that's not fair”similarities and differences in distributive justice reasoning between...

http://jcc.sagepub.com

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

DOI: 10.1177/0022022108318134 2008; 39; 493 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Alison S. Carson and Ali Banuazizi Between American and Filipino Children

"That's Not Fair": Similarities and Differences in Distributive Justice Reasoning

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/39/4/493 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology

can be found at:Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology Additional services and information for

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/39/4/493SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 27 articles hosted on the Citations

© 2008 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at MANHATTANVILLE COLLEGE on June 12, 2008 http://jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.iaccp.org/

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/39/4/493


“That’s Not Fair”Similarities and Differences in Distributive Justice Reasoning Between American and Filipino Children

Alison S. CarsonManhattanville College

Ali BanuaziziBoston College

Distributive justice pertains to choices that individuals make in allocating resources to themselvesand others. The present study, based on data obtained from Filipino and American fifth graders,investigated the similarities and differences in resource distribution in the context of two hypothet-ical scenarios. The scenarios made salient the norms of merit and need. It was found that althoughboth the Filipino and U.S. children generally preferred to divide the resource equally, they offeredquite different explanations for their choices. U.S. children focused on the equal performance of thecharacters in the scenarios, whereas the Filipino children tended to be more concerned with theinterpersonal and emotional consequences of an unequal distribution. Furthermore, U.S. childrenfavored merit-based distributions as their second choice, whereas Filipino children showed a pref-erence for need-based distributions in their second choices. Whereas concern for harmony in inter-personal relationships guided equality- and need-based distributions in the Philippines, an emphasison performance guided equality- and merit-based distributions in the United States. The findingswere examined also in terms of the cultural orientations of individualism and collectivism in theUnited States and the Philippines, respectively.

Keywords: conceptions of fairness; distributive justice; moral development; Philippines;qualitative; fifth graders

The study of distributive justice examines the rules of reciprocity and fairness in socialinteractions. More specifically, distributive justice addresses the questions of how indi-

viduals allocate resources to others and themselves as well as the rules that they apply in making such allocations. Broadly speaking, three types of norms are commonly used in social exchange or resource distribution situations (Deutsch, 1979; Leventhal, 1976):

493

Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology

Volume 39 Number 4July 2008 493-514

© 2008 Sage Publications10.1177/0022022108318134

http://jccp.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (9807000).Alison Carson was a visiting research associate at the Institute for Philippine Culture at Ateneo de Manila Universityand a visiting researcher in the Psychology Department at University of the Philippines, Diliman, during the dura-tion of this research. Special thanks to graduate assistants Jocelyn “Jopie” Nolasco and José “Cholo” Santos. Thanksalso to Laura McDowell and Vanessa Gibens for their help with coding. Our thanks also to Drs. Anthony Santucciand Amy Learmonth of Manhattanville College for their helpful comments on the manuscript as well as to theanonymous reviewers of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alison S.Carson, Department of Psychology, Manhattanville College, Purchase, NY 10577; e-mail: [email protected].



equality, equity, and need. The equality norm guides the resource allocator to divide theresource equally among all recipients regardless of their needs and individual contributions.The norm of equity, also referred to as merit, guides the allocator toward a distribution ofthe resource based on the individual recipients’ contributions. The need norm leads the allo-cator to allocate resources to those individuals who need the resource the most. The use ofthese three norms in resource distribution has been the focus of most distributive justiceresearch. Historically, distributive justice has been investigated from two perspectives.Whereas developmental psychologists (e.g., Damon, 1977, 1980; see also Turiel, 1998)studying this issue have been primarily interested in when these distribution norms emerge,social psychologists (e.g., Deutsch, 1979, 1983) have focused on how the demands of thesituation or sociocultural context influence what distribution norms are used.

Damon’s (1977, 1980) theory of positive justice serves as the basis for a number of studiesconducted in the past two-and-a-half decades, which combined the developmental and socialpsychological research traditions. In the tradition of Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1984), on thebasis of interviews with children, Damon put forth a sequential stage theory model of chil-dren’s advancement through six different levels of distributive justice reasoning, beginningwith distributions based on children’s wishes or desires and ending with the ability to allocateresources by balancing the rules of equality, equity, and need. This range of reasons underly-ing distributive judgments, according to Damon, occurs within the age span of 4 to 9 years,with no notable gender differences. Two of the earliest studies examining the cross-culturalgeneralizability of Damon’s theory were reported by Enright and his associates (Enright et al.,1984; Enright, Franklin, & Manheim, 1980). For their first study, working with children fromZaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), Enright et al. (1980) developed theDistributive Justice Scale (DJS), a measure based on Damon’s conceptualization of distribu-tive justice reasoning in children. They found that the Congolese children go through the samesix-stage developmental trajectory of distributive justice reasoning as Damon (1977, 1980) hadfound for U.S. children. In their second study, Enright et al. (1984), working with Swedish chil-dren from middle-class backgrounds, found significant differences based on age and genderbut not between the two cultural groups (Sweden and the United States) included in the study.Beyond the use of this scale, the authors did not carry out the more probing interviewing tech-nique used by Damon to unravel the underlying reasoning of the children in their study.

Although cross-cultural differences were not found in distributive justice behaviorusing a paper-and-pencil scale (Enright et al., 1980, 1984), Nisan (1984), again followingthe work of Damon (1980) and using the “clinical” interview technique, examined howdistinct sociocultural environments may influence distributive justice reasoning by com-paring Kibbutz and city children in Israel. Using children ages approximately 6.5 and 11.5years of age (sixth graders), he used postallocation interviews to better understand thechildren’s justifications for particular distribution choices. When faced with unequal per-formance, Kibbutz children in both age groups, compared to their urban counterparts,were more likely to allocate rewards equally. Postallocation interviews showed that theKibbutz children attributed comparable effort to the characters in the situation regardlessof performance, whereas the city children attributed greater effort to the character that per-formed better. The author suggested that this understanding of similar effort regardless ofoutcome reflects the value orientation of the Kibbutz children. Nisan’s study also demon-strates the usefulness of the interview technique in revealing the underlying cultural

494 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology



norms, values, and motives that guide people’s (adults’ as well as children’s) distributivejustice behavior.

Nisan’s (1984) study was also one of the first to demonstrate the impact of culture onresource distribution. More recently, researchers have examined the influence of cultural ori-entations (Triandis, 1995) on resource allocation (Carlo, Roesch, Knight, & Holler, 2001;Han & Park, 1995; Rao & Stewart, 1999; Watanabe, 1990; Wong & Nunes, 2003). Carlo et al. (2001) investigated the role of individualistic and collectivistic orientations on rewardallocation in American and Brazilian children between the ages of 9 and 12. The authorshypothesized that the children from Brazil, a country which they identified as having a col-lectivist cultural orientation, would be more prone to allocate resources equally, whereas themore individualistically oriented American children would be more likely to apply merit-based criteria of contribution and performance. In support of the authors’ hypothesis, the datashowed a preference by the American children for competitive, merit-based distributions andan inclination toward cooperative, equality-based distributions on the part of the Brazilianchildren. The more general conclusion of the study, as stated by the authors, was that“although complex resource allocation preferences increased with age, the specific form ofthe preferences was partly dependent upon the cultural context” (Carlo et al., 2001, p. 573).

