Not just what you did, but how: Children see distributors that count as more fair than distributors who don't.

To distribute resources in a fair way, identifying an appropriate outcome is not enough: We must also find a way to produce it. To solve this problem, young children spontaneously use number words and counting in fairness tasks. We hypothesized that children are also sensitive to other people's use of counting, as it reveals that the distributor was motivated to produce the outcome they believed was fair. Across four experiments, we show that U.S. children (N = 184 from the New Haven area; ages four to six; Approximately 58% White, 16% Black, 18% Hispanic, 4% Asian, and 4% other) believe that agents who count when distributing resources are more fair than agents who produce the same outcome without counting, even when both agents invest the same amount of effort. And vice versa, when the same two agents produce an unfair outcome, children now condemn the agent who counted. Our findings suggest that, from childhood, people understand that counting reflects a motivation to be precise and use this to evaluate other people's behavior in fairness contexts.

Children's understanding of the abstract logic of counting.

When children learn to count, do they understand its logic independent of the number list that they learned to count with? Here we tested CP-knowers' (ages three to five) understanding of how counting reveals a set's cardinality, even when non-numerical lists are used to count. Participants watched an agent count unobservable objects in two boxes and were asked to identify the larger set. Participants successfully identified the box with more objects when the agent counted using their familiar number list (Experiment 1) and when the agent counted using a non-numeric ordered list, as long as the items in the list were not linguistically used as number words (Experiments 2-3). Additionally, children's performance was strongly influenced by visual cues that helped them link the list's order to representations of magnitude (Experiment 4). Our findings suggest that three- to six-year-olds who can count also understand how counting reveals a set's cardinality, but they require additional time to understand how symbols on any arbitrary ordered list can be used as numerals.