ArticleCommunications psychology2024
Egalitarian preferences in young children depend on the genders of the interacting partners.
Article in Communications psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Decision-Makers We Become: Early Education and The Decision-Making of Boys and Girls.Journal of development economics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In decisions between equal and unequal resource distributions, women are often believed to be more prosocial than men. Previous research showed that fairness attitudes develop in childhood, but their-possibly gendered, developmental trajectory remains unclear. We hypothesised that gender-related fairness attitudes might depend not only on the gender of the Allocator, but also on that of the Recipient. To examine this, we tested 332 three to 8-year-old children in a paired resource allocation task, with both boys and girls acting as Allocators and Recipients. We indeed found gender-related effects: girls more than boys aimed to reduce advantageous inequity, and Allocators of both genders were more averse against male Recipients being better off. Notably, older girls exhibited an envy bias, i.e., they tolerated disadvantageous inequity more when the resource allocation was in favour of other girls than when it favoured boys. We also observed a gender-related spite gap in boys aged 7-8: unlike girls, boys treated other boys with spite, i.e., they valued unfair distributions in their own favour over equal outcomes, especially if rejecting advantageous inequity was costly. This pattern hints at contextualised gender-related fairness preferences that evolve with age that could depend on same- and cross-gender past interaction experiences.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.