The consequences of outgroup helping: Children's and adolescents' reasoning.

The goal of this study was to examine the consequences of helping an outgroup in an intergroup context where the threat to the ingroup and outgroup varied. Fourth and eighth graders (N = 126; fourth graders: Mage = 9.07 years, SD = 0.38; eighth graders: Mage = 12.84 years, SD = 0.34) were asked whether excluding an ingroup member who helped an outgroup by sharing equally or not was acceptable. Equal helping or outgroup helping occurred when the groups had equal need for a vital resource, the outgroup needed it more, or the ingroup needed it more. Overall, excluding the helpful ingroup member was viewed as unacceptable. It was least acceptable when the outgroup needed the help and was given more help than the ingroup. Exclusion was judged to be most acceptable when both groups needed the same amount of help, or the ingroup needed more help, but more help was given to the outgroup, and these findings were driven by fourth graders. Participants' social cognitions regarding perceptions of group interest, group identification, and approval of the helping act predicted their acceptability of excluding the helping member. Concerns for group loyalty were used to justify exclusion, but appeals to the emotional harm of exclusion, generosity, and the low salience of the act of helping were used to reject exclusion. The findings contribute to developmental research on intergroup relations and exclusion from peer groups.