Rock-Paper-Scissors & Fair-Choice Tools

A handful of simple, child-runnable arbitration procedures — Rock-Paper-Scissors, coin flip, drawing straws, “Eeny-Meeny,” “One-Finger-Two-Finger” — for the hundred tiny daily decisions where adult mediation is overkill (who goes first, who picks the colour, who sits by the window). Teaching the tools, plural is key — children need a small menu so the procedure feels chosen rather than imposed.

  1. Teach the moves during a calm, silly session. Show Rock-Paper-Scissors with exaggerated motions. Practise ten rounds in a row just for fun. Add coin-flip. Show “One-Finger-Two-Finger” (both throw a number 1–5; even sum / odd sum decides). Make it a game, not a tool yet.
  2. Make a small “fair-choice menu” card. Four pictures: rock-paper-scissors fist, coin, two-finger hand, drawing straws. Stick it on the wall near where disputes happen. Five-year-olds choose better when the options are visible.
  3. The Big Rule: the loser doesn’t whine, the winner doesn’t gloat. Practise this in the silly session. “If I win, what do you do? Big sigh, no whine. If you win, what do I do? No gloating.” The procedure is only fair if both sides honour it.
  4. Deploy at first low-stakes friction. “Both of you want to push the lift button? Use the menu.” Step back. Do not adjudicate the outcome.
  5. Praise the elegant loss. “You wanted to win and you didn’t, and you just said okay — that is brave.” The recovery is the skill, not the win.
  6. Reserve adult mediation for medium-and-up conflicts. Rock-Paper-Scissors is for who-goes- first disputes; it is not for “she said I’m not her friend any more.” Knowing when the tool fits is part of what you’re teaching.

Variation: the Chooser-Picker rule — the chooser names the option, the picker picks first (“I’m cutting the cake into two pieces — you pick which one”); fair division procedure. Spin a bottle for who-goes-first. Dice (highest number wins). Hidden hand (parent hides something in one hand, child guesses).

Requirements

  • Space: Anywhere — the procedure is just hands
  • Surface: Any
  • Materials: Optional fair-choice menu card (4 pictures); a coin or small die; a set of differently-coloured drinking straws cut to different lengths
  • Participants: 2 children minimum; sibling pairs, friends, family group
  • Supervision: Light — adult teaches, then withdraws; intervenes only if the procedure breaks down

Rationale & Objective

At 5, children understand procedural fairness before they understand abstract fairness — they accept a coin flip more readily than a parental verdict because the coin has no stake in the outcome (Damon, 1977; Smetana, 2006 on early moral judgement). Reggio Emilia’s “negotiated curriculum” tradition (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 2012) explicitly trusts children to use simple fairness procedures to settle low-stakes conflicts; HighScope’s six-step problem-solving sequence (Evans, 2002) names “asking for solutions” and accepting a child-generated procedure as core competencies. Vygotsky’s framework on social tools as cognitive scaffolds applies: Rock-Paper-Scissors is a culturally- inherited mini-algorithm that off-loads the cognitive work of “deciding fairly” from the prefrontal cortex onto a shared procedure. Removing adult arbitration from low- stakes disputes is also documented to build child competence and reduce sibling tattling-rate (Faber & Mazlish, Siblings Without Rivalry, 1987/2012). Honest caveat: Rock-Paper-Scissors only resolves who decides — it doesn’t teach the underlying perspective-taking or compromise skills; pair it with the Trade-You Negotiation Game and the Peace Rose Ritual for those.

Progress Indicators

  • Early: doesn’t know the procedures; insists on adult mediation for everything; refuses to accept any outcome that’s not their preferred one
  • Developing: plays Rock-Paper-Scissors as a game; accepts the outcome with prompting but with visible disappointment; sometimes “redoes” the round to win
  • Proficient: chooses a fair-choice tool from the menu themselves; accepts the outcome with elastic disappointment (sigh, move on); proposes the tool to peers (“Let’s RPS for it”)
  • Advanced: uses fair-choice tools to settle conflicts with peers across multiple settings; helps younger children learn the procedures; distinguishes when a fair-choice tool fits vs when negotiation is needed

Safety Notes

  • Do not use the tool to settle conflicts where one child has been hurt or has a legitimate grievance — that’s not a coin-flip moment; pretending it is teaches that grievances don’t count
  • Avoid using the tool for medium-and-up emotional conflicts (“she said I can’t play”) — Rock-Paper-Scissors trivialises what needs to be talked through
  • Watch for cheating (the slow-throw, the swap-after); if it shows up, narrate it kindly (“You changed your throw — let’s do that one again”) rather than punish; cheating is a developmental signal, not a moral failing at 5
  • Skip drawing-straws if the straws are short enough to be a choking hazard for a younger sibling; use a cup with marked sticks instead
  • Do not stack the procedures (“best of three! no, best of five!”) until the loser “wins” — that breaks the principle
  • Watch for the “unfair fair” — when one child uses RPS to manipulate (insisting on it only when they’re confident of the outcome); rotate the tools to balance

Hints

  • Playfulness: invent new RPS variants (Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock from The Big Bang Theory is a child favourite once they’re 6+); call the rituals by silly names (“the Decider,” “Magic Hand”); add a victory chant that’s always the same so winning is ritualised, not gloated
  • Sustain interest: rotate which tool is in play this week; add a new one each month (drawing straws, spin-the-bottle, dice); for older friends, “Roshambo” tournaments with brackets keep the game fresh
  • Common mistake: using RPS for emotional conflicts (trivialises the upset); letting the loser re-do until they win (the rule fails); the parent settling “who really won” (don’t — accept the children’s call); using the tool when one child clearly has the better claim (a child whose item was just snatched doesn’t RPS to get it back)
  • Limited space: all the tools are pocket-sized; the “odds-or-evens” version (both children show 0–5 fingers; if sum is odd, child A wins) works silently in a queue or a quiet space
  • Cross-domain: count fingers and outcomes (numeracy); learn the rules-of-the-game concept (executive function and rule-following); pair with the loser saying “good game” (relationship skills); narrate the probability (“there are only three things you can throw, so each has a one-in-three chance”) for early statistical thinking
  • Progression: parent runs the procedure → child plays Rock-Paper-Scissors as a game → child accepts loss with prompting → child uses tool independently → child suggests the tool to a peer → child distinguishes when the tool fits vs when negotiation is needed

Sources

  • Damon, W. (1977). The Social World of the Child. Jossey-Bass — early procedural fairness
  • Smetana, J. G. (2006). “Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments.” In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of Moral Development. Lawrence Erlbaum
  • Edwards, C., Gandini, L. & Forman, G. (Eds.) (2012). The Hundred Languages of Children (3rd ed.). Praeger
  • Evans, B. (2002). You Can’t Come to My Birthday Party! Conflict Resolution with Young Children. HighScope Press — HighScope six-step problem-solving
  • Faber, A. & Mazlish, E. (1987/2012). Siblings Without Rivalry. W. W. Norton — child-owned conflict procedures
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press
  • Brownell, C. A. & Carriger, M. S. (1990). “Changes in cooperation and self-other differentiation during the second year.” Child Development, 61(4), 1164–1174
  • Killen, M. & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of Moral Development (2nd ed.). Psychology Press
  • Head Start ELOF — Social and Emotional Development (P-SE 9: cooperative behaviour); Approaches to Learning (P-ATL 11: solving social problems)
  • CASEL — Relationship Skills (conflict resolution); Responsible Decision-Making (evaluating choices)
  • HighScope Educational Research Foundation — “Steps in Resolving Conflicts” practitioner resources