Han and Park (1995) took a further step in demonstrating the influence of cultural ori-entation on resource distribution by exploring the relationship between two groups ofKorean sixth graders, which they identified as “allocentric” or “idiocentric” on the basis ofa scale that measured the propensity toward individualism or collectivism at the individuallevel. Using a hypothetical scenario, which emphasized the difference in amount of workperformed by two characters, Han and Park found that whereas the idiocentric studentsrated equitable reward allocations as fair and good, allocentrics were more likely to takeinto consideration whether the allocator was an in-group or out-group member and whetherthe allocator and the recipient were likely to meet again in the future.

Cross-cultural studies of sharing behavior have provided additional insights into culturaldifferences in children’s resource distribution tendencies. In their attempt to replicate an ear-lier study by Birch and Billman (1986), Rao and Stewart (1999), using Chinese and Indiankindergarteners (instead of American kindergarteners as in the original study), provided twochildren with unequal resources and observed whether the child with more of the resourceshared spontaneously or as a result of verbal requests from the child with less of theresource. Compared to the findings of the original study, Chinese and Indian children weremore likely to share spontaneously and less likely to verbally request the resource thanAmerican children. Rao and Stewart interpreted their findings in terms of the different cul-tural orientations of individualism and collectivism. They suggested that benevolence andthe need to maintain harmony, characteristics that tend to be associated with collectivism,resulted in fewer requests for the resource by Asian children. Furthermore, a sense of oblig-ation, relatedness, and loyalty, tendencies also at the core of collectivism, provided the moti-vation to share spontaneously among the Asian participants. In contrast, they interpreted thelarger number of requests for the resource from the American children in terms of the normsof self-reliance, assertiveness, and self-expression. The spontaneous sharing among theAmerican participants was viewed in light of competitiveness and conceptions of individualproperty, all characteristic of the cultural orientation of individualism.

A general conclusion that may be drawn from the above studies is that whereas Westernchildren tend to apply the norm of equity in distributive justice situations, non-Westerners

Carson, Banuazizi / Distributive Justice Reasoning 495



prefer to apply the norms of equality and need. One of the most prevalent interpretations ofthese cultural differences in distributive justice judgment is the adherence to a collectivis-tic or individualistic orientation (Singh & Pandey, 1994).

Although the study of distributive justice has a long history, its record of research study-ing children is less established. In addition, few investigations have focused on Asian chil-dren (Wong & Nunes, 2003), and to the best of our knowledge, there have been no previousstudies focusing on the similarities and differences between the Filipino and non-Asian cul-tures in distributive justice reasoning and resource distribution in either children or adults.A number of researchers have identified the Philippines as a collectivistic culture (Church,1987; Vasquez, Keltner, Ebenbach & Banaszynski, 2001). Hofstede (1980) identified thePhilippines as being very high on the dimension of power distance, which is highly correlatedwith collectivism (Kagitçibasi, 1997), and below the median on the dimension of individual-ism. Miralao (1997) suggests that personalism and familialism pervade most social relation-ships and provide the basis for a number of other core Filipino values. Miralao has suggestedthat the basic social unit in Filipino society is the family, including both the nuclear unit andthe extended family of the husband and wife. Filipino families can be characterized by theirlarge size and by their “clannishness,” which refers to the positive, favoring bias toward kins-men, real or fictive. Identity and social status of Filipinos is often largely defined by their fam-ilies (Miralao, 1997). This basic unit permeates life in social, economic, religious, and politicalarenas (Miralao, 1997; Roces & Roces, 1985). These traits, in addition to others, are charac-teristic of collectivist societies (Church, 1987; Triandis, 1995).

The current study seeks to further examine the role of culture in resource distribution througha comparison of American and Filipino fifth graders. Using two hypothetical scenarios, the chil-dren were given the opportunity to divide a reward between the two scenario characters as theysaw fit and to explain their allocations. The scenarios emphasized the performance of each char-acter as well as his or her relative need. It was predicted that the Filipino children, influenced bythe more collectivist orientation of their culture, would be more sensitive to the needs of thecharacters in the scenarios, thus exhibiting a greater proclivity to distribute the resource on thebasis of need or equality. Conversely, it was expected that the American fifth graders would bemore likely to divide the resource on the basis of equity because of the more individualistic ori-entation of the mainstream American culture. Over and beyond comparing the two groups interms of their actual allocation decisions, we have paid special attention in analyzing our find-ings to the children’s own explanations of their resource allocations. The latter explications,offered by the participants in response to postallocation interviews, are critical, we believe, fora deeper understanding of the underlying cultural values, rationales, and motivations that influ-ence the respondents’ patterns of resource allocation.

Method

Participants

One hundred and fifty-one children from the United States and the Philippines partici-pated in this study. All the children were in the fifth grade at the time of the study. The U.S.sample consisted of 74 children (41 girls and 33 boys) who were recruited from seven pub-lic and private summer camps in the greater Boston area. They ranged in age from 10 to 11




years, with an average age of 10.81 (SD = 1.07). The Filipino sample consisted of 77 pupils(43 girls and 34 boys) who were recruited from four elementary schools in the Quezon Cityarea of Manila. Three of the four schools were private Catholic schools; the fourth was apublic school affiliated with the University of the Philippines. The average age of theFilipino children was 11.32 years (SD = 0.48); the ages ranged from 10 to 12 years old.

Instruments

Scenarios. Two hypothetical scenarios were written for purpose of this study (see appendix).Each scenario described a situation in which two child characters helped an adult (portrayedto be the interviewer) complete a task. One of characters was described as working harderand getting more done (the “meritorious” child), whereas the second character was describedas having a greater need for the resource in question (the “needy” child). Thus, the distrib-ution norms of need and merit were made salient in the two scenarios. These norms havebeen shown to be meaningful to adults and children in many different cultures (Berman,Murphy-Berman, & Singh, 1985; Carlo et al., 2001; Damon, 1977; Han & Park, 1995).After ensuring that the children had grasped the contents of the scenarios, the interviewerasked the participants to help him or her divide the resource between the two characters inthe story. The scenarios had been written in such a way as to encourage the participants tobelieve that the scenarios were about real-life situations. The interviewer was placed in thestory and used the pronoun I to refer to himself or herself. In the first scenario, the“Picking-Up-Play-Things” (PUPT) scenario, one child was described as having workedharder at picking up toys, whereas the other was portrayed as someone who did not haveall of the needed supplies at school. The resource to be divided between the two childrenwas something (pens or pencils) that was useful or needed for the children’s schoolwork.The second scenario, the “Gift-for-Sister” (GFS) scenario, again described one child whohad worked harder at a task, whereas a second child was described as one who neededmoney to buy her sister a birthday gift. The resource to be distributed in this case was amonetary reward of $10 or 100 pesos, respectively, in the United States and the Philippines.

To ensure the cultural appropriateness of the scenarios, they were initially reviewed byseveral researchers in the United States and in the Philippines. Subsequently, the scenarioswere piloted in both settings and, when needed, revised appropriately. The original scenar-ios were written in English and translated into Filipino by two Filipino research assistants.They were then back translated into English to ensure that the meaning of the original sce-narios had not been compromised. For the U.S. sample, the interviews were conducted bythe first author, and for the Filipino sample, the interviews were done by either a trainedmale or a trained female graduate student. The interviews conducted at the three Filipinoprivate schools were done in English, which was the language of instruction at theseschools. In the fourth school, the interviews were conducted in Filipino, the language ofinstruction at the school. No differences were found in resource distributions among thedifferent schools.

