Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Building representations of the social world: Children extract patterns from social choices to reason about multi‐group hierarchies
Title: Building representations of the social world: Children extract patterns from social choices to reason about multi‐group hierarchies
Abstract How do children learn about the structure of the social world? We tested whether children would extract patterns from an agent's social choices to make inferences about multiple groups’ relative social standing. In Experiment 1, 4‐ to 6‐year‐old children (N = 36; tested in Central New York) saw an agent and three groups (Group‐A,Group‐B, andGroup‐C) and observed the agent choose between pairs of individuals from different groups. Across pairwise selections, a pattern emerged: The agent chose individuals fromGroup‐A > Group‐B > Group‐C. Children tracked the agent's choices to predict thatGroup‐Awas “most‐preferred” and the “leader” and thatGroup‐Cwas “least‐preferred” and the “helper.” In Experiments 2 and 3, we examined children's reasoning about a more complex pattern involving four groups and tested a wider age range. In Experiment 2, 5‐ to 10‐year‐old children (N = 98; tested in Central New York) used the agent's pattern of pairwise choices to infer that the agent likedGroup‐A > Group‐B > Group‐C > Group‐Dand to make predictions about which groups were likely to be “leaders” and “helpers.” In Experiment 3, we found evidence for social specificity in children's reasoning: 5‐ to 10‐year‐old children (N = 96; from 26 US States) made inferences about groups’ relativesocialbut notphysicalpower from the agent's pattern of affiliative choices across the four groups. These findings showcase a mechanism through which children may learn about societal‐level hierarchies through the patterns they observe over time in people's group‐based social choices. Research HighlightsChildren in our sample extracted patterns from an agent's positive social choices between multiple groups to reason about groups’ relative social standing.Children used the pattern of an agent's positive social choices to guide their reasoning about which groups were likely to be “leaders” and “helpers” in a fictional town.The pattern that emerged in an agent's choices of friends shaped children's thinking about groups’ relativesocialbut notphysicalpower.Children tracked social choices to reason about group‐based hierarchies at the individual level (which groups an agent prefers) and societal level (which groups are privileged).  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1941648
PAR ID:
10676294
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Developmental Science
Volume:
26
Issue:
4
ISSN:
1363-755X
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; (, Developmental Science)
    Abstract Members of advantaged groups are more likely than members of disadvantaged groups to think, feel, and behave in ways that reinforce their group's position within the hierarchy. This study examined how children's status within a group‐based hierarchy shapes their beliefs about the hierarchy and the groups that comprise it in ways that reinforce the hierarchy. To do this, we randomly assigned children (4–8 years;N = 123; 75 female, 48 male; 21 Asian, 9 Black, 21 Latino/a, 1 Middle‐Eastern/North‐African, 14 multiracial, 41 White, 16 not‐specified) to novel groups that differed in social status (advantaged, disadvantaged, neutral third‐party) and assessed their beliefs about the hierarchy. Across five separate assessments, advantaged‐group children were more likely to judge the hierarchy to be fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and were more likely to hold biased intergroup attitudes and exclude disadvantaged group members. In addition, with age, children in both the advantaged‐ and disadvantaged‐groups became more likely to see membership in their own group as inherited, while at the same time expecting group‐relevant behaviors to be determined more by the environment. With age, children also judged the hierarchy to be more unfair and expected the hierarchy to generalize across contexts. These findings provide novel insights into how children's position within hierarchies can contribute to the formation of hierarchy‐reinforcing beliefs. Research HighlightsA total of 123 4–8‐year‐olds were assigned to advantaged, disadvantaged, and third‐party groups within a hierarchy and were assessed on seven hierarchy‐reinforcing beliefs about the hierarchy.Advantaged children were more likely to say the hierarchy was fair, generalizable, and wrong to challenge and to hold intergroup biases favoring advantaged group members.With age, advantaged‐ and disadvantaged‐group children held more essentialist beliefs about membership in their own group, but not the behaviors associated with their group.Results suggest that advantaged group status can shape how children perceive and respond to the hierarchies they are embedded within. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; (, Developmental Science)
