Distinct Inhibitory-Control Processes Underlie Children's Judgments of Fairness.

We examined how 5- to 8-year-olds (N = 51; Mage = 83 months; 27 female, 24 male; 69% White, 12% Black/African American, 8% Asian/Asian American, 6% Hispanic, 6% not reported) and adults (N = 18; Mage = 20.13 years; 11 female, 7 male) accepted or rejected different distributions of resources between themselves and others. We used a reach-tracking method to track finger movement in 3D space over time. This allowed us to dissociate two inhibitory processes. One involved pausing motor responses to detect conflict between observed information and how participants thought resources should be divided; the other involved resolving the conflict between the response and the alternative. Reasoning about disadvantageous inequities involved more of the first system, and this was stable across development. Reasoning about advantageous inequities involved more of the second system and showed more of a developmental progression. Generally, reach tracking offers an on-line measure of inhibitory control for the study of cognition.

Don't throw the associative baby out with the Bayesian bathwater: Children are more associative when reasoning retrospectively under information processing demands.

Causal reasoning is a fundamental cognitive ability that enables individuals to learn about the complex interactions in the world around them. However, the mechanisms that underpin causal reasoning are not well understood. For example, it remains unresolved whether children's causal inferences are best explained by Bayesian inference or associative learning. The two experiments and computational models reported here were designed to examine whether 5- and 6-year-olds will retrospectively reevaluate objects-that is, adjust their beliefs about the causal status of some objects presented at an earlier point in time based on the observed causal status of other objects presented at a later point in time-when asked to reason about 3 and 4 objects and under varying degrees of information processing demands. Additionally, the experiments and models were designed to determine whether children's retrospective reevaluations were best explained by associative learning, Bayesian inference, or some combination of both. The results indicated that participants retrospectively reevaluated causal inferences under minimal information-processing demands (Experiment 1) but failed to do so under greater information processing demands (Experiment 2) and that their performance was better captured by an associative learning mechanism, with less support for descriptions that rely on Bayesian inference. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Five- and 6-year-old children engage in retrospective reevaluation under minimal information-processing demands (Experiment 1). Five- and 6-year-old children do not engage in retrospective reevaluation under more extensive information-processing demands (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, children's retrospective reevaluations were better explained by a simple associative learning model, with only minimal support for a simple Bayesian model. These data contribute to our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms by which children make causal judgements.

Rectifying inequities in resource collection in young children.

Numerous studies have documented children's understanding of fairness through their ability to rectify inequities when distributing resources to others. Understanding fairness, however, involves more than just applying norms of equity when distributing resources. Children must also navigate situations in which resources are collected from them for a common good. The developmental origins and the trajectory of equitable resource collection are understudied in the literature on children's prosocial behavior. Experiment 1 presented 4- to 8-year-olds (N = 130) with characters who started with different amounts of resources that were available for both personal use and a group project in school. Participants were asked how a teacher should fairly collect resources from the two characters, contrasting the teacher taking the same amount of resources from each individual (preserving the inequity) or leaving each individual with the same amount of resources (rectifying the inequity). Four- and 5-year-olds responded randomly; 6- to 8-year-olds preferred to rectify the inequity. Experiment 2 reproduced this finding on a new group of 5- to 7-year-olds (N = 69), eliciting justifications for their choice. Justifications in terms of fairness related to equitable choices. Experiment 3 reproduced this finding again in a new group of 5- to 7-year-olds (N = 77), contrasting children's preference for equitable resource collection with that of resource distribution. Children were more likely to rectify an inequity when collecting resources than when distributing resources to individuals who started with an inequity. This difference was driven more by the younger children in the sample. We discuss potential mechanisms for these findings in terms of children's developing concepts of fairness. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Across three experiments, children developed preferences for equitable collection of resources by age 6. Preferences for equitable resource collection were more likely to be justified by appealing to concepts of fairness. Although preferences for equitable resource collection emerged slightly before equitable resource distribution, these data suggest children develop a unified mechanism for prosocial resource allocation.

Spaces of hope? Youth perspectives on health and wellness in indigenous communities.

This article addresses an apparent paradox between academic and policy depictions of American Indian reservations as "broken" and "unhealthy" places, and Indigenous youth perceptions of reservations as spaces of "health" and "wellness." Public health literature often frames reservations as damaged, health-denying places, chronicling the extraordinarily high rates of suicide, substance abuse, as well as vast health disparities. Despite these dire statistics, our research with Native youth in San Diego County found that young people chose to primarily emphasize their positive experiences with, and attachments to, their reservations. In this article, we share strength- and desire-based narratives to explore how reservations can serve as spaces of wellness for Indigenous youth, despite ongoing settler colonial harm. We seek to expand the discussion on the unintended consequences of deficit-centered scholarship by arguing that health research should also engage with the narratives of hope and desire that are reflective of the way many Native youth feel about their communities. In this article, we urge scholars and practitioners to rethink how we conduct health research to include methodologies that listen to the narratives and experiences of those who, day in and day out, navigate settler colonial landscapes, while continuing to create spaces of hope and healing.