Procedure

The following procedure was used in both the U.S. and Filipino settings. Children wereplaced in groups of 2 or 3, which were either same sex or mixed. Although neither group size




nor gender composition of the group were crucial to the study, the groups were counterbalancedto rule out any systematic effects caused by the influence of these variables. Children wereinitially placed in a group interview situation, instead of an individual interview, to reducethe influence of the interviewer. By allowing children to discuss their own thoughts andideas concerning the distribution of the resource with one another prior to being questionedby the interviewer, the likelihood of their resource distribution decisions being overly influ-enced by the presence of an adult was reduced. No differences in resource distribution werefound because of group size or the gender composition of the groups.

Once in a group, the children were presented with the two hypothetical scenarios (seeappendix), one at a time. The order of presentation of the two scenarios was counterbalancedacross the groups. Following the presentation of each scenario by the interviewer, participantswere asked a number of questions to ensure that they clearly understood the events in the sce-nario. If a participant was unable to answer the questions, the interviewer reiterated the mainpoints of the story, and the participant was again asked questions to determine his or her com-prehension. All children ultimately demonstrated good comprehension of the scenarios.

When the interviewer was satisfied that the children had fully understood the scenario, theywere asked to describe the best way to divide the resource between the two characters in thestory. They were encouraged to discuss their answers to this question among themselves as agroup for a short time to reduce the adult influence on their answers. After the children as agroup had responded to both of the hypothetical stories, the interviewer carried out individ-ual interviews with each child, and the remaining children in the group were kept at a distanceto await their turns to be interviewed. The children were given crayons and paper and color-ing books to occupy their time while they waited for their individual interviews.

At the outset of the individual interviews, the interviewer reminded the child of the content ofthe first scenario and asked her or him to describe the best way to divide the resource. Followingthe child’s answer, he or she was encouraged to explain why his or her distribution was the bestway to divide the resource, irrespective of what was said in the child’s group prior to the indi-vidual interview. This technique of first asking the participants to divide the resource and thenhaving them explain their distribution has been used in a number of previous studies with chil-dren (Damon, 1977; McGillicuddy-De Lisi, Watkins, & Vinchur, 1994; Sigelman & Waitzman,1991). Other researchers have also used this procedure with adults to explore cultural influenceson norms of justice and morality (Miller & Bersoff, 1992; Shweder, Mahapahtra, & Miller,1987). Only responses in the individual interviews were recorded. The primary purpose of thegroup interviews, on the other hand, was to make the children’s decision-making process lessinfluenced by the presence of an adult. No attempt was made to explore the differences in thechildren’s responses between the individual and group settings.

Following each child’s explanations regarding the best resource division, the researcherpresented him or her with alternative hypothetical allocations of the resource and asked thechild to indicate whether the allocation suggested by the researcher was “a good way” ofdividing the resource. For example, the child was asked, “Is three pens for Malou and sevenpens for Robert a good way of dividing the pens?” Based on these judgments by the child,she or he was engaged in further conversation to explore the underlying rationale or feelingsthat might have influenced the child’s judgments. This technique was particularly helpful withreluctant or indecisive children, providing further insights into the children’s explanations andjustifications. These alternative distributions served as prompts to stimulate further evaluation




and discussion of their original allocation of the resource, and as many as 17 children revisedtheir initial allocations. For the purposes of coding (see below), the child’s final response wasused. If there was any confusion or lack of clarity in the child’s response as determined by theprimary researcher and a research assistant, the data point was left blank to ensure that noresearcher bias was present. This occurred 10 times for the first scenario and 3 times for thesecond scenario. When all of the group members had completed an individual interview withthe researcher, they were brought back together for debriefing.

Resource Distribution Codes

The patterns of the children’s resource distributions were coded to reflect their underlyingdistribution norms. From the transcripts, information regarding the resource allocation to eachcharacter was recorded in a spreadsheet. Following what has become fairly standard in thefield, the responses were coded in accordance to the following three categories: (a) If the par-ticipant gave more of the resource to the needy character than to the meritorious character, thedistribution was coded as need based; (b) if the participant gave more of the resource to themeritorious character than to the needy one, the distribution was coded as merit based; and(c) if the participant gave equal amounts of the resource to each recipient, the distribution wascoded as equality based. This coding system was applied by two independent coders for thedata on all participants; the interrater reliability was determined to be 100%.

Results

Both American and Filipino children showed a preference for resource distribution that wasbased on equality. Table 1 shows the relative allocations (in percentage and frequency) for eachscenario for the three categories of distribution (equality, need, and merit based) for the Filipinoand American fifth graders. As the table shows (see also Figure 1), the American childrenexhibited a clear preference for dividing on the basis of equality in both the PUPT scenario(48.6%) and the GFS scenario (66.2%). Filipino children made equality-based distributions46.5% of the time in the PUPT scenario and 51.3% of the time in the GFS scenario. Need wasclearly the next preferred basis of distribution for the Filipino children (47.9%—slightly highereven than equality—for the PUPT scenario and 42.3% for the GFS scenario). For the Americanchildren, need-based distributions composed only 13.5% and 10.8%, respectively, for the sametwo scenarios. The distribution patterns were reversed for merit, which was the clear secondchoice for the American children (37.9% for the PUPT scenario and 23.0% for the GFS sce-nario) and a distant last choice for the Filipino children, who used merit-based distributions5.6% and 6.4% of the time, respectively, for the same two scenarios.

Chi-square tests, conducted separately for each of the two scenarios, showed significantdifferences in the distribution patterns of the American and Filipino children among the threecategories of equality, need, and merit, χ2(2, N = 145) = 24.64, p < .01, Cramer’s φ = .41,for the PUPT scenario, and χ2(2, N = 152) = 22.60, p < .01, Cramer’s φ = .38, for the GFSscenario. The differences in sample sizes between the two scenarios reflect missing datapoints because of a lack of clear responses from some of the children.

To determine whether the children were consistent in their preferences for the different distri-bution rules, Spearman rank correlations were computed across the two scenarios separately




for the American and Filipino participants. A significant correlation (Spearman r = .28,p < .05, N = 70) indicating a moderate degree of consistency across the scenarios was foundfor the Filipino children but not for the American children. The missing data points resultedfrom cases where children failed to make a clear allocation decision.

Explanations for Distribution Choices

The participants’ responses following the presentation of each scenario were exploredqualitatively to gain a better understanding of the reasoning underlying their preferred distributive choices. Table 2 presents an overview of the seven different types of explana-tions that were developed inductively through a detailed analysis of the recorded transcriptsof the post-allocation interviews. Each explanation type is shown by its relative frequencyand percentage of the overall number of allocations for each of the three distribution cate-gories (i.e., equality-, need- and merit-based). In a few cases where the explanation wasunclear, no qualitative coding was done. Additionally, note that some participants usedmore than one kind of explanation for their allocation. Of the many explanations offered bythe respondents, those depicted by our seven coding categories are, we believe, most reflec-tive of the underlying cultural norms, values and motives that guided the children’s choices,as well as the thoughts and emotions that they experienced in making those choices.

Initially, the transcripts of the children’s responses were read, and a preliminary list ofinductive codes was developed. Next, 50% of the interviews were independently codedusing the existing code list by two trained research assistants. Coding reliability was deter-mined by calculating percentage agreement of two coders for each file. If the same codewas applied to the same passage of text, this was considered to be agreement. There werea few instances of disagreement, which were generally reconciled through discussion andconsensus. Interrater reliability ranged from 98% to 100% agreement.

