Children's Reasoning about Poverty, Economic Mobility, and Helping Behavior: Results of a Curriculum Intervention in the Early School Years

Abstract

This study evaluated the efficacy of an inquiry-based poverty curriculum unit on students' beliefs about causes of poverty, economic mobility, and helping behaviors. Participants were 89 kindergarten, first-and second-grade students (mean age = 6.81 years, SD = .93) across two intervention and two control classrooms. Students in intervention classrooms participated in a 5-to 7-week curriculum unit focused on poverty. Preintervention results showed no differences in outcomes by condition. Postintervention results indicated that, compared to the control condition, students in the intervention were more likely to say that poverty is malleable over time and less likely to suggest giving money to poor families as a way to help. There were no differences, however, by condition in the types of causal attributions that students provided (i.e., individualistic, fatalistic, and structural). Implications for theory and educational practice regarding teaching about economic inequality and mobility are discussed.

Interventions stimulating prosocial helping behavior: A systematic review

“…In six studies, participants in the control group were waiting to be assigned to an intervention condition (waiting list, WL), and in seven studies the control group engaged in a different type of activity that did not explicitly promote prosocial behavior (placebo, PL). Examples of the placebo condition include a science inquiry unit investigating ecosystems (Mistry et al., 2016) and exercises intended to improve reading and study skills (Fung, 2008). In one study, only measurement was performed in the control group, but no intervention (Böckler, Tusche, Schmidt, & Singer, 2018).…”

“…Of the 11 studies with multiple intervention groups (MI), eight compared different types of prosocial interventions. Three studies used the same intervention in two groups but with slightly different procedures, appropriate for the participants’ age range or developmental stage (Kramer, Caldarella, Young, Fischer, & Warren, 2014; Mistry et al., 2016) or adapted for specific cultures (Luengo Kanacri et al, 2020).…”

“Wealth Makes Many Friends”: Children Expect More Giving From Resource‐Rich Than Resource‐Poor Individuals

“…In fact, Leahy () found that asking others for money was 6‐year‐olds’ most commonly mentioned method for both how a poor person could become rich and how they themselves could become rich in the future. Whereas older children often mention trait‐like distinctions when defining the rich and the poor, preschool‐age children rarely do so (Leahy, ; see also Mistry et al., ): They favor possessions over dispositions when describing such groups, suggesting that material possessions are more salient than stereotype‐driven traits in young children's mental representations of socioeconomic groups. Moreover, preferences for resource‐rich people are evoked even through contrasts as subtle as who owns 5 versus 4 jars of play‐dough (Li et al., ).…”

Introduction: Reframing the Inequality Debate toward Opportunity and Mobility

“…One perspective often left out of public discussion is that of young people. Mistry, Nenadal, Griffin, Zimmerman, Cochran, Thomas, and Wilson () examine poverty and inequality from the perspective of middle and upper class children. Their research is premised on the idea that class bias begins at a young age, and that we need to take steps to understand how children see this important issue if we want to shift the American public's attitudes about the poor.…”