Trophies for All? Children's and Adolescents' Reasoning About Inclusive Versus Selective Awards

How do children and adolescents reason about the consequences of institutional reward systems? We examined developmental differences in reasoning about inclusive versus selective awards in a youth sports context. Participants in two age groups (43 in the 7- to 9-year-old age group and 44 in the 15- to 18-year-old age group; 46% female, 49% male, 5% other or preferred not to say; majority Asian/White; USA, 2024-2025) read scenarios in which trophies were awarded either to all participants or only to top performers in a running race and predicted motivational, emotional, and behavioral outcomes. Across age groups, participants expected selective awards to increase effort and pride, suggesting that by 7 years of age children recognize links between incentive structures and task engagement. By adolescence, systematic reasoning expanded to include the possibility that selective incentives could motivate behavior that conflicts with social norms or personal safety, including cheating and risk-taking. In addition, adolescents', but not children's, preferences for reward systems were systematically related to their own perceived running ability, suggesting that evaluations of incentive systems increasingly align with self-interest across development. Together, these findings reveal both continuity and change in how young people reason about incentive systems: children as young as 7 linked reward systems to effort and pride, whereas adolescents additionally made inferences about self-interest and norm-conflicting behavior.