Explanations underlying equality-based distributions. As described above, the Americanchildren showed a preference for equal divisions in both scenarios, whereas the Filipino chil-dren showed a preference for equal divisions in the GFS scenario. The explanations offered for


Table 1Percentages and Frequencies (in parentheses) of Need-, Equality- and

Merit-Based Distributions for American and Filipino Children in Each of Two Scenarios

Need Based Equality Based Merit Based Total

Picking-Up-Play-Things scenarioPhilippinesa 47.9% (34) 46.5% (33) 5.6% (4) 100% (71)United Statesa 13.5% (10) 48.6% (36) 37.9% (28) 100% (74)

Gift-for-Sister scenarioPhilippinesb 42.3% (33) 51.3% (40) 6.4% (5) 100% (78)United Statesb 10.8% (8) 66.2% (49) 23.0% (17) 100% (74)

Note: The difference in total frequencies is due to unclear responses.a Significant difference in frequencies of code usage, X2(2, N = 143145) = 32.7424.64, p < .001. b Significant difference in frequencies of code usage, X2(2, N = 151152) = 27.9822.60, p < .001.




Figure 1Frequency of Equal, Merit, and Need Distribution Code Use by

Filipino and American Participants in Each Scenario



equal distributions by the two groups, however, differed. The Filipino children’s main reasongiven for dividing the resource equally was the potential emotional consequences of anunequal division on the characters in the scenarios. Thus, of the 33 equal distributions made bythe Filipino children in the PUPT scenario, 21 (63.6%) were justified on the basis of an avoid-ance of negative feelings between the two characters (avoid negative emotions; see Table 2);similarly, in GFS scenario, 16 of the 40 respondents (40%) who allocated the resource equallyjustified their allocation on the same basis. An equal distribution would help avoid such feel-ings as jealousy and envy, anger, madness, sadness, and guilt and feelings of being hurt andcheated. For example, 1 girl (OO2) answered the question of how the resource should bedivided this way: “Equal so that a fight can be avoided . . . so that they wouldn’t be enviousof each other.” Another child (P2), a Filipino boy, explained his equal distribution as follows:

I think it is equal because, if they, if they, someone had the, had the higher, higher one, higheramount, maybe they would, they would be jealous and they would fight. They would, and


Table 2Frequencies and Percentages (in Parentheses) of Different

Types of Explanations Given by Filipino and AmericanChildren for Their Distributive Choices for Two Scenarios

Country

Scenario/Code US Philippines X2

Pick-Up-Play-Things ScenarioEqual Distributions n = 36 n = 33

Avoid Negative Emotion 1 (2.8%) 21 (63.6%) 18.18***Evens Out 17 (47.2%) 8 (24.2%) 3.24Fair 8 (22.2%) 14 (42.2%) 1.64

Need-based Distributions n = 10 n = 34Incomplete Supplies 10 (100%) 34 (100%) 13.71***

Merit-based Distributions n = 28 n = 4Evens Out 9 (32%) 0 (0%) 6.40**More work 9 (32%) 2 (50%) 4.45*More Work & Responsibility 8 (28.6%) 2 (50%) 3.60*

Gift-for-Sister ScenarioEqual Distributions n = 49 n = 40

Avoid Negative Emotion 2 (4.1%) 16 (40%) 10.89***Evens Out 25 (51%) 13 (32.5%) 3.79*Fair 9 (18.4%) 20 (50%) 4.17*

Need-based Distributions n = 8 n = 33Generosity 6 (75%) 23 (69.7%) 9.96***Occasion 0 (0%) 9 (27.3%) 9.0**

Merit-based Distributions n = 17 n = 5Evens Out 8 (47%) 3 (60%) 2.27More Work 9 (53%) 2 (40%) 4.45*

Note: Frequencies/percentages do not always add up to the indicated n/100% due to unclear and thereforeuncoded responses or multiple responses from individual participants. Chi-squares tested the null hypothesisthat the observed frequencies of distribution justification codes for the two cultures were equal.* p<.05, **p<.01, and ***p<.001.



maybe it will force one of them to steal the money from each other.

Compared to their Filipino peers, the American children voiced much less concern aboutthe negative feelings that may result from an unequal distribution. In the PUPT scenario, ofthe 36 equal distributions, in only one case (2.8%) did a participant justify her distributionby referring to the avoidance of negative emotions. Similarly, in the GFS scenario, of the 49equal distributions, only 2 respondents (4.1%) gave avoidance of negative emotions as thereason for their preference for equality. The differences in the relative use of the avoid neg-ative emotions code as a justification for equality-based distribution between the Americanand the Filipino respondents were statistically significant, χ2(2, N = 22) = 18.18, p < .001,for the PUPT scenario, and χ2(2, N = 18) = 10.89, p < .001, for the GFS scenario.

For Filipino children, in addition to avoiding negative emotions, an equal distribution wasthought to contribute to positive feelings between the two recipient characters. The explana-tion offered by a Filipino boy (H2) in favor of an equal distribution is illustrative of such pre-sumed positive consequences: “If they are given differently, and if the other one won’t lendthe other a ball pen, like when one runs out of ink, for example, they might fight. When it isequal, they can still be friends.” The preference for an equal division on the grounds that itwould help to maintain friendships is reflected also in the following statement by anotherFilipino child (BB2): “It should be 50–50 . . . because it’s fair and square. . . . I wantthem to be friends.” Inherent in these statements by the Filipino children is the notion thatnegative emotions threaten friendships and should therefore be avoided.

In contrast, when explaining their preference for an equal distribution, American childrenwere more likely to take into account the performance of each character and her or his needsas portrayed in the scenario, often balancing the needs of one character with the rewardsdeserved by the other. Children sometimes referred to this type of justification as “eveningout,” and for this reason we have labeled it evens out. In the PUPT scenario, of the 36 equaldistributions made by the American participants, 17 (47.2%) weighed the inputs of each char-acter versus his or her needs (evens out). In the GFS scenario, of the 49 equal distributions,25 (51%) of the respondents provided this type of justification (evens out). For example, anAmerican child (1J) explained his equal division this way: “Because then he, he doesn’t[have] some of the supplies he needs but she picked up more stuff than he did. He needs pen-cils and she earned pencils. So I think it would make sense if they both just divided it evenly.”

The above response type suggests a tendency on the part of the American children to quan-tify, measure, and compare the actions and needs of the characters in the scenarios. Someeven attempted to create rules, weighing the relative costs and benefits of different actions andmotivations of the characters in the scenario in deciding on their preferred allocation. Forexample, one girl (3D) said, “They had one good thing—like, he planted a lot of trees, but hiscause to earn money wasn’t quite as good. She didn’t plant as many trees, but she had a bet-ter cause to earn money.” Another girl (2E) suggested, “They each started out with $1 for eachchore they did. So he was being kind of greedy and lost a point and she was being generousand she got his point and another one.”

Although the above type of reasoning was by no means absent among the Filipino children,it occurred less frequently. In the PUPT scenario, of the 33 equal divisions, only 8 (24.2%) ofthe Filipino respondents used the evens out justification. However, there was no significant dif-ference in the frequency of use of this justification between the American and Filipino partici-




pants in this scenario. In the GFS scenario, of the 40 equal distributions, only 13 of theseFilipino respondents (32.5%) justified an equal allocation through weighing the inputs andneeds of the characters (evens out). A significant difference in the use of this justification of anequal distribution was found between the American and Filipino fifth graders, χ2(2, N = 38) =3.79, p < .05; American children used this justification significantly more in the GFS scenario.

