The Development of Social Group Concepts and Stereotypes about Wealth and Geography

• In Event: The Origins of Inequality: Charting the Development of Stereotypes About Intelligence

Abstract

Across the United States, wealth and geographic inequality are ubiquitous (e.g., Kuhn et al., 2017; Lichter & Brown, 2011). Lifestyle differences among rich versus poor people and urban versus rural people—social, cultural, material—impact children’s lives across domains ranging from social development to academic opportunity (e.g., Kraus et al., 2012; Tine, 2017). Stereotypes based on geography and wealth further perpetuate these existing inequities (e.g., Spencer & Castano, 2007). Yet, the scope of children’s reasoning about wealth and geography as social categories remains unclear.

We conducted research with 276 4–11-year-old children to gauge 1) children’s knowledge of inequalities and stereotypes based on people with differing wealth and geography; and 2) how this knowledge develops with age.

Study 1 participants (N=144, located in upstate New York), indicated which of four target children could be described by various traits, knowledge, and behaviors; target children consisted of one urban poor child, one urban rich child, one rural poor child, and one rural rich child. Study 1 participants endorsed many differences based on wealth—for instance, that rich children are smarter (Odds Ratio, OR=3.43, p<.001, η2=.06), more often leaders (OR=3.88, p<.001, η2=.07), and more knowledgeable about world travel (OR=5.30, p<.001, η2= 10) than poor children, but that poor children are more hardworking than rich children (OR=0.17, p<.001, η2=.10). Some effects also changed with age; for instance, younger participants said rich people are nicer than poor people (p<.05), but older participants said poor people are nicer (p<.001). Relative to participants’ wealth-based responding, there were few effects of target geography.
Study 2 participants (N=80) completed the same task as Study 1 but were sampled from rural Arkansas to probe replicability among a qualitatively different sample. The results of Study 2 largely replicated those of Study 1, suggesting that the development of concepts based on wealth and geography may follow similar developmental trajectories across dissimilar environments within the United States.

Following Studies 1 and 2, it was unclear whether participants simply did not understand geography as a social category, or whether instead geography was overshadowed by wealth. Study 3 addressed this question by asking children about geography without providing wealth information. Study 3 participants (N=52, upstate New York) answered the same questions as in Studies 1–2 about urban and rural targets. Unlike Studies 1–2 participants, Study 3 participants endorsed many geography-based differences—for instance, that rural people have more do-it-yourself knowledge than urban people (e.g., knowing how to cook with leftover ingredients; OR=36.71, p<.001, η2=.20) and urban people have more leadership qualities than rural people (OR=.07, p<.001, η2= 20). Overall, the Studies 1–3 results suggest that children reason about both wealth geography as social categories, but wealth may be more salient.

This work illuminates children’s knowledge of wealth and geography differences and stereotypes. Ongoing research investigates the knowledge of children from urban and wealthy environments, which were largely absent from the present samples.

Authors

• Rachel Ann King, University of Chicago
  Presenting Author

• Katherine D. Kinzler, University of Chicago
  Non-Presenting Author