Children and Young Adults Factor Merit Into Their Judgments of Gender‐Based Science Resource Inequalities.
Saved in:
| Title: | Children and Young Adults Factor Merit Into Their Judgments of Gender‐Based Science Resource Inequalities. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Forbes, Marley B. (AUTHOR), Sims, Riley N. (AUTHOR), Killen, Melanie (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Developmental Science. Jan2026, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p1-12. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Meritocracy, Gender inequality, Young adults, Decision making in children, Science education, Age differences, Moral reasoning, Social psychology |
| Abstract: | Inequalities in access to important resources and opportunities between social groups persist throughout societies worldwide. Social psychological research has shown that adults often use meritocratic beliefs to justify the existence of such inequalities. Yet, the developmental origins of meritocratic beliefs have yet to be fully explored. This study investigated how children and young adults (N = 144; 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds, M = 5.83, SD = 0.97; 9‐ to 11‐year‐olds, M = 10.74, SD = 0.68; 18‐ to 22‐year‐olds, M = 19.92, SD = 1.10) factored information about merit into their moral judgments and reasoning about science education resource inequalities between groups of girls and boys. Confirming our hypotheses, participants overall judged inequalities that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups, regardless of which gender group was disadvantaged. Further, exploratory analyses revealed age‐related differences in judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys. Whereas all age groups judged inequalities that disadvantaged boys more negatively when boys were described as high‐merit compared to low‐merit, only older children judged inequalities that disadvantaged girls more negatively when girls were described as high‐merit compared to low‐merit. Age‐related differences also emerged for participants' reasoning about inequalities, such that older children were more likely to reason about merit, and less likely to reason about equality, compared to both younger children and young adults. These novel findings offer insights into how concerns for merit shape individuals' moral judgments of social inequalities throughout childhood and young adulthood. Summary: Overall, children and young adults judged inequalities of science resources that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups.More positive judgments of inequalities were associated with a lower likelihood of reasoning about equality and a higher likelihood of reasoning about merit.Older children were more likely to reason about merit and less likely to reason about equality compared to both younger children and young adults.Exploratory analyses showed age‐related differences in the extent to which participants factored merit into their judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Developmental Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: pbh DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection An: 190405358 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Children and Young Adults Factor Merit Into Their Judgments of Gender‐Based Science Resource Inequalities. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Forbes%2C+Marley+B%2E%22">Forbes, Marley B.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sims%2C+Riley+N%2E%22">Sims, Riley N.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Killen%2C+Melanie%22">Killen, Melanie</searchLink> (AUTHOR) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Developmental+Science%22">Developmental Science</searchLink>. Jan2026, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p1-12. 12p. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meritocracy%22">Meritocracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+inequality%22">Gender inequality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+adults%22">Young adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+making+in+children%22">Decision making in children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+education%22">Science education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+differences%22">Age differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+reasoning%22">Moral reasoning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+psychology%22">Social psychology</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Inequalities in access to important resources and opportunities between social groups persist throughout societies worldwide. Social psychological research has shown that adults often use meritocratic beliefs to justify the existence of such inequalities. Yet, the developmental origins of meritocratic beliefs have yet to be fully explored. This study investigated how children and young adults (N = 144; 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds, M = 5.83, SD = 0.97; 9‐ to 11‐year‐olds, M = 10.74, SD = 0.68; 18‐ to 22‐year‐olds, M = 19.92, SD = 1.10) factored information about merit into their moral judgments and reasoning about science education resource inequalities between groups of girls and boys. Confirming our hypotheses, participants overall judged inequalities that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups, regardless of which gender group was disadvantaged. Further, exploratory analyses revealed age‐related differences in judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys. Whereas all age groups judged inequalities that disadvantaged boys more negatively when boys were described as high‐merit compared to low‐merit, only older children judged inequalities that disadvantaged girls more negatively when girls were described as high‐merit compared to low‐merit. Age‐related differences also emerged for participants' reasoning about inequalities, such that older children were more likely to reason about merit, and less likely to reason about equality, compared to both younger children and young adults. These novel findings offer insights into how concerns for merit shape individuals' moral judgments of social inequalities throughout childhood and young adulthood. Summary: Overall, children and young adults judged inequalities of science resources that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups.More positive judgments of inequalities were associated with a lower likelihood of reasoning about equality and a higher likelihood of reasoning about merit.Older children were more likely to reason about merit and less likely to reason about equality compared to both younger children and young adults.Exploratory analyses showed age‐related differences in the extent to which participants factored merit into their judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Developmental Science is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=190405358 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/desc.70096 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 12 StartPage: 1 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Meritocracy Type: general – SubjectFull: Gender inequality Type: general – SubjectFull: Young adults Type: general – SubjectFull: Decision making in children Type: general – SubjectFull: Science education Type: general – SubjectFull: Age differences Type: general – SubjectFull: Moral reasoning Type: general – SubjectFull: Social psychology Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Children and Young Adults Factor Merit Into Their Judgments of Gender‐Based Science Resource Inequalities. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Forbes, Marley B. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sims, Riley N. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Killen, Melanie IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Text: Jan2026 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1363755X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 29 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Developmental Science Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