In talking about equality, many children, both American and Filipino, made mention of“fairness.” The words fair and unfair were introduced into the conversation by the childrenthemselves. Interestingly, the Filipino participants used the term in response to the scenar-ios more often than the American children. In the PUPT scenario, 14 of the 33 (42.4%)equal divisions among the Filipino respondents used the term fair in justifying theiranswers. Even when responding in Filipino, some Filipino children still used the Englishword fair. In this same scenario, only 8 of 36 American participants (22.2%) who dividedthe resource equally used the term fair in reference to their distribution. There was no sig-nificant difference in the use of this code between the two cultural groups. In the GFS sce-nario, 20 of 40 (50%) Filipino equality-based responses used the word fair in justifyingtheir distribution. In comparison, a significantly lower proportion of the American children,9 of 49 (18.4%) who divided the resource equally, used the term fair, χ2(2, N = 29) = 4.17,p < .05. Participant JJ1 provides a typical Filipino response: “50–50 to be fair so that theother won’t complain.” A typical response by an American child (2AA) is “Because it ismore fair, because they will both get equal.”

Some Filipino children went so far as to refer to fairness and equality as divine virtues.Thus, for example, 1 Filipino girl (T1) stated, “You have to be equal to everyone so thatthey’ll feel good. They’ll feel that God made them equally . . . no one is higher and no oneis lower.” Another, a boy (V2), said, “I think that fairness or equality is very, very importantbecause, like, God sees us equal . . . brothers and sisters . . . no higher, no lower . . .equal.” As may be noted from these examples and others, the Filipino children’s view of fair-ness tended to extend beyond the immediate context of the scenario and into the familiarrealm of their own lives, including the moral and religious spheres. These statements reflect,also, the importance of religion in the Filipino culture. No such statements linking religiousvalues to distributive choices were made by the American children.

Explanations underlying need-based distributions. Filipino children used need-basedprinciples to divide resources far more often than did their U.S. peers (see Table 1). In allthe 34 need-based distributions in the case of the PUPT scenario, the stated reason for theirgiving more of the resource to Antonio was his having “incomplete supplies” for school(this designation, incomplete supplies, was used as one of our coding categories). A Filipinoparticipant (I3) stated, “He needs the ball pens more because he has incomplete materials,”and another child (HH2) reasoned, “Six for Antonio and four for Malou. Even thoughAntonio picked only five balls, he still needs a larger share of ball pens, because he needsschool supplies.” Hence, Antonio’s lack of school supplies inclined some 47.9% of theFilipino children to allocate the largest portion of the resource to him.

The Filipino children showed a much stronger preference than their American counter-parts to divide on the basis of need. Only 10 (13.5%) of the American children divided onthe basis of need in the PUPT scenario. Like the Filipino participants, all of the U.S. chil-dren said that they gave more to Rob because he had fewer pencils and needed more (incom-




plete supplies). There was a significant difference in the use of this justification between theAmerican and Filipino participants, χ2(2, N = 43) = 13.71, p < .0001; Filipinos were morelikely to divide on the basis of need and justify the distribution with regard to the character’sincomplete supplies. The explanations of the American participants tended to be terse andmatter-of-fact. Such explanations as Rob simply “needed the pencils” were relativelycommon. For example, 1 child (3B) stated, “Rob gets more because he needs them more,”

and another (1X) justified a need-based allocation by saying, “Because he doesn’t have allof his supplies and she already does and he probably needs them.”

The GFS scenario was understood slightly differently than the PUPT scenario by bothAmerican and Filipino children. In the GFS scenario, whereas one character completed morework and needed money to buy himself a game, the other character completed less work andneeded money to buy her sister a birthday gift. In contrast to the PUPT scenario, where onecharacter needed supplies and the other did not, both characters needed money, but the waythe money was to be used differed. Although this did not make a difference in how theresource was allocated between the scenarios (chi-square analysis was not significant), it didinfluence the reasons or justifications for the distributions. Many children felt that moneyshould be given to Patricia because she needed the money to buy her sister a gift. Her moti-vation to buy a gift for her sister was understood as being a “better cause” or a more worthyendeavor than saving money to buy a gift for oneself. Thirty-three of 78 Filipino respondents(42.3%) preferred to divide on the basis of need in this scenario (see Table 1). Of these, 23(69.7%) justified their distributions with reference to the generosity of the character buyingher sister a gift (coded as generosity). In addition, these respondents also mentioned the self-ishness of saving money for oneself. One Filipino child (AA1) said, “Robert also wants tohave a game, if that’s what he wants, I should give him 40 [pesos]. Patricia, she wants to makeothers happy and I should give her much money.” Another child (G3) said, “The reason whyshe did that was because she was going to give something for her sister, [a] gift, while Robertshould only get 40 pesos because even if he did a lot, he didn’t think of others.”

In addition to focusing on the altruistic intentions of the character in the scenario, 9 of the 33(27.3%) need-based responses also noted the importance of the birthday occasion (coded asoccasion) and the fact that the gift was for the character’s sister. This justification was used sig-nificantly more by the Filipino children than the American children, who did not use it at all.Instead of calling Patricia a worthy person for wanting to buy a present for her sister, Filipinochildren labeled the circumstance itself as worthy and compelling. For example, 1 child (W2)said, “It’s an important, um . . . happening for her sister, and she wants to give a gift to makeher happy. . . . I think Patricia should have more because that’s an important event.”

Of the 8 U.S. children who chose to allocate according to the need principle, 6 (75%)focused on Alicia’s generosity as a justification for a need-based distribution. A significantdifference was found between the American and Filipino children’s use of this justification,χ2(2, N = 29) = 9.96, p < .001, with the Filipino children using the generosity justificationsignificantly more than the American children. American Participant 2F stated,

I think you should give what’s her name, Alicia, more ’cause even though she did less work,I think in this situation, who you are giving the money to matters more, at least to me. Howyou are gonna use it and what they did to get it. I think Alicia is saving for a better cause.




Explanations underlying merit-based distributions. U.S. children were stronger support-ers of a merit-based system of dividing resources than were the Filipino fifth graders (seeTable 1). In both the PUPT scenario and the GFS scenario, the American fifth graders’secondary distribution preference was merit based. Their matter-of-fact tone in giving theirexplanations seemed to indicate that to them, the choice of merit-based divisions was obvi-ous. In the PUPT scenario, 28 of the 74 distributions (37.9%) were merit based. Nine ofthese respondents (32%) explained their distributions by balancing the contributions of onecharacter and the need of the other (evens out). American respondents used this justificationmore frequently than the Filipino participants in this scenario, χ2(2, N = 10) = 6.40, p < .01.As 1 participant (1N) put it, “Well, Susan helped more but Rob needs materials. So it shouldbe six and four.” Similarly, another child (2N) said, “I think that even though he needs it,Susan worked twice as hard so I think that she should get six and he should get four.”

In addition to using the evens out justification, 9 (32%) of the respondents focused onthe more work that was completed by Susan (coded as more work). This was a significantlymore frequent use of this justification than was the case among the Filipino participants,χ2(2, N = 11) = 4.45, p < .05. Again, short and to-the-point responses by the Americanchildren were typical. For example, 1 participant (3C) stated, “She had all her art supplies,but she helped you more, so she earned it.” Or as another child (3AA) put it, “Because shedid more work. She deserves it more.”

Eight (28.6%) of the 28 responses interpreted the scenario slightly differently. These par-ticipants chose to give more of the resource to Susan (the character who did more work)because they considered her to be a harder worker and more responsible because she alsocollected all of the needed materials for the art class (coded as more work and responsibil-ity). Rather than seeing Rob as needing art supplies, these children viewed him to be irre-sponsible because he did not collect all of the needed supplies. An American boy (2M)explained his merit-based distribution by saying, “Because Susan has the supplies and shealso collected more equipment than Rob did.” Another boy (2S) replied, “Susan found allof the things and she picked up more toys so I think she should get more than Rob.”

