1 / 26

Article Review

Article Review. Blake & McAuliffe (2011). Introduction (Group 1). Q) What does this experiment aim to investigate?. Introduction. Q) What does this experiment aim to investigate? A) Children’s development of aversion to inequity -both forms: -Disadvantageous and Advantageous.

rendor
Télécharger la présentation

Article Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Article Review Blake & McAuliffe (2011)

  2. Introduction (Group 1) Q) What does this experiment aim to investigate?

  3. Introduction Q) What does this experiment aim to investigate? A) Children’s development of aversion to inequity -both forms: -Disadvantageous and Advantageous

  4. Introduction (Group 1) Q) What is new about this experiment’s design, that is not found in past studies?

  5. Introduction Q) What is new about this experiment’s design, that is not found in past studies? A) A novel game: -The experimenter divides goods (not the child) -rejections won’t be used as punishment - First to see if they will pay a cost to avoid inequity - First to measure reaction time

  6. Introduction (Group 1) Q) What predictions were made about participants’ responses to disadvantageous inequity (DI) and advantageous inequity (AI)?

  7. Introduction Q) What predictions were made about participants’ responses to disadvantageous inequity (DI) and advantageous inequity (AI)? A) Predictions: i) Children would reject DI ii) The majority would accept AI

  8. Method (Group 2) Q) What ages were the participants, and were they familiar to one another?

  9. Method Q) What ages were the participants, and were they familiar to one another? A) Participants were: -Aged 4-8 -Unfamiliar

  10. Method (Group 2) Q) Describe the experience of a participant who plays the role of “decider” during the procedure a) if they were in the DI condition, and then b) if they were in the AI condition Include a description of how the apparatus works.

  11. Method Q) Describe the experience of a participant who plays the role of “decider” during the procedure A) For DI: They receive 1 candy, other receives 4 For AI: They receive 4, other receives 1 Each child has a platform where the experimenter places candies. They can pull a green handle to accept (candy goes in each child’s bowl), or a red handle to reject (candy to middle-no one gets it)

  12. Method (Group 2) Q) How was reaction time measured?

  13. Method Q) How was reaction time measured? A) A stick was placed across platforms at beginning of each trial -told not to pull a handle until stick is lifted -seconds between experimenter lifting the stick and the child pulling a handle are timed

  14. Results (Group 3) Q) How did age relate to rejections of DI trials? i.e., when the decider had 1 candy, and the other child had 4, did the decider’s age influence whether or not that was rejected?

  15. Results Q) How did age relate to rejections of DI trials? A) Rejection of DI trials increased with age. -less likely to accept a 1-4 offer as they get older

  16. Results (Group 3) Q) How did age relate to rejections of AI trials?

  17. Results Q) How did age relate to rejections of AI trials? A) Younger children (4-7) rarely rejected AI -just as likely to accept 4-1, as to accept 1-1 Older children (8 yrs) were much more likely to reject AI -more likely to accept 1-1, than to accept 4-1

  18. Results (Group 4) Q) What major difference was noted between 8-yr-olds and younger children, when considering aversion to inequity?

  19. Results Q) What major difference was noted between 8-yr-olds and younger children, when considering aversion to inequity? A) Younger: only averse to inequity when it wasn’t in their favor (if they had 1, and other had 4) 8-yr-olds: averse to both forms of inequity (doesn’t matter if they are favored or not)

  20. Results (Group 4) Q) Regarding reaction time, do 8-yr-olds and younger children differ, when deciding to accept or reject inequity?

  21. Results Q) Regarding reaction time, do 8-yr-olds and younger children differ, when deciding to accept or reject inequity? A) -8-yr-olds showed more hesitation when making a decision in AI trials -regardless of whether they rejected or accepted -Younger children quickly accepted AI -if they did reject, they took more time to decide -can speculate that rejecting AI is harder for them to do

  22. Discussion (Group 5) Q) What 3 contributions does this experiment add to the literature in this field?

  23. Discussion Q) What 3 contributions does this experiment add to the literature in this field? A) i) First evidence that children, paired with an unfamiliar peer, will sacrifice reward to maintain equity ii) Shows 2 different trends in development of equity preference: a) rejecting DI increases with age, but b) rejecting AI has sudden onset at age 8 iii) First measure of reaction time when making these decisions

  24. Discussion (Group 5) Q) According to the authors, is our aversion to inequity based on biological mechanisms, social mechanisms, or both?

  25. Discussion Q) According to the authors, is our aversion to inequity based on biological mechanisms, social mechanisms, or both? A) Both -We likely reject DI based on evolutionary reasons -What favors our competitors threatens us -We likely reject AI based on social reasons -social norms (what we’ve been taught) -Concern about reputation -Concern about treating others fairly so they treat us fairly

  26. Individual Exercise: Answer the provided questions on your own. -either on the sheet, or on loose-leaf -Submit before you leave Do not share your work

More Related