Abstract
This study examined how Saudi Arabian children (M = 10.50 years, SD = 1.61, Range = 8-10 years) evaluate peer exclusion based on religion when the perpetrator of exclusion was a peer or a father. Children believed that it was more acceptable for fathers than for peers to enforce exclusion and were more likely to use social conventional reasons to justify exclusion when the perpetrator was a father. The discussion focuses on how social domain theory needs to take children's cultural community into account. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Research suggests that children do not defer to authority in making decisions about peer exclusion. Children tend to believe that authority figures should not order peer exclusion because it is a moral decision. What does this study add? Unlike children in other collectivist countries, children in Saudi Arabia support peer exclusion ordered by a father more than a peer. Saudi children use social conventional reasoning to justify fathers' support for peer exclusion.