Very few of the Filipino children offered a merit-based system of reasoning. Out of the 71 distributions given in the PUPT scenario, only 4 (5.6%) of them were merit based.Like their American counterparts, 2 of the 4 merit-based distributions were justified by ref-erence to Malou’s better performance and greater sense of responsibility for collecting all ofthe supplies needed for school (coded as more work and responsibility). For example, 1Filipino participant (BB1) stated, “Seven pens to Malou and three for Antonio . . . becauseMalou picked up more balls than Antonio and has complete school supplies. She deservesmore because she has more responsibilities for herself.”

In the GFS scenario, 17 (23%) of the total 74 American children’s distributions weremerit based. Nine (53%) of these respondents focused solely on the amount of work com-pleted by the meritorious character (coded as more work). For example, an American par-ticipant (1U) stated, “Because Alicia did not plant as many trees as Sam, and Sam deservesmore.” Another (1T) stated, “Since Sam did all of the work and he has been saving for a longtime, he should get more money.” The 8 remaining respondents (47%) engaged in weighingthe contributions of one character and the needs and motives of the other (evens out).

Typical justifications by the American children weighed the contributions and needs ofthe characters in the scenarios, rewarded the contributions made, and then gave “extra




bonuses” to the meritorious character. We see this type of rule-oriented reasoning again inthe following response (1O):

Alicia was doing something pretty nice for her sister so she deserves the extra dollar. But shegets a dollar for every tree that she planted. Sam gets $6, one for every tree he planted. Hedoesn’t need the extra money because that is enough I think for a game he is buying for him-self. And besides, he is not really helping anyone else.

Another American participant (1CC) engages in the same kind of reasoning:

You should give them $1 for each tree they planted and then give Sam the extra one. . . . Youshould give Sam $6, then you should give him the leftovers because he planted more trees thanAlicia did and he did a lot of hard work.

Some of the American children couched their justifications for merit-based distributionsin terms of the day-to-day work ethic and used language that included elements from theprofessional job world. For example, 1 child (3F) stated, “I think the work should come firstbecause that is basically what the money is for in the first place.” Another boy (1N) said,“I would go with three and seven [dollars]. ’Cause not many [sic] stuff comes free. Youhave to work for it.” One young girl (1Y) responded, “Since Sam did more work, and eventhough he just wants—it doesn’t really matter what he wants to buy. It just matters aboutthe work in this one.” Finally, another child (2Z) stated, “’Cause like if you were doing areal job, it doesn’t matter. If you did the most work you would get paid the most money. Itdidn’t matter what you were going to spend it on.”

In the GFS scenario, only 5 of 78 Filipino children’s distributions (6%) were merit based.Three of the 5 (60%) merit-based distributions were justified by balancing the contributionsof one character and the needs of the other (evens out). There was no significant differencebetween the frequency of use for this justification between the Filipino and American chil-dren in this scenario. One child (M1) divided the money, giving 55 pesos to Robert, who per-formed more work, because “the boy exerted more effort, and the girl just wanted to expressher feelings anyway, so the amount shouldn’t really be that different.” The remaining 2 par-ticipants focused solely on the amount of work completed by Robert (more work).

Discussion

Fifth graders from the United States and the Philippines are clearly able to think, reason,talk, and divide resources in accordance with their conceptions of fairness and distributivejustice. The results of the present study revealed a number of similarities between theFilipino and American children both in the manner in which they distributed resources tohypothetical characters in two scenarios and in the justifications that they offered for theirchoices. In general, both groups demonstrated the ability to divide resources according tothe distribution rules of need, merit, and equality, and both showed a preference for equal-ity as well as a capacity to balance the needs and contributions of the scenario characters.

There were, however, significant differences between the two groups of children, aswell. Two major differences will be the focus of this discussion. First, although both theFilipino and American children favored equal divisions, they offered different explanationsfor their equality-based choices. Second, the Filipino and American participants differed in




their relative preferences for merit-based versus need-based distributions as well as the jus-tifications that they offered for these distributive norms.

Differences in Explanations for Equality-Based Distributions

We had predicted that the American children would show a greater preference for merit-or equity-based distributions than their Filipino counterparts. Although this prediction wasborne out by the data, the finding that an equality-based distribution would be the preferredchoice for both groups was not one that we had anticipated. However, a similar preferencefor equality has been reported by McGillicuddy-De Lisi et al. (1994) for American thirdand sixth graders and, more recently, by McGillicuddy-De Lisi, Daly, and Neal (2006) forfourth-grade American children. Similarly, as reported by Carlo et al. (2001), Brazilianchildren, influenced by the relatively collectivist norms of their society, preferred to divideresources on the basis of equality, and Han and Park (1995) found that Korean sixth gradersmeasured as allocentric preferred to divide resources equally.

If we were to focus only on the preferred resource distribution norms used by the twogroups, it would seem as though American and Filipino children were no different. It isonly when we examine the explanations that the children provide for their choices that sig-nificant differences between the two groups in their motivations, reasoning, and the under-lying cultural norms and values that guide their decisions begin to emerge.

Equality-based divisions by both American and Filipino children seem to be, at least inthe context of the present study, the result of their weighing different distributive justicenorms against one another rather than a strict adherence to the norm of equality. The fre-quent use of the coding category evens out by both American and Filipino children supportssuch an interpretation. As suggested by Damon (1977) in his explication of the trajectoryof justice reasoning, by the age of 8 or 9, children are able to coordinate and balanceresource division tasks by drawing on the norms of equality, need, and merit. And further-more, equal division of a resource often serves as a compromise between the distributionnorms of need and merit.

Although both American and Filipino fifth graders demonstrated the ability to weigh andbalance the needs and contributions (merit) of the characters in the scenarios, which in manycases may have resulted in the choice by both groups for an equal distribution, the twogroups differed in their justification for the equality option. The American children tendedto explain their division in relatively straightforward and matter-of-fact language. They paidlittle attention to the potential emotional consequences of an unequal division and spent lit-tle time rationalizing the unequal performance between the characters. They seemed toabstract the information contained in the hypothetical situation, treating it as an isolatedevent, a bounded moment in the present. Their explanations were short and to the point, withlittle elaboration, as though none were needed. The Filipino fifth graders responded to thehypothetical situations quite differently. They placed greater emphasis on the emotional lifeshared by the two characters and the consequences of an unequal distribution for this rela-tionship. They were far more likely to take into account the negative feelings that might arisefrom an unequal distribution and the positive feelings that would result from an equal one.Thus although the final outcome of the division was the same (equal), the underlying rea-soning or justification of the distributions was quite different between the two cultures.




Filipino focus on avoiding negative emotions. The emphasis placed on avoiding negativeemotions by the Filipino children can be understood through an examination of Philippinevalues. Lynch (1973) has suggested that a primary goal in Filipino interpersonal relationships isto gain social acceptance. Smooth interpersonal relations (SIR), which facilitate the attainmentof this goal, refers to the act of getting along with others to avoid signs of outward conflict oraggression. The primary way to preserve SIR is to use pakikisama, or “giving in.” Pakikisamais the act of going along with or agreeing with someone simply to maintain a friendly relation-ship (Andres & Ilada-Andres, 1987; Gochenour, 1990). Marcelino (1990), too, has proposedthat pakikisama is the adjustment to the will of the majority to maintain SIR. Together, thesevalues tend to support the collectivist orientation of Filipino culture. It is possible, therefore, thateven among young Filipino children, the value of pakikisama and a desire to foster or maintaingood social relations among the hypothetical characters in the scenarios may have contributedto a preference for equal division. The emphasis on avoiding negative emotions observed in theFilipino children’s explanations of their distributions provides support for this interpretation.

