Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative contribution of intuitive and reflective cognitive systems in cooperative decision making is a topic of hot debate. Research with adults suggests that intuition often favors cooperation, but these effects are contextually sensitive. Emerging evidence has shown that in many contexts children show a tendency toward intuitive cooperation, but research investigating these processes in children is sparse and has produced mixed findings. In the current study we investigated the influence of intuitive and reflective decision processes on children’s fairness behavior by manipulating decision time. We tested (N = 158) pairs of children between 4 and 10 years of age from a rural community in Canada. Children’s decisions to accept or reject allocations of candies were either made under time pressure or after a 10-s delay. We assessed the impact of decision time on children’s aversion to inequitable distributions of resources by comparing their responses to equal allocations with either disadvantageous allocations or advantageous allocations. We found that children showed a greater age-related increase in advantageous inequity aversion when decisions were made under time pressure compared to when they were made after a delay. In contrast, we did not observe a significant impact of decision time on the development of disadvantageous inequity aversion. These findings suggest that intuitive decision processes may contribute to the development of fairness concerns in middle childhood.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".