![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/children-750x375.jpg)
New research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General provides evidence that children as young as five years old develop preferences for social hierarchy that influence how they perceive inequality. This orientation toward social dominance appears to dampen empathy for lower-status groups and reduce the willingness to address unfair situations. The findings suggest that these beliefs can emerge early in development through cognitive biases, independent of direct socialization from parents.
Social dominance orientation is a concept in psychology that describes an individual’s preference for group-based inequality. People with high levels of this trait generally believe that society should be structured hierarchically, with some groups possessing more power and status than others. In adults, high social dominance orientation serves as a strong predictor for a variety of political and social attitudes. It is often associated with opposition to affirmative action, higher levels of nationalism, and increased tolerance for discriminatory practices.
Psychologists have traditionally focused on adolescence as the developmental period when these hierarchy-enhancing beliefs solidify. The prevailing theory posits that as children grow older, they absorb the competitive nature of the world, often through conversations with their parents. This socialization process supposedly leads teenagers to adopt worldviews that justify existing social stratifications.
However, the authors of the new study sought to determine if the roots of these beliefs exist much earlier in life. They investigated whether young children might form dominance orientations through their own cognitive development rather than solely through parental input. Young children are known to recognize status differences and often attribute group disparities to intrinsic traits. The research team hypothesized that these cognitive tendencies might predispose children to accept or even prefer social hierarchy before adolescence.
“The field has typically thought of preferences for hierarchy as something that becomes socialized during adolescence,” said study author Ryan Lei, an associate professor of psychology at Haverford College.
“In recent years, however, researchers have documented how a lot of the psychological ingredients that underlie these preferences for hierarchy are already present in early childhood. So we sought to see if a) those preferences were meaningful (i.e., associated with hierarchy-enhancing outcomes), and b) what combinations of psychological ingredients might be central to the development of these preferences.”
The researchers conducted three separate studies to test their hypotheses. In the first study, the team recruited 61 children between the ages of 5 and 11. The participants were introduced to a flipbook story featuring two fictional groups of characters known as Zarpies and Gorps. The researchers established a clear status difference between the groups. One group was described as always getting to go to the front of the line and receiving the best food. The other group was required to wait and received lower-quality resources.
After establishing this inequality, the researchers presented the children with a scenario in which a member of the low-status group complained about the unfairness. The children then answered questions designed to measure their social dominance orientation. For example, they were asked if some groups are simply not as good as others. The researchers also assessed whether the children believed the complaint was valid and if the inequality should be fixed.
The results showed a clear association between the children’s hierarchy preferences and their reactions to the story. Children who reported higher levels of social dominance orientation were less likely to view the low-status group’s complaint as valid. They were also less likely to say that the inequality should be rectified. This suggests that even at a young age, a general preference for hierarchy can shape how children interpret specific instances of injustice.
The second study aimed to see if assigning children to a high-status group would cause them to develop higher levels of social dominance orientation. The researchers recruited 106 children, ranging in age from 5 to 11. Upon arrival, an experimenter used a manual spinner to randomly assign each child to either a green group or an orange group.
The researchers then introduced inequalities between the two groups. The high-status group controlled resources and received three stickers, while the low-status group had no control and received only one sticker. The children completed measures assessing their empathy toward the outgroup and their preference for their own group. They also completed the same social dominance orientation scale used in the first study.
The study revealed that children assigned to the high-status group expressed less empathy toward the low-status group compared to children assigned to the low-status condition. Despite this difference in empathy, belonging to the high-status group did not lead to higher self-reported social dominance orientation scores. The researchers found that while group status influenced emotional responses to others, it did not immediately alter the children’s broader ideological preferences regarding hierarchy.
The third study was designed to investigate whether beliefs about the stability of status might interact with group assignment to influence social dominance orientation. The researchers recruited 147 children aged 5 to 12. This time, the team used a digital spinner to assign group membership. This method was chosen to make the assignment feel more definitive and less dependent on the experimenter’s physical action.
Children were again placed into a high-status or low-status group within a fictional narrative. The researchers measured the children’s “status essentialism,” which includes beliefs about whether group status is permanent and unchangeable. The study tested whether children who believed status was stable would react differently to their group assignment.
The findings from this third study were unexpected. The researchers initially hypothesized that high-status children would be the most likely to endorse hierarchy. Instead, the data showed that children assigned to the low-status group reported higher social dominance orientation, provided they believed that group status was stable.
“When we tested whether children randomly assigned to high or low status groups were more likely to endorse these preferences for hierarchy, we were surprised that those in low status groups who also believed that their group status was stable were the ones most likely to self-report greater preference for hierarchy,” Lei told PsyPost.
This result suggests a psychological process known as system justification. When children in a disadvantaged position believe their status is unchangeable, they may adopt beliefs that justify the existing hierarchy to make sense of their reality. By endorsing the idea that hierarchy is good or necessary, they can psychologically cope with their lower position.
Across all three studies, the data indicated that social dominance orientation is distinct from simple ingroup bias. Social identity theory suggests that people favor their own group simply because they belong to it. However, the current findings show that preferences for hierarchy operate differently. For instance, in the third study, children in both high and low-status groups preferred their own group. Yet, the increase in social dominance orientation was specific to low-status children who viewed the hierarchy as stable.
The researchers also performed a mini meta-analysis of their data to examine demographic trends. They found that older children tended to report lower levels of social dominance orientation than younger children. This negative correlation suggests that as children age, they may become more attuned to egalitarian norms or learn to suppress overt expressions of dominance.
“The more that children prefer social hierarchy, the less empathy they feel for low status groups, the less they intend to address inequality, and the less they seriously consider low status groups’ concerns,” Lei summarized.
Contrary to patterns often seen in adults, the researchers found no significant difference in social dominance orientation between boys and girls. In adult samples, men typically report higher levels of this trait than women. The absence of this gender gap in childhood suggests that the divergence may occur later in development, perhaps during adolescence when gender roles become more rigid.
As with all research, there are some limitations. The experiments relied on novel, fictional groups rather than real-world social categories. It is possible that children reason differently about real-world hierarchies involving race, gender, or wealth, where they have prior knowledge and experience. The use of fictional groups allowed for experimental control but may not fully capture the complexity of real societal prejudices.
The study, “Antecedents and Consequences of Preferences for Hierarchy in Early Childhood,” was authored by Ryan F. Lei, Brandon Kinsler, Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, Ian Davis, and Alissa Vandenbark.