Developmental Psychology 2001, Vol. 37, No. 5, 587-596 Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0012-1649/01/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.37.5.587 Fairness or Stereotypes? Young Children's Priorities When Evaluating Group Exclusion and Inclusion Melanie Killen, Kerry Pisacane, Jennie Lee-Kim, and Alicia Ardila-Rey University of Maryland Seventy-two children (35 4!/2-year-olds and 37 5'/2-year-olds), nearly evenly divided by gender, from European American (71%), Asian American (17%), and African American (12%) middle-class back- grounds, were individually interviewed about straightforward exclusion and inclusion for two gender- stereotypic peer-group contexts: activities (doll and truck play) and role-play (teacher and firefighter). All children evaluated straightforward exclusion based on gender (e.g., girls excluding a boy from doll play) as wrong and used moral reasons. Preliminary inclusion decisions in the activity contexts (choosing a boy or a girl to join the group) were based on stereotypic expectations, particularly for younger children. Given the opportunity to weigh alternative considerations, however, all children gave priority to fairness over stereotypic expectations in both multifaceted inclusion peer-group contexts. The present study was conducted to examine young children's judgments about inclusion and exclusion from groups and whether young children give priority to fairness or to stereotypic expecta- tions when asked to make decisions about inclusion in gender- stereotypic play situations. Although peer rejection is a well- studied topic (Asher & Coie, 1990), little is known about how children reason about exclusion from groups when the exclusion is based on group membership. Most studies have investigated peer rejection from the perspective of the child who has been rejected and have focused on the behavioral and social-cognitive differ- ences between high-status and low-status children (for reviews see Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Dodge & Feldman, 1990). This individual deficit model has led to interventions aimed at altering the behavior and thoughts of the rejected child, without consider- ing nonbehavioral characteristics and group processes. In a review of the research, Hymel, Wagner, and Butler (1990) argued that the predominance of the social skills deficit model has resulted in a rather limited view of the phenomenon of peer rejection. Hymel et al. suggested the need to expand beyond an individual deficit model and consider group processes in order to fully understand peer inclusion and exclusion. According to Mackie, Hamilton, Susskind, and Rosselli (1996, p. 46), gender is one of the most salient categories for parsing the social environment, particularly in early childhood (see also Mac- coby, 1988; Ruble & Martin, 1998). Gender stereotypes for young Melanie Killen, Kerry Pisacane, Jennie Lee-Kim, and Alicia Ardila- Rey, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland. This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SBR9729739) and by a project grant from the Graduate Research Board, University of Maryland, College Park. We thank Heidi McGlothlin for technical assistance. In addition, we thank the children, parents, and staff at the Center for Young Children and at the Goddard Child Development Center for participating in the study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melanie Killen, Department of Human Development, 3304 Benjamin Building, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742-1131. Electronic mail may be sent to mkl41@umail.umd.edu. children can include judgments about sex-appropriate activities (e.g., girls play with dolls), sex-specific characteristics (e.g., Dad- dies are strong), and sex-related future roles (e.g., nurses are women) (see Kuhn, Nash, & Brucken, 1978). Stereotypes, com- monly defined as cognitive structures that contain an individual's perception of knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about social groups (Ruble & Martin, 1998), are clearly apparent in young children's daily lives. Although research on children's awareness of stereotypes about people on the basis of group membership has shown that gender stereotypes are among the first category of stereotypes to emerge in young children's thinking, most research on stereotypic thinking has not examined whether it is used in morally relevant situations, such as in decisions involving inclu- sion and exclusion. Yet recent research in the social-cognitive area has demon- strated that children and adolescents bring two types of knowledge to bear on judgments about inclusion and exclusion: moral and social-conventional knowledge (Horn, Killen, & Stangor, 1999; Killen, McGlothlin, & Lee-Kim, in press; Killen & Stangor, 2001; Theimer, Killen, & Stangor, 2001). On the one hand, children and adolescents reason about exclusion by using social-conventional knowledge, such as group norms, expectations, and group identity. These considerations are involved in decisions to exclude someone who does not meet the expectations of the group (e.g., excluding someone from a team who is unqualified). On the other hand, children and adolescents reason about exclusion by using moral knowledge, such as fairness and equal opportunity. There are times when it is unfair or wrong to exclude someone (as when group membership, such as gender and race, is used in an arbitrary manner). Only one study that we know of has examined preschool-aged children's evaluations of exclusion based on gender. In this study, Theimer et al. (2001) interviewed young children regarding straightforward exclusion ("Is it all right to exclude a boy from playing with dolls? Or a girl from playing with trucks?") as well as their decisions about inclusion under different conditions of prior experience with the activity. In Theimer et al.'s study, slightly more than half of the children (65%) judged straightforward ex- 587