谁的帮助最大?消极事件背景下儿童对知识渊博者和富有者的评价

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Kimberly E. Marble , Janet J. Boseovski
{"title":"谁的帮助最大?消极事件背景下儿童对知识渊博者和富有者的评价","authors":"Kimberly E. Marble ,&nbsp;Janet J. Boseovski","doi":"10.1016/j.cogdev.2023.101396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Children favor knowledgeable people in information-seeking contexts, but is this preference maintained when other resources are available to resolve problems? This study addressed whether children relied on knowledge or wealth to decide who is qualified to help someone in need. Sixty-four 5- to 8-year-olds heard stories in which two bystanders (i.e., knowledgeable versus wealthy) witnessed a negative event. Children judged which bystander should assist a victim and which should supervise the situation. Children evaluated each bystander’s strategies and duty to help. Across ages, children indicated that the knowledgeable bystander should provide aid, supervise, and help more than the wealthy bystander, but made positive trait attributions about both bystanders. Children referenced how knowledge could produce solutions and with age, were better able to make knowledge- rather than wealth-related predictions about helpful behavior. These findings shed light on children’s understanding of wealth and draw connections between children’s reasoning about knowledge, wealth, and morality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51422,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Development","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 101396"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who helps best? Children’s evaluation of knowledgeable versus wealthy individuals in negative event contexts\",\"authors\":\"Kimberly E. Marble ,&nbsp;Janet J. Boseovski\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogdev.2023.101396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Children favor knowledgeable people in information-seeking contexts, but is this preference maintained when other resources are available to resolve problems? This study addressed whether children relied on knowledge or wealth to decide who is qualified to help someone in need. Sixty-four 5- to 8-year-olds heard stories in which two bystanders (i.e., knowledgeable versus wealthy) witnessed a negative event. Children judged which bystander should assist a victim and which should supervise the situation. Children evaluated each bystander’s strategies and duty to help. Across ages, children indicated that the knowledgeable bystander should provide aid, supervise, and help more than the wealthy bystander, but made positive trait attributions about both bystanders. Children referenced how knowledge could produce solutions and with age, were better able to make knowledge- rather than wealth-related predictions about helpful behavior. These findings shed light on children’s understanding of wealth and draw connections between children’s reasoning about knowledge, wealth, and morality.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Development\",\"volume\":\"69 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201423001016\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201423001016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在寻求信息的环境中,孩子们更喜欢知识渊博的人,但是当有其他资源可用来解决问题时,这种偏好会保持下去吗?这项研究探讨了孩子们是依靠知识还是财富来决定谁有资格帮助有需要的人。64名5到8岁的孩子听了两个旁观者(即知识渊博的和富有的)目睹负面事件的故事。孩子们判断哪个旁观者应该帮助受害者,谁应该监督情况。孩子们评估了每个旁观者的策略和帮助的责任。在不同年龄阶段,儿童表示知识渊博的旁观者比富有的旁观者更应该提供帮助、监督和帮助,但对这两种旁观者都有积极的特质归因。孩子们参考了知识如何产生解决方案,随着年龄的增长,他们能够更好地对帮助行为做出与知识相关的预测,而不是与财富相关的预测。这些发现揭示了儿童对财富的理解,并在儿童对知识、财富和道德的推理之间建立了联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who helps best? Children’s evaluation of knowledgeable versus wealthy individuals in negative event contexts

Children favor knowledgeable people in information-seeking contexts, but is this preference maintained when other resources are available to resolve problems? This study addressed whether children relied on knowledge or wealth to decide who is qualified to help someone in need. Sixty-four 5- to 8-year-olds heard stories in which two bystanders (i.e., knowledgeable versus wealthy) witnessed a negative event. Children judged which bystander should assist a victim and which should supervise the situation. Children evaluated each bystander’s strategies and duty to help. Across ages, children indicated that the knowledgeable bystander should provide aid, supervise, and help more than the wealthy bystander, but made positive trait attributions about both bystanders. Children referenced how knowledge could produce solutions and with age, were better able to make knowledge- rather than wealth-related predictions about helpful behavior. These findings shed light on children’s understanding of wealth and draw connections between children’s reasoning about knowledge, wealth, and morality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Cognitive Development contains the very best empirical and theoretical work on the development of perception, memory, language, concepts, thinking, problem solving, metacognition, and social cognition. Criteria for acceptance of articles will be: significance of the work to issues of current interest, substance of the argument, and clarity of expression. For purposes of publication in Cognitive Development, moral and social development will be considered part of cognitive development when they are related to the development of knowledge or thought processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信