Moore, 2009), the designs and procedures used have not focused on revealing the spe￾cific motivations that underlie children’s behavior. Investigating the developmental origins of in-group love and out-group hate is important not only from a theoreti￾cal point of view but also from a practical perspective. For instance, to develop effective programs that may reduce prejudice and discrimination in childhood, it is important to know the underlying cognitions and motiva￾tions that lead to these phenomena in the first place. Given that, particularly in early childhood, interactions with members of the in-group exceed interactions with members of the out-group in frequency and importance (Brewer & Caporael, 2006; Caporael, 1997), in-group love should not only dominate out-group hate in intensity but also precede it in the order of development. We tested this hypothesis in a behavioral experiment in which 6- and 8-year-olds participated in a computer-mediated experimental game. We chose these age groups because it has been shown that there are fundamental develop￾mental changes with regard to distributional preferences in early school years (see, e.g., Fehr et al., 2008). Children in each experimental session were randomly assigned to one of two groups (green or yellow). The use of artificial groups excludes confounding variables, such as develop￾mental differences in the conception of and reaction to real groups acquired through social learning (Hughes, Bigler, & Levy, 2007) and experience (McGlothlin & Killen, 2010) or the transmission of group-based attitudes from parents to children (Castelli, Zogmaister, & Tomelleri, 2009; Lam, Guerrero, Damree, & Enesco, 2011). Participants independently made third-party mini–dicta￾tor decisions when allocating 15 positive resources (e.g., a balloon, a cookie, a teddy bear) and 15 negative resources (e.g., pieces of broken glass, moldy toast, a spider) to a puppet that shared the features of an in￾group member, a puppet that shared the features of an out-group member, or a neutral box (i.e., an egalitarian allocation). To investigate the underlying group-based motiva￾tions, it was important not only to include allocations of negative resources but also to give participants the choice of a neutral option (i.e., the box). In previous research, in-group love, out-group hate, or both could motivate the dominant allocation of positive resources to an in-group member. In our research, in contrast, participants’ giving more negative items to an out-group member than to an in-group member and the neutral box solely indicates out-group hate. The fact that participants could not profit from the allocated resources either directly or indirectly (e.g., through reciprocal benefits; Trivers, 1971) was important because it excluded the children’s individual outcome-based preferences (e.g., self-interest) as a pos￾sible motivational confound (McClintock, 1974; Toda, Shinotsuka, McClintock, & Stech, 1978). Materials and Method Participants and design The participants were 45 children aged 6 (mean age = 6 years 0 months; age range = 5 years 6 months to 6 years 9 months; 19 girls, 26 boys) and 36 children aged 8 (mean age = 7 years 11 months; age range = 7 years 2 months to 8 years 9 months; 19 girls, 17 boys). Three additional 6-year-olds were tested but were not included in the final sample because they did not understand the experimen￾tal game. Moreover, as a result of technical problems, 1 participant did not complete all the trials of the task and had to be excluded from some of the analyses. Children were recruited from a database of parents who had vol￾unteered to participate in child-development studies in a medium-sized German city. There were 14 experimental sessions, each with 3 to 10 participants. The experiment used a 2 (age group: 6-year-olds vs. 8-year-olds; between subjects) × 2 (resources: positive vs. negative; within sub￾jects) design. Procedure Group induction. After the children had been wel￾comed by a male experimenter (the instructor) outside the laboratory, they entered the laboratory and drew a lottery ticket that determined their group color (green or yellow) and a computer-cubicle number. Two hand pup￾pets (each operated by a different female experimenter), one with a green and one with a yellow T-shirt, wel￾comed the children to their assigned groups in opposite corners of the laboratory. The puppets interacted with the children as real members of their groups. Besides their group membership, the puppets differed only in their hair color (black vs. blond, counterbalanced with respect to group color between experimental sessions; see Table S1 in the Supplemental Material available online). The puppets’ speech followed a strict protocol and was the same in both groups. To increase the chil￾dren’s identification with their group, we provided them with a T-shirt in their group’s color and took pictures of each child wearing his or her T-shirt. Moreover, children Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Cai Xing on February 13, 2014