Why do children show racial biases in their resource allocation decisions?

Mandalaywala, Tara M.; Benitez, Josie; Sagar, Kaajal; Rhodes, Marjorie

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105224

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The categories Equity, Equality, Inequity, Social Class Preferences, Race Preferences, Personal Preferences, and Social Class Stereotypes were expected a priori based on prior research from the SRD perspective (e.g., Burkholder et al, 2021; Elenbaas, 2019; Elenbaas et al, 2016; McGuire et al, 2018) and closely related research in the field (e.g., Essler & Paulus, 2021; Mandalaywala et al, 2021; Mistry et al, 2015; Renno & Shutts, 2015). The coding system also originally contained a code for Race Stereotypes, but no participants referenced this category, so it was omitted.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it allowed for the inclusion of as many participants as possible in the exploratory analyses pertaining to child group memberships and acknowledged the possibility of variability across groups. For example, prior research on US children's social group preferences for Black and White peers suggests that White children's preferences (for White peers) are often stable across contexts but Black, Asian, Latinx, and multiracial‐multiethnic children's preferences often differ (e.g., Mandalaywala et al, 2021; Newheiser & Olson, 2012). As noted in the hypotheses section, all tests for potential differences by child race or ethnicity were considered exploratory for this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We posed two possible hypotheses about resource distribution and reasoning. If participants prioritized social group preferences, then those in early (3–5 years) and middle (6–8 years) childhood, but likely not older, should distribute more resources to either rich peers or White peers depending on the condition (e.g., Mandalaywala et al, 2021) and should reason about social group preferences and stereotypes related to social class or race. By contrast, if participants prioritized equity, then they should distribute more resources to poor peers and reason about fairness concerns for equity by at least middle childhood (6–8 years; e.g., Rizzo & Killen, 2016).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework: Social Reasoning Developmental Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“This kid looks like he has everything”: 3‐ to 11‐year‐old children’s concerns for fairness and social preferences when peers differ in social class and race

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated 3‐ to 11‐year‐old US children's (N = 348) perceptions of access to resources, social group preferences, and resource distribution decisions and reasoning when hypothetical peers differed in social class (poor or rich) and race (Black or White). Data were collected in 2019. The sample reflected the region where data were collected in terms of gender (44% girls, 30% boys, 1% another identity) and race and ethnicity (46% White, 10% multiracial or multiethnic, 9% Black, 5% Latinx, 2% Asian, 3% another identity), and parents reported a higher average level of education than the regional average. Results revealed both marked age differences in children's perceptions, preferences, decisions, and reasoning and specific combinations of peer group memberships that were especially likely to receive preferential treatment. With age, children perceived that rich peers had greater access to resources than poor peers, but when both peers were poor, White peers were perceived to have more resources than Black peers. Social group preferences changed with age, from mixed social class and racial group preferences, to preferences for rich peers, to dislike for rich peers. Resource allocation decisions and reasoning reflected both social group and fairness concerns: young children distributed more to White peers especially if they were also rich, participants in middle childhood explicitly favored rich peers regardless of their race, and older children distributed more to poor peers and reasoned about either moral concerns for equity or social class stereotypes. Thus, overall, younger children's responses often reflected broader economic and racial inequalities while older children often sought to create more equity, though not always for moral reasons.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Framework: Social Reasoning Developmental Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“This kid looks like he has everything”: 3‐ to 11‐year‐old children’s concerns for fairness and social preferences when peers differ in social class and race

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One possible explanation for this developmental pattern may be that younger children intentionally chose the character without choice for reciprocation purposes. Prior work has found that younger children (as young as 4 years) are more likely to allocate resources to a rich recipient than a poor recipient, but only when the rich recipient stated intentions to reciprocate, whereas older children distributed more equally (Kenward et al., 2015; Mandalaywala et al., 2021). Although both the characters in our study had the same number of resources, it may be that younger children associated the character without choice as having a 100% chance of reciprocating whereas the character with choice had alternative options and therefore a lower chance of reciprocating, despite having already shared previously.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being nice by choice: The effect of counterfactual reasoning on children's social evaluations

Wong

Cordes

Harris

et al. 2023

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 what else 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 generated selfish 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.

show abstract

“…However, prior work suggests children view intergroup exclusion as legitimate when decisions to include one group necessarily coincide with a decision to exclude another group (e.g., Burkholder et al, 2021). To create this scenario, we used a zero-sum game design similar to the Dictator game (e.g., Blake & Rand, 2010; Camerer, 2003; Mandalaywala, 2021), wherein participants were asked to choose between one of two presented peers to include in a given scenario (such as whom to invite to lunch). Similarly, participants here were presented with an odd number of stickers and instructed to allocate them between two peers (one high-SES, one low-SES).…”

Section: Children’s Perceptions Of Social Classmentioning

confidence: 99%

The rich get richer? Children’s reasoning about socioeconomic status predicts inclusion and resource bias.

Straka,

Albuja,

Leer

et al. 2024

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children’s socioeconomic status (SES) is linked to disparate access to resources and affects social behaviors such as inclusion and resource allocations. Yet it is unclear whether children’s essentialized view of SES (i.e., believing SES is immutable) or subjective social status (SSS) influences behavioral biases toward high- versus low-SES peers. We measured 4- to 9-year-old children’s SES essentialism and SSS to test whether these predict inclusion and resource allocations to high- versus low-SES peers (N = 127; from a midsize city in the Southeastern United States; 49.6% female; parent-reported 54.2% White, 2.8% Black, 8.3% Latine, 5.6% Asian, 1.4% another race, 27.8% multiracial, 43.3% not provided). We also compared children’s SES beliefs to their parent’s. Children’s SES essentialism and SSS decreased across the ages tested, and children reported higher SSS than their parents. Parents’ SES essentialism predicted younger (but not older) children’s SES essentialism. Moreover, SES essentialism mediated the negative relationship between age and preference for including high-SES peers, while SSS mediated the negative relationship between age and preference for allocating more resources to high-SES peers. This suggests that beliefs about the nature of SES may influence sociorelational behavior like including or excluding others, while perceived social status (SSS) may influence resource allocations. Furthermore, older children and those with lower SES essentialism included low- versus high-SES peers more often while older and lower SSS children distributed more resources toward low- versus high-SES peers. Thus, children’s SES essentialism and SSS may also influence their behaviors to either perpetuate or rectify inequality.

show abstract

Why do children show racial biases in their resource allocation decisions?

Cited by 12 publications

References 50 publications

“This kid looks like he has everything”: 3‐ to 11‐year‐old children’s concerns for fairness and social preferences when peers differ in social class and race

“This kid looks like he has everything”: 3‐ to 11‐year‐old children’s concerns for fairness and social preferences when peers differ in social class and race

Being nice by choice: The effect of counterfactual reasoning on children's social evaluations

The rich get richer? Children’s reasoning about socioeconomic status predicts inclusion and resource bias.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About