A new study suggests that children as young as seven and teenagers largely favour merit-based trophies over universal participation awards, with adolescents uniquely predicting negative side effects such as cheating and risk-taking. The research, published in Developmental Science, examined how young people reason about reward systems and how their thinking evolves with age. It involved 87 participants from the southwestern United States, split into two groups: 43 children aged 7 to 9 and 44 adolescents aged 15 to 18.
The study compares two common approaches to awarding prizes at the end of youth sports seasons. In an inclusive or egalitarian system, every participant receives a trophy simply for taking part; in a selective or merit-based system, prizes go to the top performers based on measurable results. Proponents of participation trophies argue such recognition fosters belonging and acknowledges effort, while critics contend it can dilute achievement and dampen motivation. Conversely, supporters of selective trophies view them as fair recognition of excellence, while critics worry they may encourage unethical shortcuts or riskier behaviour.
“Although these debates largely take place among adults, children are the ones who experience these reward systems,” study lead author Shuai Shao, who conducted the research at the University of California, San Diego and is now at Boston College, told PsyPost. “We wanted to understand how children and adolescents themselves think about the implications of these reward systems and how their reasoning changes across development.”
In the experiment, researchers used two running-event scenarios: “Trophies for All,” in which everyone receives a trophy for showing up, and “Trophies for Winners,” in which only the top three finishers receive trophies. Each participant was asked eight two-option questions across four domains—personal effort, pride, morality, and physical risk-taking—with each domain including a positively framed and a negatively framed item.
Participants then predicted how the two events would affect the runners’ effort and emotions, and whether they would cheat or follow the rules, or risk injury to win or prioritise staying upright. The younger and older groups also completed an exploratory section in which they stated which race they would personally prefer and rated their speed relative to peers on a five-point scale.
The main finding was clear across both age groups: selective, winner-only trophies were linked to greater expected effort. In numbers, 72.1% of children and all of the adolescents predicted that runners would push harder in the “Trophies for Winners” race, while a large majority expected less effort in the all-trophies event. Both groups also viewed selective awards as more emotionally meaningful, with 81.4% of children and 95.5% of adolescents predicting that runners would feel more special after receiving a trophy in the winners-only event, and the same percentages predicting recipients in the all-trophies event would feel less proud.
When it came to rule-breaking and safety, the groups diverged. Almost all adolescents (95.5%) predicted more cheating in the winners event, while 68.2% expected more following of rules in the all-trophies event. Among 7- to 9-year-olds, 65.1% chose the winners-only race for cheating and 62.8% chose the participation race for rule-following, though these results were not statistically different from chance. In safety predictions, adolescents uniformly expected risk of injury in the winners event (100%), with 68.2% predicting that runners in the all-trophies event would prioritise avoiding falls. Children’s responses hovered around 58.1% for risk-taking and 51.2% for avoiding falls, without statistically significant differences between the groups.
Bayesian analyses yielded the same overall pattern, reinforcing the view that younger children’s responses align with a general link between merit-based rewards and effort, while adolescents anticipate more negative behaviours under winner-takes-all conditions. Shao noted the early emergence of the core idea that merit-based rewards correspond to harder work and greater pride, even when the reward is symbolic rather than monetary.
In the exploratory questions about personal preferences, about six in ten participants in both age groups chose the winners race (62.8% of children and 63.6% of adolescents), though neither share reached statistical significance. Self-rated running speed related to race choice only among adolescents: those who viewed themselves as faster were more inclined toward the winners-based event, whereas among 7- to 9-year-olds the speed rating showed little connection to their preferred race.
The authors argue that the central takeaway is the early presence of an intuitive link between merit-based rewards and effort and pride, extending beyond monetary incentives to trophies. They offer two possible explanations for why teenagers alone predicted cheating and risk-taking: broader experience with competitive pressures and peer norms, and greater capacity for counterfactual thinking, which allows imagining scenarios beyond everyday rules.
The researchers also found it surprising that adolescents who perceived themselves as fast runners tended to favour the winners-only system, suggesting that, in adolescence, self-interest may start guiding how people view fairness and rewards. The team cautions that the study cannot determine the exact reasons behind teenagers’ shift toward self-interest and that further work is needed to unpack these motives.
The study’s authors acknowledge several limitations. Participants inferred how fictitious runners would feel and behave, rather than participating for real prizes, so the findings reflect beliefs about reward systems more than actual field behaviour. The cross-sectional design compares two age groups at one point in time, and the younger participants were interviewed in parks while the teenagers completed the survey online. Some question wording may have nudged responses, and future work could use more neutral phrasing or examine different settings such as classrooms or hybrid leagues that combine participation medals with larger trophies.
Looking ahead, the researchers emphasise the need to examine how participation-based versus performance-based rewards affect young people’s actual emotions and actions, and whether those effects align with expectations. They also stress that adults designing reward systems convey meaningful messages about what is valued, noting that whether a trophy goes to everyone or only the top performers is noticed by children and can shape how they approach rewarded activities.
The study, “Trophies for All? Children’s and Adolescents’ Reasoning About Inclusive Versus Selective Awards,” was authored by Shuai Shao and Gail D. Heyman.
