Menu

Why your preschooler isn't sharing

New research suggests young children want to share—but they don't yet understand how much they have.

Why your preschooler isn't sharing

We're in a laboratory with a 3-year-old child. As part of the experiment, we ask the child to share her colorful stickers with a puppet—but she doesn't do so fairly. For the researcher, this is completely expected and developmentally appropriate. But for the parent who is watching, it can feel embarrassing.

Afterward, the parent wants to let us know we may be underestimating his child's sophistication. "She talks about sharing all the time at home!" he says. "But I guess she doesn't quite get it."

This is a very common experience for development psychology researchers—and for parents, who might be awe-struck one moment by the child's moral concern for others, only to witness her failing to display the same behavior moments later.

So, who is right in these cases? The parent who has spent countless hours with their young child and surely grasps the inner workings of his or her mind better than any other adult, or the researcher, who just conducted a standardized study protocol aimed at uncovering an unbiased understanding of these young minds?

Our answer is that they're both right, and the reason why is not as obvious as we might think.

A few years ago, researchers Craig Smith, Peter Blake, and Paul Harris pointed out a paradox in young children's reasoning about fairness—despite the fact that preschool-aged children often know they should share their resources equally, they end up failing to do so. At first, such a tendency appears irrational: If I know I should share with my friends, why wouldn't I do so?Perhaps children know the right things to say but, when push comes to shove, don't really want to do any of them. Do as I say, not as I do, right?

But while this explanation isn't wrong, per se, we think it ascribes too many Machiavellian motives to young children. Our recent work finds that one of the reasons young children fail to share when they know they should is that they simply lack the cognitive toolbox to do so.

In particular, children's underdeveloped counting skills play a role in their ability to distribute resources fairly. In other words, it's not that they don't want to share. It's that they don't yet understand how to share fairly.

How counting helps sharing

During the preschool years, children go through several important developments that might affect their sharing behavior. First, they learn how to recite the count list properly ("one," "two," "three"…). Then, they start attaching meanings to the words they're reciting—when you ask a 3-year-old for two apples, they learn to bring you two and only two. And finally, they jump not just to understanding the specific words, "one," "two," and "three," but to understanding some basic principles of counting, and even when to implement them. At this point, if you put 10 items in front of a child, she can use her counting skills to work out how many there are.

These skills aren't just the foundation for later math learning, they're also critical for understanding how to share, our work suggests.

In our first study, we presented a group of preschoolers with two simple sharing tasks. In both, we gave the children a set of attractive stickers and we introduced them to a sad puppet who also wanted the stickers. So, children were faced with a dilemma: Do I keep these awesome stickers or share them with this poor puppet?

We recorded how they resolved it (how many stickers they gave). Afterwards, we tested children on their counting skills, which helped us classify children as either proficient counters (those who knew the basic counting principles, referred to as Cardinal Principle Knowers), or non-counters (those who, at most, knew just meanings of specific number words such as "one", "two," and "three," referred to as Subset Knowers).

Not surprisingly, older children (4-5 year olds) were more likely to resolve the dilemma equitably: They would give exactly one half to themselves and give away one half to the puppet. In contrast, the younger children (2-3 years old) were less likely to succeed in sharing equally.

What might explain this difference we found between older and younger children? Perhaps as children got older, they simply learned that they should be sharing these stickers in half. But that didn't seem to be the case: Children regardless of age and regardless of what they actually did ended up saying they "gave the same" amount of stickers to each, suggesting they already knew at the youngest ages that this was something they should do.

Instead, we found, the ability to actually be fair—to divide the stickers equally—was explained by children's counting skills. Cardinal Principle Knowers (proficient counters) were about twice as likely to share fairly as Subset Knowers (non-counters). Importantly, once we accounted for children's counting skills, age failed to predict children's tendencies to share equally. In other words, a 3-year-old who knows how to count would be much more likely to share fairly than a 5-year-old who doesn't.

Most kids want to be fair

What about children who weren't sharing equally? Were they simply selfish or were they mistaken about how to be fair?

If children truly are driven by selfish motivations, we'd expect them to keep most of the stickers for themselves. But if, instead, they simply didn't have the ability to share fairly, they should be just as likely to be selfish as generous: Sometimes they'd make a mistake by overshooting (and giving more than they needed to) and other times by undershooting (and giving less).

That is exactly what we found—about half of the children "selfishly" kept the majority of the stickers, but the other half were actually overly "generous," probably not realizing what they were doing in either case. We take this to mean that many children were actually trying to be fair—but couldn't do it on account of their underdeveloped counting skills.

We also wanted to see if maybe children without the needed counting skills just aren't aware that they ought to share equally.

So, we ran a follow-up study showing 2-5 year olds potential ways to share candies between themselves and someone else: one way was selfish, the second was fair. All children had to do was point to how the sharing ought to be done. We again measured their counting skills afterwards.

Most children chose the "fair" or equal option, suggesting that they understood they should share fairly. Of course, there was a little bit of improvement with age: the older children were, the more likely they were to claim that they should be fair, but counting skills had nothing to do with this development. Counting helps explain children's sharing behaviors, but not their knowledge when it comes to fairness.

