The Role of Reflective Thinking and Socioeconomic Status on Children's Social Essentialism
Abstract
Essentialist thinking entails belief that certain social groups have intrinsic immutable characteristics, and that differences between social groups are due to natural or biological factors (e.g., girls inherently like pink and boys inherently like blue). This can lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and an overall superficial understanding of others. Prior research with adults suggests that more reflective thinking (i.e., favoring analytic thinking over intuitive thinking) is associated with less essentialist thinking. Furthermore, research also suggests a link between adult socioeconomic status and the tendency to essentialize specific social categories. However, little is known about the relations between reflective thinking, socioeconomic status, and essentialist thinking in children. The present study examines whether reflective thinking and socioeconomic status relate to children’s social essentialism. In the current study, 5- to 12-year-old children (current N = 99) from diverse communities participated in a study over Zoom. We measured children’s gender and racial essentialism (e.g., “Is a girl’s brain different from a boy’s brain?”), reflective thinking using a Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT-D), and family socioeconomic status (e.g., parent education, occupation, income). We predict that children that score higher on the CRT-D will score lower on measures of essentialism. We also predict that children of higher socioeconomic status may score lower on measures of gender essentialism, but not necessarily show a difference in measures of racial essentialism. By understanding the cognitive resources children use to form opinions of others, we hope to stem biased ideas before they fully develop into prejudices.
The Role of Reflective Thinking and Socioeconomic Status on Children's Social Essentialism
Essentialist thinking entails belief that certain social groups have intrinsic immutable characteristics, and that differences between social groups are due to natural or biological factors (e.g., girls inherently like pink and boys inherently like blue). This can lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and an overall superficial understanding of others. Prior research with adults suggests that more reflective thinking (i.e., favoring analytic thinking over intuitive thinking) is associated with less essentialist thinking. Furthermore, research also suggests a link between adult socioeconomic status and the tendency to essentialize specific social categories. However, little is known about the relations between reflective thinking, socioeconomic status, and essentialist thinking in children. The present study examines whether reflective thinking and socioeconomic status relate to children’s social essentialism. In the current study, 5- to 12-year-old children (current N = 99) from diverse communities participated in a study over Zoom. We measured children’s gender and racial essentialism (e.g., “Is a girl’s brain different from a boy’s brain?”), reflective thinking using a Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT-D), and family socioeconomic status (e.g., parent education, occupation, income). We predict that children that score higher on the CRT-D will score lower on measures of essentialism. We also predict that children of higher socioeconomic status may score lower on measures of gender essentialism, but not necessarily show a difference in measures of racial essentialism. By understanding the cognitive resources children use to form opinions of others, we hope to stem biased ideas before they fully develop into prejudices.