“Just the facts, ma’am”: American explanations of equal distributions. Whereas themaintenance of good relationships and prevention of conflict were among the key motivesfor an equal division among the Filipino children, the American children’s motives for anequal distribution of resources are less obvious. Although meritocratic norms are believedto be more prevalent in the United States (Sampson, 1975), there is a long tradition of egal-itarianism in the American culture, even though, as Hochschild (2006) has pointed out,Americans may be more ambivalent about equality than once thought.

The forthright and matter-of-fact nature of the American children’s explanations mayalso be a result of the American cultural values of individualism, emphasizing directnessand self-expression (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Markus &Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). American participants were, in addition, more likely tofocus on the contributions or needs of the individual scenario characters without concern-ing themselves with the relationship between the characters or any past or future engage-ments between them. In addition, they emphasized rational, relatively context-free forms ofcognition that are favored in individualistic societies (Triandis, 1995; see also Markus &Kitayama, 1991; Miller & Bersoff, 1992).

Difference in Use of Need- and Merit-Based Distribution Norms

The relative frequency of need- and merit-based distributions significantly differedbetween the two cultural groups: The Americans children used more merit-based distribu-tions, whereas the Filipino participants favored more need-based distributions. The prefer-ence for equity or merit by the American participants is consistent with previous researchfindings and the greater prevalence of the individualistic ethic in all spheres of the Americansociety (Bellah et al., 1985; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995), emphasizing the priority of theindividual over the collective and the notion that people should be rewarded on the basis oftheir efforts, contributions, and achievements. The American children’s focus on work andthe contributions of the characters in the situations portrayed in the scenarios as bases for thedistribution of rewards is illustrative of the above cultural values.

The Filipino fifth graders’ preference for need-based distributions may reflect the col-




lectivistic cultural orientation of their society at large (Berman et al., 1985). Triandis (1995)describes collectivism as a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who seethemselves as part of one or more collectives, are primarily motivated by the norms andduties imposed by those collectives, are willing to give priority to the goals of the groupover their own personal goals, and emphasize their connectedness to members of these col-lectives (p. 2). And, as Hui and Triandis (1986) have pointed out, “Collectivists are con-cerned about the results of their actions on others, share material and nonmaterial resourceswith group members . . . and feel involved in the contributions and share in the lives of in-groups” (p. 227). Such concerns regarding in-group members may have contributed to theFilipino children’s greater sensitivity to the consequences of their distributive decisions onthe feelings of the characters in the scenario, to the characters’ ability to maintain a har-monious relationship with one another beyond the time frame of the scenario, and to mak-ing their decisions in ways that are consistent with the moral spiritual ideals of their society.

The greater tendency of the Filipino children, compared to their American counterparts,to interpret the hypothetical scenarios as though they were real-life situations that wouldcontinue beyond the presented time frame may also be a result of more limited experiencewith hypothetical situations. It is likely that American children in this age group may havemore experience with hypothetical situations through a greater exposure to mass media,computer-assisted games, or parenting methods that enabled them to better understand themake-believe quality of the scenarios. Further investigations of the relevant socializationexperiences, parenting styles, and educational practices of elementary school–age childrenin the Philippines could allow an evaluation of this possibility.

An alternative interpretation of our findings pertaining to the greater preference given toneed-based divisions by the Filipino children would focus on the differences between theFilipino and American children with the experience of scarcity. It is quite likely that on thewhole, the Filipino children in our study have had more experience with scarce resources.Such experience would make a child more aware of others’ needs and therefore more dis-posed to divide resources on the basis of their needs. Greenberg (1981) has argued that thenorms of need and efficiency become more salient when resources are scarce, leading indi-viduals to pay greater attention to the needs of the recipients. Similarly, when there is lim-ited availability of a particular resource, a more efficient distribution of it becomes importantto minimize waste. Under such circumstances, divisions based on equality or equity may notbe the most efficient use of the resource.

Several cross-cultural studies have focused directly on the impact of scarcity on rewardallocation. Murphy-Berman, Berman, Singh, Pachauri, and Kumar (1984) investigated therole of culture on distributive justice judgments between American and Indian college stu-dents. They found that the Indian students were more likely to take the distribution norm ofneed into consideration when allocating rewards. In interpreting their results, the authors sug-gested that Indian participants may have been more influenced by the element of need,because in an environment in which resources are scarce (as in many parts of India), allow-ing everyone to have minimal access to resources becomes more important than rewardingspecific individuals for merit. Similar hypotheses have been put forward by Kagitçibasi(1997) and Singh and Pandey (1994). The Filipino children participating in this research camefrom relatively affluent families. Three of the four schools from which the children wererecruited were private schools, and the fourth was a public school that had the reputation of




being one of the best in Manila. Parental occupations of the children in this study also sug-gest that the children had not experienced extreme poverty or scarcity themselves. However,resource scarcity was certainly evident in their immediate surroundings, even in the neigh-borhoods directly adjacent to the participants’ schools. The American children participatingin this research were from middle- and upper-income families as well, but the likelihood oftheir having had direct or indirect experience with resource scarcity would seem to be far less.

It is also important to note a possible confound in the present study. The observed dif-ferences in allocation behavior and their corresponding explanations may have resulted notonly from the cultural differences between the two groups of children but also from the dif-ferences in the place of recruitment (i.e., summer camp in the United States or school in thePhilippines). Thus, for example, children at summer camp may have seen their participa-tion in this study as yet another fun camp activity in contrast to children in the Philippines,who may have viewed their participation in the interview as more of an academic exercise.Or similarly, it is possible that the short, to-the-point answers given by the U.S. childrenmay have resulted from their desire to return to regular camp activities, whereas the moreelaborate responses of the Filipino children may have been the result of participation in anactivity outside of the classroom. Although such interpretations are plausible, we believethat cultural differences between the two groups provide a more compelling explanation ofthe findings. Such cultural differences are clearly reflected in the preference for merit-based distributions and the emphasis on performance found throughout the U.S. children’sresponses, on one hand, and the preference for need-based distributions and positive andharmonious relations among the Filipino children, on the other.

In conclusion, clear differences were found between Filipino and American fifth gradersin allocating resources according to the three distributive justice norms of equality, merit,and need and in the underlying reasoning that guided their decision making. Many of theobserved differences between the two groups seemed to relate to and be explainable interms of the individualism–collectivism dimension of cultural variability, though such ageneralization must be tempered by the relatively small size of our samples used in thestudy. Our detailed qualitative analyses of the justifications that the children offered fortheir choices enabled us to develop certain insights into some of the processes by which thecultural context, values, and backgrounds of the participants may have influenced their dis-tributive justice reasoning and behavior.

AppendixFilipino and U.S. Versions of the Two Hypothetical

Stories Used in this Study

Picking-Up-Play-Things Scenario (U.S. Version)

There are two campers at another camp who were helping me pick up toys left over from a free playperiod. Susan worked really hard and collected 10 toys. The other camper, whose name was Rob,only collected 5 toys. While we were walking back inside, I was talking to Susan and Rob and Robwas telling me that he wasn’t able to get all of the art supplies that he needed for the camp art class.Susan said that she had gotten all of her art supplies that she needed. So, I want to say thank you tothem because they were especially helpful to me. I have 10 of these pencils with the fun erasers on




top and I want to know how I should divide them between the campers. But first, I want to makesure you understand my problem.