In other words, children know they should share fairly, but they can't actually do it until they learn to count.

Why would sharing be related to counting?

Besides the obvious—that children can't share the proper number if they don't also know how to count it—prior research by Muldoon, Lewis, and Berridge pointed out that the concept of set equivalence (understanding when two things are equal to one another) is tied to understanding counting in the first place.

But there might be other reasons. For one thing, perhaps counting gives children an extra tool to double-check their mistakes: I might randomly divide a bowl of strawberries so that both of my children have about the same, but with counting, I can definitely make sure that it's the same. And in fact, in our study, children who shared equally seemed much more aware of how many stickers they'd given each person, suggesting that maybe counting was helping them keep track in a much more precise way.

So, can we conclude that children are entirely morally virtuous, just waiting for the opportunity to show their remarkable sharing skills as soon as they understand counting? Not quite. There are many instances, especially ones in which children are taxed in other ways (e.g., having to donate to strangers rather than trusted friends) in which children are inclined to be selfish. Lots of work supports this.

But before concluding that a toddler is just being stubbornly selfish when he doesn't share the way you'd hoped, we urge people to consider what other types of things the child does and doesn't know yet—and interpret that behavior accordingly.

Originally posted on Greater Good.

You might also like:

Every week, we stock the Motherly Shop with innovative and fresh products from brands we feel good about. We want to be certain you don't miss anything, so to keep you in the loop, we're providing a cheat sheet.

So, what's new this week?

Tenth & Pine: Gender-neutral and butter-soft basics for littles + bigs

In 2016, after a stage four endometriosis diagnosis and a 10 year battle with infertility, Tenth & Pine founder Kerynn got her miracle baby, Ezra Jade. As a SAHM with a Masters in Business, she wanted to create a brand that focused on premium quality, function, comfort, and simplicity.

She sought out premium, all natural fabrics and factories that shared her core values, practicing environmentally friendly manufacturing methods with fair and safe working conditions for employees. As a result, her made in the USA, gender-neutral designs check all the boxes. The sustainable, organic basics are perfect for everyday wear, family photos and any adventure in between.

Lucy Lue Organics: Sustainably and ethically-produced modern baby clothes

This family-owned and operated business was started by a mama who wanted out of corporate America after the birth of her son. Thoughtfully designed to mix-and-match, Lucy Lue's sustainably and ethically produced collection of modern organic baby clothes only uses fabrics that are "environmentally friendly from seed to seam." Their gorgeous, earthy tones and comfy, minimalist styles make the perfect addition to first wardrobes from birth through the first years.

Sontakey: Simple bracelets that speak your mind

Sontakey has been such a hit in the Motherly Shop that we knew it was time to expand the line. And since these beautiful mantra bands look so stunning stacked, more options = more fun.

Not sure where to start? Here's what we're adding to our cart:

Keep reading Show less
Shop

Every week, we stock the Motherly Shop with innovative and fresh products from brands we feel good about. We want to be certain you don't miss anything, so to keep you in the loop, we're providing a cheat sheet.

So, what's new this week?

Meri Meri: Decor and gifts that bring the wonder of childhood to life

We could not be more excited to bring the magic of Meri Meri to the Motherly Shop. For over 30 years, their playful line of party products, decorations, children's toys and stationery have brought magic to celebrations and spaces all over the world. Staring as a kitchen table endeavor with some scissors, pens and glitter in Los Angeles in 1985, Meri Meri (founder Meredithe Stuart-Smith's childhood nickname) has evolved from a little network of mamas working from home to a team of 200 dreaming up beautiful, well-crafted products that make any day feel special.

We've stocked The Motherly Shop with everything from Halloween must-haves to instant-heirloom gifts kiddos will adore. Whether you're throwing a party or just trying to make the everyday feel a little more special, we've got you covered.

Not sure where to start? Here's what we're adding to our cart:

Keep reading Show less
Shop
Chrissy Teigen/Instagram

When Chrissy Teigen announced her third pregnancy earlier this year we were so happy for her and now our hearts are with her as she is going through a pain that is unimaginable for many, but one that so many other mothers know.

Halfway through a high-risk pregnancy complicated by placenta issues, Teigen announced late Wednesday that she has suffered a pregnancy loss.

Our deepest condolences go out to Chrissy and her husband, John Legend (who has been by her side in the hospital for several days now).

In a social media post, Teigen explained she named this baby Jack.

FEATURED VIDEO

"We are shocked and in the kind of deep pain you only hear about, the kind of pain we've never felt before. We were never able to stop the bleeding and give our baby the fluids he needed, despite bags and bags of blood transfusions. It just wasn't enough," she wrote.

She continued: "We never decide on our babies' names until the last possible moment after they're born, just before we leave the hospital. But we, for some reason, had started to call this little guy in my belly Jack. So he will always be Jack to us. Jack worked so hard to be a part of our little family, and he will be, forever."

Keep reading Show less
News