Cargando…

Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sims, Riley N., Burkholder, Amanda R., Killen, Melanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37065540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12629
_version_ 1785022399790448640
author Sims, Riley N.
Burkholder, Amanda R.
Killen, Melanie
author_facet Sims, Riley N.
Burkholder, Amanda R.
Killen, Melanie
author_sort Sims, Riley N.
collection PubMed
description 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, M (age) = 5.83, SD (age) = .97; 9–11‐year‐olds, M (age) = 10.74, SD (age) = .68; and young adults, M (age) = 19.92, SD (age) = 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10087661
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100876612023-04-12 Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged Sims, Riley N. Burkholder, Amanda R. Killen, Melanie Soc Dev Original Articles 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, M (age) = 5.83, SD (age) = .97; 9–11‐year‐olds, M (age) = 10.74, SD (age) = .68; and young adults, M (age) = 19.92, SD (age) = 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-08 2023-02 /pmc/articles/PMC10087661/ /pubmed/37065540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12629 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Social Development published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Sims, Riley N.
Burkholder, Amanda R.
Killen, Melanie
Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
title Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
title_full Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
title_fullStr Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
title_full_unstemmed Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
title_short Science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
title_sort science resource inequalities viewed as less wrong when girls are disadvantaged
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087661/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37065540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12629
work_keys_str_mv AT simsrileyn scienceresourceinequalitiesviewedaslesswrongwhengirlsaredisadvantaged
AT burkholderamandar scienceresourceinequalitiesviewedaslesswrongwhengirlsaredisadvantaged
AT killenmelanie scienceresourceinequalitiesviewedaslesswrongwhengirlsaredisadvantaged