ArticleScientific reports2026
Children's resource taking varies with experimentally manipulated relative status.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.