The fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are rife with inequalities and under‐representation that have their roots in childhood. While researchers have focused on gender and race/ethnicity as two key dimensions of inequality, less attention has been paid to wealth. To this end, and drawing from the Social Reasoning Development approach, we examined children's and adolescents’ perceptions of STEM ability and access to opportunities as a function of wealth, as well as their desire to rectify such inequalities. Participants (
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’ (
- Award ID(s):
- 1728918
- NSF-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
-
more » « less
Abstract n = 234: early childhood,n = 70, mean age = 6.33, SD = .79; middle childhood,n = 92, mean age = 8.90, SD = .83 and early adolescence,n = 62, mean age = 12.00; SD = 1.16) in the U.K. (64% White British) and U.S. (40% White/European American) read about two characters, one high‐wealth and one low‐wealth. In early childhood, participants reported that the high‐wealth character would have greater STEM ability and were just as likely to invite either character to take part in a STEM opportunity. By middle childhood, participants were more likely to report equal STEM abilities for both characters and to seek to rectify inequalities by inviting the low‐wealth character to take part in a STEM opportunity. However, older participants reported that peers would still prefer to invite the high‐wealth character. These findings also varied by ethnic group status, with minority status participants rectifying inequalities at a younger age than majority status participants. Together these findings document that children are aware of STEM inequalities based on wealth and, with age, will increasingly seek to rectify these inequalities. -
more » « less
Abstract The ability to engage in counterfactual thinking (reason about what else
could have happened) is critical to learning, agency, and social evaluation. However, not much is known about how individual differences in counterfactual reasoning may play a role in children's social evaluations. In the current study, we investigate how prompting children to engage in counterfactual thinking about positive moral actions impacts children's social evaluations. Eighty‐seven 4‐8‐year‐olds were introduced to a character who engaged in a positive moral action (shared a sticker with a friend) and asked about whatelse the character could have done with the sticker (counterfactual simulation). Children were asked to generate either a high number of counterfactuals (five alternative actions) or a low number of counterfactuals (one alternative action). Children were then asked a series of social evaluation questions contrasting that character with one who did not have a choice and had no alternatives (was told to give away the sticker to his friend). Results show that children who generatedselfish counterfactuals were more likely to positively evaluate the character with choice than children who did not generate selfish counterfactuals, suggesting that generating counterfactuals most distant from the chosen action (prosociality) leads children to view prosocial actions more positively. We also found age‐related changes: as children got older, regardless of the type of counterfactuals generated, they were more likely to evaluate the character with choice more positively. These results highlight the importance of counterfactual reasoning in the development of moral evaluations.Research Highlights Older children were more likely to endorse agents who
choose to share over those who do not have a choice.Children who were prompted to generate more counterfactuals were more likely to allocate resources to characters with choice.
Children who generated selfish counterfactuals more positively evaluated agents with choice.
Comparable to theories suggesting children punish willful transgressors more than accidental transgressors, we propose children also consider free will when making positive moral evaluations.
-
more » « less
Abstract Investigating how children think about leadership may inform theories of the gender gaps in leadership among adults. In three studies (
N = 492 U.S. children ages 5–10 years), we investigated (1) whether children expect those who claim leadership roles within a peer group to elicit social support and cooperation from the group, (2) children’s own interest and self-efficacy in such roles, and (3) the influence of contextual cues (e.g., how leader roles are described) on children’s reasoning about and interest in leadership. We also explored differences based on children’s race/ethnicity. In Study 1, girls expected lower social support for child leaders than boys did. However, in Study 2, we found no evidence that girls are less interested in leadership. In addition, interest in leadership increased with age among White girls but decreased among White boys and girls and boys of color. In Study 3, we tested whether interest in a leader role is boosted (particularly among girls) by describing the role as helpful for the group and by providing gender-balanced peer role models. Regardless of gender, children in the helpful or “communal” (vs. “agentic”) leader condition were more interested in the leader role, anticipated stronger social support and cooperation from others, and reported higher self-efficacy as leaders. The gender composition of role models had little impact. This research underscores the early development of children’s attitudes toward leadership and highlights the potential value in early interventions to nurture children’s leadership ambitions. -
more » « less
Abstract Wealth‐based disparities in health care wherein the poor receive undertreatment in painful conditions are a prominent issue that requires immediate attention. Research with adults suggests that these disparities are partly rooted in stereotypes associating poor individuals with pain insensitivity. However, whether and how children consider a sufferer's wealth status in their pain perceptions remains unknown. The present work addressed this question by testing 4‐ to 9‐year‐olds from the US and China. In Study 1 (
N = 108, 56 girls, 79% White), US participants saw rich and poor White children experiencing identical injuries and indicated who they thought felt more pain. Although 4‐ to 6‐year‐olds responded at chance, children aged seven and above attributed more pain to the poor than to the rich. Study 2 with a new sample of US children (N = 111, 56 girls, 69% White) extended this effect to judgments of White adults’ pain. Pain judgments also informed children's prosocial behaviors, leading them to provide medical resources to the poor. Studies 3 (N = 118, 59 girls, 100% Asian) and 4 (N = 80, 40 girls, 100% Asian) found that, when evaluating White and Asian people's suffering, Chinese children began to attribute more pain to the poor than to the rich earlier than US children. Thus, unlike US adults, US children and Chinese children recognize the poor's pain from early on. These findings add to our knowledge of group‐based beliefs about pain sensitivity and have broad implications on ways to promote equitable health care.Research Highlights Four studies examined whether 4‐ to 9‐year‐old children's pain perceptions were influenced by sufferers’ wealth status.
US children attributed more pain to White individuals of low wealth status than those of high wealth status by age seven.
Chinese children demonstrated an earlier tendency to attribute more pain to the poor (versus the rich) compared to US children.
Children's wealth‐based pain judgments underlied their tendency to provide healthcare resources to people of low wealth status.
-
null (Ed.)Moral reasoning is an essential part of how humans develop and a fundamental aspect of how human societies change over time. On a developmental timescale, reasoning about interpersonal disagreements and dilemmas spurs age-related changes in moral judgments from childhood to adulthood. When asked to distribute resources among others, even young children strive to balance competing concerns with equality, merit, and need. Over the course of development, reasoning and judgments about resource distribution and other moral issues become increasingly sophisticated. From childhood to adulthood, individuals not only evaluate acts as right or wrong but also take the extra steps to rectify inequalities, protest unfair norms, and resist stereotypic expectations about others. The development of moral reasoning also enables change on a societal timescale. Across centuries and communities, ordinary individuals have called for societal change based on moral concerns with welfare, rights, fairness, and justice. Individuals have effectively employed reasoning to identify and challenge injustices. In this article, we synthesize recent insights from developmental science about the roles of moral reasoning in developmental and societal change. In the concluding section, we turn to questions for future research on moral reasoning and change.more » « less
