An official website of the United States government
Abstract Little is known about how children and adolescents evaluate unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties based on ethnicity‐race and gender in the classroom. U.S. boys and girls, White (40.7%), Multiracial (18.5%), Black/African American (16.0%), Latine (14.2%), Asian (5.5%), Pacific Islander (0.4%), and other (4.7%) ethnic‐racial backgrounds, 8–14 years,N = 275, evaluated teacher allocations of high‐status leadership positions favoring specific ethnic‐racial or gender groups during 2018–2021. Adolescents, more than children, negatively evaluated unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties that resulted in group‐based inequalities, expected peers who shared the identity of a group disadvantaged by the teacher's allocation to view it more negatively than others, and rectified inequalities. Understanding perceptions of teacher‐based bias provides an opportunity for interventions designed to create fair and just classrooms that motivate all students to achieve.
more »
« less
Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
Abstract In response to some resource inequalities, children give priority to moral concerns. Yet, in others, children show ingroup preferences in their evaluations and resource allocations. The present study built upon this knowledge by investigating children's and young adults’ (N = 144; 5–6‐year‐olds,Mage = 5.83,SDage= .97; 9–11‐year‐olds,Mage = 10.74,SDage= .68; and young adults,Mage = 19.92,SDage = 1.10) evaluations and allocation decisions in a science inequality context. Participants viewed vignettes in which male and female groups received unequal amounts of science supplies, then evaluated the acceptability of the resource inequalities, allocated new boxes of science supplies between the groups, and provided justifications for their choices. Results revealed both children and young adults evaluated inequalities of science resources less negatively when girls were disadvantaged than when boys were disadvantaged. Further, 5‐ to 6‐year‐old participants and male participants rectified science resource inequalities to a greater extent when the inequality disadvantaged boys compared to when it disadvantaged girls. Generally, participants who used moral reasoning to justify their responses negatively evaluated and rectified the resource inequalities, whereas participants who used group‐focused reasoning positively evaluated and perpetuated the inequalities, though some age and participant gender findings emerged. Together, these findings reveal subtle gender biases that may contribute to perpetuating gender‐based science inequalities both in childhood and adulthood.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1728918
- PAR ID:
- 10391729
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Social Development
- Volume:
- 32
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 0961-205X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 387-407
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Little is known about how children and adolescents evaluate unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties based on ethnicity-race and gender in the classroom. U.S. boys and girls, White (40.7%), Multiracial (18.5%), Black/African American (16.0%), Latine (14.2%), Asian (5.5%), Pacific Islander (0.4%), and other (4.7%) ethnic-racial backgrounds, 8 - 14 years, N = 275, evaluated teacher allocations of high-status leadership positions favoring specific ethnic-racial or gender groups during 2018 - 2021. Adolescents, more than children, negatively evaluated unequal teacher allocations of leadership duties that resulted in group-based inequalities, expected peers who shared the identity of a group disadvantaged by the teacher’s allocation to view it more negatively than others, and rectified inequalities. Understanding perceptions of teacher-based bias provides an opportunity for interventions designed to create fair and just classrooms that motivate all students to achieve.more » « less
-
Abstract This study examined how children’s moral reasoning in response to intergroup exclusion scenarios relates to inclusive attitudes and behaviors. A sample of 528 students (Mage= 9.19,SD = 0.90; 264 girls) in third through fifth grade participated in theDeveloping Inclusive Youth(DIY) program, which provided structured opportunities for moral reasoning through varied intergroup scenarios and peer discussions. Results showed that more frequent use of moral reasoning predicted greater inclusivity across multiple measures. Children who engaged in higher levels of moral reasoning demonstrated more negative evaluations of exclusion, greater empathy toward peers from multiple racial groups, and a stronger desire to play with those peers. However, moral reasoning was not significantly associated with expectations for inclusion or with attitudes toward boys or girls. No significant interactions emerged between moral reasoning and participant demographics (race, gender, grade), suggesting broadly applicable effects. These findings highlight moral reasoning as a key mechanism for promoting inclusive orientations in childhood, particularly in contexts involving racial diversity. Future research should explore how moral reasoning interacts with other factors, such as empathy, perspective-taking, and group norms, to support inclusivity across social contexts.more » « less
-
Abstract Although children exhibit curiosity regarding science, questions remain regarding how children evaluate others' curiosity and whether evaluations differ across domains that prioritize faith (e.g., religion) versus those that value questioning (e.g., science). In Study 1 (n = 115 5‐ to 8‐year‐olds; 49% female; 66% White), children evaluated actors who were curious, ignorant and non‐curious, or knowledgeable about religion or science; curiosity elicited relatively favorable moral evaluations (ds > .40). Study 2 (n = 62 7‐ to 8‐year‐olds; 48% female; 63% White) found that these evaluations generalized to behaviors, as children acted more pro‐socially and less punitively toward curious, versus not curious, individuals ( = .37). These findings (data collected 2020–2022) demonstrate children's positive moral evaluations of curiosity and contribute to debates regarding overlap between scientific and religious cognition.more » « less
-
Abstract Gender stereotypes are harmful for girls’ enrollment and performance in science and mathematics. So far, less is known about children’s and adolescents’ stereotypes regarding technology and engineering. In the current study, participants’ (N = 1,206, girlsn = 623; 5–17-years-old,M = 8.63,SD = 2.81) gender stereotypes for each of the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) domains were assessed along with the relation between these stereotypes and a peer selection task in a STEM context. Participants reported beliefs that boys are usually more skilled than are girls in the domains of engineering and technology; however, participants did not report gender differences in ability/performance in science and mathematics. Responses to the stereotype measures in favor of one’s in-group were greater for younger participants than older participants for both boys and girls. Perceptions that boys are usually better than girls at science were related to a greater likelihood of selecting a boy for help with a science question. These findings document the importance of domain specificity, even within STEM, in attempts to measure and challenge gender stereotypes in childhood and adolescence.more » « less
