# Children and Young Adults Factor Merit Into Their Judgments of Gender‐Based Science Resource Inequalities

## TL;DR

Children and young adults judge science resource inequalities more harshly when high-merit groups are disadvantaged, with age affecting how merit and equality are considered.

## Contribution

The study reveals how merit-based reasoning in moral judgments of gender-based science resource inequalities develops with age.

## Key findings

- Participants judged inequalities more negatively when high-merit groups were disadvantaged, regardless of gender.
- Older children were more likely to use merit-based reasoning and less likely to use equality-based reasoning.
- Age-related differences emerged in how merit influenced judgments of inequalities disadvantaging girls, but not boys.

## Abstract

Inequalities in access to important resources and opportunities between social groups persist throughout societies worldwide. Social psychological research has shown that adults often use meritocratic beliefs to justify the existence of such inequalities. Yet, the developmental origins of meritocratic beliefs have yet to be fully explored. This study investigated how children and young adults (N = 144; 5‐ to 6‐year‐olds, M = 5.83, SD = 0.97; 9‐ to 11‐year‐olds, M = 10.74, SD = 0.68; 18‐ to 22‐year‐olds, M = 19.92, SD = 1.10) factored information about merit into their moral judgments and reasoning about science education resource inequalities between groups of girls and boys. Confirming our hypotheses, participants overall judged inequalities that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups, regardless of which gender group was disadvantaged. Further, exploratory analyses revealed age‐related differences in judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys. Whereas all age groups judged inequalities that disadvantaged boys more negatively when boys were described as high‐merit compared to low‐merit, only older children judged inequalities that disadvantaged girls more negatively when girls were described as high‐merit compared to low‐merit. Age‐related differences also emerged for participants’ reasoning about inequalities, such that older children were more likely to reason about merit, and less likely to reason about equality, compared to both younger children and young adults. These novel findings offer insights into how concerns for merit shape individuals’ moral judgments of social inequalities throughout childhood and young adulthood.

Overall, children and young adults judged inequalities of science resources that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups.More positive judgments of inequalities were associated with a lower likelihood of reasoning about equality and a higher likelihood of reasoning about merit.Older children were more likely to reason about merit and less likely to reason about equality compared to both younger children and young adults.Exploratory analyses showed age‐related differences in the extent to which participants factored merit into their judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys.

Overall, children and young adults judged inequalities of science resources that disadvantaged high‐merit groups more negatively than inequalities that disadvantaged low‐merit groups.

More positive judgments of inequalities were associated with a lower likelihood of reasoning about equality and a higher likelihood of reasoning about merit.

Older children were more likely to reason about merit and less likely to reason about equality compared to both younger children and young adults.

Exploratory analyses showed age‐related differences in the extent to which participants factored merit into their judgments of inequalities that disadvantaged girls, but not boys.