Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades

Trading is a cornerstone of economic exchange and can take many different forms. In simple trades, one item is often exchanged for another; but in more complex trades, agents can trade different numbers of items, reflecting the differing value of the items being traded. Though young children regular...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Margaret Echelbarger, Kayla Good, Alex Shaw
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press 2020-11-01
Series:Judgment and Decision Making
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008160/type/journal_article
_version_ 1797702594858057728
author Margaret Echelbarger
Kayla Good
Alex Shaw
author_facet Margaret Echelbarger
Kayla Good
Alex Shaw
author_sort Margaret Echelbarger
collection DOAJ
description Trading is a cornerstone of economic exchange and can take many different forms. In simple trades, one item is often exchanged for another; but in more complex trades, agents can trade different numbers of items, reflecting the differing value of the items being traded. Though young children regularly engage in simple trades, we examine whether they understand a key element involved in more complex trades—the idea that people may subjectively value the same item differently and accept trades that numerically disadvantage themselves in the service of acquiring more of a preferred item. To do so, we ran three studies with 5- to 10-year-old children (N = 314) in which they were asked to predict whether a third party would accept or reject different types of trades. Results revealed that children across this age range predict that a third party will accept a numerically disadvantageous trade when they prefer one resource over another, but not when they have an equal preference for both resources. Importantly, their predictions were not merely a reflection of what they thought was fair, but rather what was in the best interest of the third party—they thought a third party would be more likely to accept an “unfair” trade that benefitted himself rather than someone else. We discuss our findings in terms of what they reveal about children’s early economic intuitions.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T04:52:19Z
format Article
id doaj.art-dc964d05e66e4c2899d7987ad68513ca
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1930-2975
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T04:52:19Z
publishDate 2020-11-01
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format Article
series Judgment and Decision Making
spelling doaj.art-dc964d05e66e4c2899d7987ad68513ca2023-09-03T09:20:26ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752020-11-011595997110.1017/S1930297500008160Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about tradesMargaret Echelbarger0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7110-0813Kayla Good1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-0855Alex Shaw2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8852-0179Shared first author. University of Chicago, Booth School of Business, 5807 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, IL, 60637Shared first author. Stanford UniversityUniversity of ChicagoTrading is a cornerstone of economic exchange and can take many different forms. In simple trades, one item is often exchanged for another; but in more complex trades, agents can trade different numbers of items, reflecting the differing value of the items being traded. Though young children regularly engage in simple trades, we examine whether they understand a key element involved in more complex trades—the idea that people may subjectively value the same item differently and accept trades that numerically disadvantage themselves in the service of acquiring more of a preferred item. To do so, we ran three studies with 5- to 10-year-old children (N = 314) in which they were asked to predict whether a third party would accept or reject different types of trades. Results revealed that children across this age range predict that a third party will accept a numerically disadvantageous trade when they prefer one resource over another, but not when they have an equal preference for both resources. Importantly, their predictions were not merely a reflection of what they thought was fair, but rather what was in the best interest of the third party—they thought a third party would be more likely to accept an “unfair” trade that benefitted himself rather than someone else. We discuss our findings in terms of what they reveal about children’s early economic intuitions.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008160/type/journal_articlechildrentradingeconomicspreferences
spellingShingle Margaret Echelbarger
Kayla Good
Alex Shaw
Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades
Judgment and Decision Making
children
trading
economics
preferences
title Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades
title_full Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades
title_fullStr Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades
title_full_unstemmed Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades
title_short Will she give you two cookies for one chocolate? Children’s intuitions about trades
title_sort will she give you two cookies for one chocolate children s intuitions about trades
topic children
trading
economics
preferences
url https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008160/type/journal_article
work_keys_str_mv AT margaretechelbarger willshegiveyoutwocookiesforonechocolatechildrensintuitionsabouttrades
AT kaylagood willshegiveyoutwocookiesforonechocolatechildrensintuitionsabouttrades
AT alexshaw willshegiveyoutwocookiesforonechocolatechildrensintuitionsabouttrades