Alka Aneja

Publication Detail

The publication detail shows the title, authors (with indicators showing other profiled authors), information on the publishing organization, abstract and a link to the article in PubMed. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the publication. If any grants are referenced by the publication, they will be listed here as well.

Development of quantitative reasoning and gender biases.

Paul A Klaczynski; Alka Aneja (Profiled Author: Alka Aneja)

Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802, USA. pak21@psu.edu
Developmental psychology 2002;38(2):208-21.

One hundred twenty-seven 7-, 9-, and 11-year-old children were presented large or small samples of own-gender enhancing or other-gender enhancing observations. Children read arguments based on the observations, rated argument intelligence, judged the number of other children to whom the observations could be generalized, and provided verbal justifications for their judgments. Own-gender reasoning biases declined with age; these declines were, however, partially accounted for by declines in the strength of self-reported gender affiliations. Reasoning biases--demonstrated by problem-to-problem shifts in reasoning quality-were constrained by sample size, indicating a modest degree of rationality even among 7-year-olds. Specifically, biases co-existed with reasonably limited generalizations from small samples of own-gender evidence and with reasonably extensive generalizations from large samples of other-gender evidence. Children were thus able to satisfy motivations for own-gender favoritism and reason in accord with the law of large numbers. Several explanations of the findings-based on changes in the salience of gender, multiple classification skills, and the ability to reason independently from beliefs-are offered.

Scientific Context

This section shows information related to the publication - computed using the fingerprint of the publication - including related publications, related experts and related grants with fingerprints representing significant amounts of overlap between their fingerprint and this publication. The red dots indicate whether those experts or terms appear within the publication, thereby showing potential and actual connections.