Children’s reasoning about unequal gender‐based distributions

Korean and American adolescents' judgments of group-based inequalities

The current study examined how adolescents from different cultural backgrounds perceive and reason about group-based inequalities. Korean (N = 84, 42 females) and American (N = 72, 36 females) adolescents, aged 12 to 17, evaluated resource distribution inequalities in school contexts among social groups differentiated by social class, race, and gender. Across both cultures, nearly all adolescents found race and gender inequalities unacceptable based on moral concerns for equality. However, judgments about inequalities based on social class were more complex; adolescents evaluated these inequalities as less wrong and coordinated equality concerns with other considerations. They further distinguished between two types of social class situations that varied in the level of inequality, judging group-level social class inequality as more unacceptable than individual-level inequality. Cultural variations were evident in the justifications for their evaluations: American adolescents coordinated moral concerns of equality and welfare with personal and conventional reasons, while Korean adolescents also considered moral concerns of merit and property rights. Different interpretations of situational contexts led to varying prioritizations of moral concerns across the two cultures.

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, 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.