Picking-Up-Play-Things Scenario (Filipino Version)

There are two students at the school where I work who helped me pick up the leftover basketballsthat the children were playing with at recess. Malou worked really hard and collected 10 basketballs.The other student, whose name is Antonio, only picked up 5 basketballs. While we were walkingback to the classrooms, I was talking with Malou and Antonio, and Antonio was telling me that hewasn’t able to get all of the school supplies that he needed for school. Malou said that she had got-ten all of the school supplies that she needed. I want to say thank you to them because they wereespecially helpful to me. I have 10 “bolpens” and I want to know how to divide them between thetwo students. But first, I want to make sure you understand my problem.

Gift-for-Sister Scenario (U.S. Version)

Two campers helped me with a project. We had an Earth Day celebration and Alicia and Sam helpedme plant some trees on the campgrounds. Sam worked really hard and helped me plant six trees andAlicia only helped me plant three. When we were finished, the three of us were talking and I foundout that Alicia is saving up money for a birthday gift for her sister. Sam said that he was savingmoney for a toy for himself. So, I want to thank the kids who helped me. I’ve got $10 and I want toknow how should I divide the money between the two campers. But first, can you tell me what hap-pened so that I know you understand my problem?

Gift-for-Sister Scenario (Filipino Version)

As you know, this year is the Jubilee Year, and many schools are having celebrations. Well, at ourschool, one of the things that we did was to make a lot of posters to let everyone know of the cele-brations. As the teacher of my class, I was supposed to make nine posters. Two students helped mewith this project. Robert worked really hard and helped me make six posters and Patricia only helpedme make three. When we finished the posters, the three of us were talking and I found out thatPatricia is saving money to for a birthday gift for her sister. Robert said that he was saving moneyfor a game for himself. So, I wanted to thank the students for helping me. I have 100 pesos and Iwanted to know how I should divide the money between the two students. But first, can you tell mewhat happened so that I know you understand my problem?

References

Andres, T. Q. D., & Ilada-Andres, P. C. B. (1987). Understanding the Filipino. Quezon City, Philippines: NewDay.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart:Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Berman, J. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Singh, P. (1985). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptionsof fairness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 55-67.

Birch, L. L., & Billman, J. (1986). Preschool children’s food sharing with friends and acquaintances. ChildDevelopment, 57(2), 387-395.

Carlo, G., Roesch, S. C., Knight, G. P., & Holler, S. H. (2001). Between- or within-culture variation? Culturegroup as a moderator of the relations between individual differences and resource allocation preferences.




Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 559-579.Church, T. A. (1987). Personality research in a non-Western culture: The Philippines. Psychological Bulletin,

102, 272-292.Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Damon, W. (1980). Patterns of change in children’s social reasoning: A two-year longitudinal study. Child

Development, 51, 1010-1017.Deutsch, M. (1979). A critical review of “equity theory”: An alternative perspective on the social psychology

of justice. International Journal of Group Tensions, 1(4), 20-49.Deutsch, M. (1983). Current social psychological perspectives on justice. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 13, 305-319.Enright, R. D., Bjerstedt, Å., Enright, W. F., Levy, V. M., Jr., Lapsley, D. K., Buss, R. R., et al. (1984).

Distributive justice development: Cross-cultural, contextual, and longitudinal evaluations. ChildDevelopment, 55, 1737-1751.

Enright, R. D., Franklin, C., & Manheim, L. (1980). Children’s distributive justice reasoning: A standardizedand objective scale. Developmental Psychology, 16, 193-202.

Gochenour, T. (1990). Considering Filipinos. Boston: Intercultural.Greenberg, J. (1981). The justice of distributing scarce and abundant resources. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner

(Eds.), The Justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times of scarcity and change (pp. 289-316). NewYork: Plenum.

Han, G., & Park, B. (1995). Children’s choice in conflict: Application of the theory of individualism-collec-tivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(3), 298-313.

Hochschild, J. L. (2006). Ambivalence about equality in the United States, or did Tocqueville get it wrong andwhy does it matter? Social Justice Research, 19(1), 43-62.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

Hui, H. C., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225-248.

Kagitçibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Volume 3. Social behaviors and applications (pp. 1-50). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. SanFrancisco: Harper and Row.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distributions of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 9, 91-131.

Lynch, F. (1973). Social acceptance reconsidered. In F. Lynch & A. de Guzman II (Eds.), Four readings ofPhilippine values (Institute of Philippine Culture Papers No. 2). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de ManilaUniversity Press.

Marcelino, E. P. (1990). Towards understanding the psychology of the Filipino. Women and Therapy, 9(1/2),105-128.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motiva-tion. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Daly, M., & Neal, A. (2006). Children’s distributive justice judgments: Aversiveracism in Euro-American children? Child Development, 77(4), 1063-1080.

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Watkins, C., & Vinchur, A. J. (1994). The effect of relationship on children’s dis-tributive justice reasoning. Child Development, 65, 1694-1700.

Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1992). Culture and moral judgment: How are conflicts between justice andinterpersonal responsibilities resolved? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 541-554.

Miralao, V. A. (1997). The family, traditional values, and the sociocultural transformation of Philippine society.Philippine Sociological Review, 45(1-4), 189-215.

Murphy-Berman, V., Berman, J. J., Singh, P., Pachauri, A., & Kumar, P. (1984). Factors affecting allocation toneedy and meritorious recipients: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 46(6), 1267-1272.




Nisan, M. (1984). Distributive justice and social norms. Child Development, 55(3), 1020-1029.Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner.Rao, N., & Stewart, S. M. (1999). Cultural influences on sharer and recipient behavior: Sharing in Chinese and

Indian preschool children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 219-241.Roces, A., & Roces, G. (1985). Culture shock! Philippines. Singapore: Times Books International.Sampson, E. E. (1975). On justice as equality. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 45-64.Shweder, R. A., Mahapahtra, M., & Miller, J. G. (1987). Culture and moral development in India and the United

States. In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 1-83). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Sigelman, C. K., & Waitzman, K. A. (1991). The development of distributive justice orientations: Contextualinfluences on children’s resource allocation. Child Development, 62, 1367-1378.

Singh, P., & Pandey, J. (1994). Distributive decisions as a function of recipient’s need performance variationsand caste of allocator. In A. Bouvy, F. J. R. van de Vijer, P. Boski, & P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology: Selected papers from the eleventh international conference of the InternationalAssociation for Cross-Cultural Psychology held in Liege, Belgium (pp. 320-328). Lisse, Netherlands: Swetsand Zeitlinger.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psy-

chology (5th ed., Vol. 3., pp. 863-932). New York: Wiley.Vasquez, K., Keltner, D., Ebenbach, D. H., & Banaszynski, T. L. (2001). Cultural variation and similarity in

moral rhetorics: Voices from the Philippines and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,32(1), 93-120.

Watanabe, Y. (1990). The development of distributive justice and reward allocation in children. JapanesePsychological Research, 32(4), 165-171.

Wong, M. M. A., & Nunes, T. (2003). Hong Kong children’s concept of distributive justice. Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 173(1), 119-129.

Alison S. Carson is an assistant professor of psychology at Manhattanville College. She received her PhD incultural psychology from Boston College. Her research interests include conceptions of justice and recentlyhave been expanded to include the effects of acculturation on values, specifically, those relating to beauty andthe body. She was a Fulbright Scholar in the Philippines from 1998 to 1999.

Ali Banuazizi received his PhD from Yale University. He is a professor of political science and a research pro-fessor of psychology at Boston College. His research interests include conceptions of justice, the politics ofmartyrdom, and political cultures of the Middle East.




that's not fair”similarities and differences in distributive justice reasoning between...

Documents