    Abstract Causal reasoning is a fundamental cognitive ability that enables individuals to learn about the complex interactions in the world around them. However, the mechanisms that underpin causal reasoning are not well understood. For example, it remains unresolved whether children's causal inferences are best explained by Bayesian inference or associative learning. The two experiments and computational models reported here were designed to examine whether 5‐ and 6‐year‐olds will retrospectively reevaluate objects—that is, adjust their beliefs about the causal status of some objects presented at an earlier point in time based on the observed causal status of other objects presented at a later point in time—when asked to reason about 3 and 4 objects and under varying degrees of information processing demands. Additionally, the experiments and models were designed to determine whether children's retrospective reevaluations were best explained by associative learning, Bayesian inference, or some combination of both. The results indicated that participants retrospectively reevaluated causal inferences under minimal information‐processing demands (Experiment 1) but failed to do so under greater information processing demands (Experiment 2) and that their performance was better captured by an associative learning mechanism, with less support for descriptions that rely on Bayesian inference. Research HighlightsFive‐ and 6‐year‐old children engage in retrospective reevaluation under minimal information‐processing demands (Experiment 1).Five‐ and 6‐year‐old children do not engage in retrospective reevaluation under more extensive information‐processing demands (Experiment 2).Across both experiments, children's retrospective reevaluations were better explained by a simple associative learning model, with only minimal support for a simple Bayesian model.These data contribute to our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms by which children make causal judgements. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; (, Developmental Science)
    ABSTRACT Numerical estimation is one of the key early math skills and predicts children's long‐term math achievement. While children are born with an intuitive “number sense,” they do not form a mapping between nonverbal numerical representations and symbolic numbers until about 5 years of age. This protracted learning process is embedded in children's interactions with other people, although little is known about how children's existing social beliefs may influence how they receive numerical information from other people. Meanwhile, children in the United States develop a stereotype to associate men with being better at math at around 6 years of age. Does this gender stereotype influence how children receive numerical information from other people? Using a numerical estimation task, we showed 5‐ to 7‐year‐old children (N= 198; 93 girls; United States) competing answers from a male and a female informant before asking children to provide their own answer. We found that children's answers were biased by the male informant more than the female, even when the female was accurate. This bias was domain‐specific, as there was no difference in children's performance on a memory control task. Furthermore, repeated exposure to inaccurate answers from a male informant (in contrast to accurate answers from a female informant) induced changes in children's estimation even when the informants were no longer present. Therefore, gender stereotypes may have profound impacts on how children acquire and process numerical information. SummaryChildren form structural mappings between numerical quantities and their mental number line, which can be calibrated by numerical information from other people.Here, in two studies, we tested how informant gender influences children's estimation performance.Numerical information received from men has stronger calibration effects on children's estimation performance compared to information from women.Repeated exposure to overestimation from men has lasting impacts on children's subsequent estimation performance 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Developmental Science)
    Abstract When making inferences about the mental lives of others (e.g., others’ preferences), it is critical to consider the extent to which the choices we observe are constrained. Prior research on the development of this tendency indicates a contradictory pattern: Children show remarkable sensitivity to constraints in traditional experimental paradigms, yet often fail to consider real‐world constraints and privilege inherent causes instead. We propose that one explanation for this discrepancy may be that real‐world constraints are often stable over time and lose their salience. The present research tested whether children (N = 133, 5‐ to 12‐year‐old mostly US children; 55% female, 45% male) becomelesssensitive to an actor's constraints after first observing two constrained actors (Stable condition) versus after first observing two actors in contexts with greater choice (Not Stable condition). We crossed thestabilityof the constraint with thetypeof constraint: either the constraint was deterministic such that there was only one option available (No Other Option constraint) or, in line with many real‐world constraints, the constraint was probabilistic such that therewasanother option, but it was difficult to access (Hard to Access constraint). Results indicated that children in the Stable condition became less sensitive to the probabilistic Hard to Access constraint across trials. Notably, we also found that children's sensitivity to constraints was enhanced in the Not Stable condition regardless of whether the constraint was probabilistic or deterministic. We discuss implications for children's sensitivity to real‐world constraints. Research HighlightsThis research addresses the apparent contradiction that children are sensitive to constraints in experimental paradigms but are ofteninsensitiveto constraints in the real world.One explanation for this discrepancy is that constraints in the real world tend to be stable over time and may lose their salience.When probabilistic constraints (i.e., when a second option is available but hard to access) are stable, children become de‐sensitized to constraints across trials.First observing contexts with greater choice increases children's sensitivity to both probabilistic and deterministic constraints. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, Developmental Science)
    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 HighlightsFour 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. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Text Encoded Conversion
  • XML
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email