Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Children’s resource taking varies with experimentally manipulated relative status

  • Chana Berelejis
  • , Oded Ritov
  • , Jan Engelmann
  • , Avi Benozio*
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

How do relative status and gender shape children’s resource taking? In two preregistered studies, 4–8-year-olds completed a competitive ‘Where’s Waldo?’ task and then decided how many tokens to take from a new peer. In Study 1 (N = 195; 49% girls), children competed against a pre-recorded peer and were randomly assigned to win or lose. Next, they chose one of two unfamiliar peers (a prior “winner” or “loser”) and selected how many tokens to take from that chosen peer. Children with low relative status (‘losers’ taking from ‘winners’) took more than half the tokens, whereas high status children (‘winners’ taking from ‘losers’) did not differ from an equal split. Under equal status, boys took more than half, whereas girls did not differ from an equal split. In Study 2 (N = 101; 48% girls), children played against the clock (without a peer competitor) and were randomly assigned to succeed or fail. In this non-social context, children took more than half of their peers’ tokens. A cross-study comparison indicates that taking is calibrated to socially instantiated relative status, not performance per se, and that gender differences arise only under equal status. These findings reveal early status sensitivity and specify when gender differences in taking emerge.

Original languageEnglish
Article number11311
JournalScientific Reports
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2026

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2026.

Keywords

  • Cooperation
  • Gender differences
  • Resource distribution
  • Social rank
  • Social status

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Children’s resource taking varies with experimentally manipulated relative status'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this