Thinking Structurally: A Cognitive Framework for Understanding How People Attribute Inequality to Structural Causes

Structural explanations lead young children and adults to rectify resource inequalities

Decisions about how to divide resources have profound social and practical consequences. Do explanations regarding the source of existing inequalities influence how children and adults allocate new resources? When 3- to 6-year-old children (N = 201) learned that inequalities were caused by structural forces (stable external constraints affecting access to resources) as opposed to internal forces (effort), they rectified inequalities, overriding previously documented tendencies to perpetuate inequality or divide resources equally. Adults (N = 201) were more likely than children to rectify inequality spontaneously; this was further strengthened by a structural explanation but reversed by an effort-based explanation. Allocation behaviors were mirrored in judgments of which allocation choices by others were appropriate. These findings reveal how explanations powerfully guide social reasoning and action from childhood through adulthood.

Why are there no girls? Increasing children's recognition of structural causes of the gender gap in STEM

The gender disparity in STEM fields emerges early in development. This research examined children's explanations for this gap and investigated two approaches to enhance children's structural understanding that this imbalance is caused by societal, systematic barriers. Five- to 8-year-old children (N = 145) observed girls' underrepresentation in a STEM competition; the No Structural Information condition presented no additional information, the Structural: Between-Group Comparison (Between) condition compared boys' greater representation to girls' when boys had more opportunities to practice than girls, and the Structural: Within-Group Comparison (Within) condition compared girls' greater STEM representation when they had opportunities versus not. Children in the No Structural condition largely generated intrinsic explanations; in contrast, children in both structural conditions favored structural explanations for girls' lack of participation (Experiment 1) and achievement (Experiment 2). Importantly, each structural condition also had unique effects: Between raised children's fairness concerns, while Within increased children's selection of girls as teammates in a competitive STEM activity.

Motivated Categories: Social Structures Shape the Construction of Social Categories Through Attentional Mechanisms

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Social categories like race and gender often give rise to stereotypes and prejudice, and a great deal of research has focused on how motivations influence these biased beliefs. Here, we focus on potential biases in how these categories are even formed in the first place, suggesting that motivations can influence the very categories people use to group others. We propose that motivations to share schemas with other people and to gain resources shape people's attention to dimensions like race, gender, and age in different contexts. Specifically, people will pay attention to dimensions to the degree that the conclusions produced from using those dimensions align with their motivations. Overall, we suggest that simply examining the downstream effects of social categorization like stereotyping and prejudice is not enough, and that research should look earlier in the process at how and when we form the categories on which those stereotypes are based.

Social and structural determinants of injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Injection drug use-associated bacterial and fungal infections are increasingly common, and social contexts shape individuals' injecting practices and treatment experiences. We sought to synthesize qualitative studies of social-structural factors influencing incidence and treatment of injecting-related infections.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 18 February 2021. Informed by Rhodes' 'risk environment' framework, we performed thematic synthesis in three stages: (1) line-by-line coding; (2) organizing codes into descriptive themes, reflecting interpretations of study authors; and (3) consolidating descriptive themes into conceptual categories to identify higher-order analytical themes.

RESULTS

We screened 4841 abstracts and included 26 qualitative studies on experiences of injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections. We identified six descriptive themes organized into two analytical themes. The first analytical theme, social production of risk, considered macro-environmental influences. Four descriptive themes highlighted pathways through which this occurs: (1) unregulated drug supply, leading to poor drug quality and solubility; (2) unsafe spaces, influenced by policing practices and insecure housing; (3) health-care policies and practices, leading to negative experiences that discourage access to care; and (4) restrictions on harm reduction programmes, including structural barriers to effective service provision. The second analytical theme, practices of care among people who use drugs, addressed protective strategies that people employ within infection risk environments. Associated descriptive themes were: (5) mutual care, including assisted-injecting and sharing sterile equipment; and (6) self-care, including vein health and self-treatment. Within constraining risk environments, some protective strategies for bacterial infections precipitated other health risks (e.g. HIV transmission).

CONCLUSIONS

Injecting-related bacterial and fungal infections are shaped by modifiable social-structural factors, including poor quality unregulated drugs, criminalization and policing enforcement, insufficient housing, limited harm reduction services and harmful health-care practices. People who inject drugs navigate these barriers while attempting to protect themselves and their community.

"You did incredibly well!": teachers' inflated praise can make children from low-SES backgrounds seem less smart (but more hardworking)

Can teachers' inflated praise make children from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds seem less smart? We conducted two preregistered experiments to address this question. We used hypothetical scenarios to ensure experimental control. An experiment with primary school teachers (N = 106, ages 21-63) showed that when a child from a low-SES (vs. high-SES) background succeeded in school, teachers attributed this success more to hard work and delivered more inflated praise (e.g., "You did incredibly well!") but less modest praise (e.g., "You did well!"). An experiment with primary school children (N = 63, ages 10-13) showed that when children learned that another child received inflated praise (while an equally performing classmate received modest praise or no praise), they perceived this child as less smart but more hardworking. These studies provide converging evidence that teachers' inflated praise, although well-intentioned, can make children from low-SES backgrounds seem less smart, thereby reinforcing negative stereotypes about these children's academic abilities.

Structural explanations for inequality reduce children's biases and promote rectification only if they implicate the high-status group

Children begin to participate in systems of inequality from a young age, demonstrating biases for high-status groups and willingly accepting group disparities. For adults, highlighting the structural causes of inequality (i.e., policies, norms) can facilitate adaptive outcomes-including reduced biases and greater efforts to rectify inequality-but such efforts have had limited success with children. Here, we considered the possibility that, to be effective in childhood, structural interventions must explicitly address the role of the high-status group in creating the unequal structures. We tested this intervention with children relative to a) a structural explanation that cited a neutral third party as the creator and b) a control explanation (N = 206, ages 5 to 10 y). Relative to those in the other two conditions, children who heard a structural explanation that cited the high-status group as the structures' creators showed lower levels of bias, perceived the hierarchy as less fair, and allocated resources to the low-status group more often. These findings suggest that structural explanations can be effective in childhood, but only if they implicate the high-status group as the structures' creators.