Review Article


DOI :10.26650/SP2020-816658   IUP :10.26650/SP2020-816658    Full Text (PDF)

Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler

Büşra Aktaş

Adalete ilişkin karar alma ahlak psikolojisi alan yazınında en önemli konulardan biri olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bulgular, kişilerin diğerlerinden daha azına (dezavantajlı haksızlık) veya daha fazlasına sahip oldukları durumlarda (avantajlı haksızlık) adalete ilişkin hassasiyetlerinden ötürü bedel ödeyerek haksızlığı reddettiklerini göstermektedir. Gelişimsel psikoloji alanındaki incelemelere göre haksızlıktan kaçınma olarak adlandırılan bu davranışın ortaya çıkmasının altında farklı mekanizmalar rol oynayabilir. Haksızlıktan kaçınma davranışının ortaya çıktığı yaşa ilişkin kültürel farklılıkları inceleyen çalışmalar, farklı kültürlerde dezavantajlı haksızlıktan kaçınma davranışının benzer bir gelişimsel seyre sahip iken; avantajlı haksızlıktan kaçınmanın farklı yaşlarda ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Bu durum, avantajlı haksızlıktan kaçınma davranışının ortaya çıktığı yaşa ilişkin sosyalleşme pratiklerinin ve kültürel faktörlerin rolünün daha baskın olduğuna işaret etmektedir. Buna paralel olarak, bu derleme çalışmasında öncelikle, güncel ahlak psikolojisi alan yazınındaki adalete ilişkin hakim yaklaşımlara değinilmiş, ardından haksızlıktan kaçınma davranışını gelişimsel boyutta ele alan çalışmalar kültürel farklar gözetilerek özetlenmiştir. Birlikte ele alındığında, önceki çalışmalar haksızlıktan kaçınma davranışına ilişkin stratejilerin zenginleşmesini yaşla beraber sosyal bağlamın ve itibar kaygısının rolünün artmasıyla açıklamaktadır. Buradan hareketle, farklı kültürlerde farklı sosyal pratiklerin itibar kaygısını azaltmada işlevsel bir rolü olduğu ve bu durumun özellikle avantajlı haksızlıktan kaçınma davranışına ilişkin davranışların gelişimsel seyrinde kültürlerarası farklara yol açtığı düşünülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, güncel çalışmaların sonuçları ele alındığında, bu dinamiklerin anlaşılması için bireyci ve toplulukçu ikili sınıflandırması üzerinden yapılan açıklamaların yetersiz kaldığı görülmektedir. Gelecek çalışmalarda bireyci ve toplulukçu ikili sınıflandırması üzerinden yapılan açıklamaların ötesine geçebilmek için, toplumdaki belirli sosyalleşme dinamiklerinin rollerini, ailedeki ebeveyn beklentilerini ve akrabalarla yaygın olarak kabul gören sosyal etkileşim uygulamalarının rollerini daha detaylı incelemenin ilgili alana önemli ölçüde katkı sunması beklenmektedir. 

DOI :10.26650/SP2020-816658   IUP :10.26650/SP2020-816658    Full Text (PDF)

Developmental Hints of Fairness Sensitivity: Current Investigations on Inequity Avoidance Inequity Avoidance

Büşra Aktaş

Fairness-based decision-making is considered one of the most crucial topics in the literature on moral psychology. Previous findings have demonstrated that people make costly irrational decisions according to their level of fairness sensitivity. Moreover, individuals display inequity avoidance behavior by rejecting inequity favoring others (disadvantageous inequity) or themselves (advantageous inequity). According to developmental investigations, different mechanisms may underlie the display of advantageous or disadvantageous inequity avoidance. Previous studies have indicated that in various cultures, disadvantageous inequity avoidance follows a similar path, whereas advantageous inequity avoidance emerges at different ages. These findings have pointed out that socialization practices and cultural factors may be dominant in terms of the age of onset of advantageous inequity avoidance. In parallel, this review first presents the pioneer approaches to fairness in the recent literature on moral psychology and provides a summary of developmental studies that investigated inequity avoidance behavior by considering cultural differences. In summary, the literature has proposed that social context and reputational concerns may encourage children to adopt better strategies for displaying inequity avoidance with the increasing age. From this perspective, this notion was considered to lead to crosscultural differences in the developmental spectrum of behaviors particularly linked to advantageous inequity avoidance. This finding may be attributed to different social practices across cultures that are considered to play a functional role in reducing reputational concerns. Moreover, explanations based on collectivistic versus individualistic dual perspective are unable to explicate various specific dynamics for understanding the age of onset of the display of inequity avoidance behavior. Therefore, further studies are required to reveal the roles of specific socialization dynamics in the community, parental expectations, and widely accepted social interaction practices with relatives, which would largely contribute to the relevant literature.


EXTENDED ABSTRACT


Fairness is an essential concept for understanding human morality. According to recent findings, the avoidance of having less than others may be a universally important sensitivity, which is consistent with the assumptions of cooperation-based theories (Brosnan & de Waal, 2012). By contrast, the avoidance of having more than others may be related to increased sensitivity to social norms and cultural expectations regarding the emergence of this sensitivity (McAullife, Blake, Steinbeis, & Warneken, 2017). However, the concept promoting the development (or delay) of gaining sensitivity toward unfairness to others is still unknown. The current frameworks of moral psychology describe the moral reasoning related to fairness from the perspective of the evolution of reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971). Scholars define fairness as a solution to the bargaining problem (Curry, 2016; Haidt, 2001). In addition to the frameworks intended to enhance the understanding of fairness-related moral reasoning, Fehr and Schmidt (1999) proposed two behavioral forms of fairness sensitivity, namely, avoidance of having less than others (disadvantageous inequity avoidance) and avoidance of having more than others (advantageous inequity avoidance).

Distributive fairness is one of the most studied forms of fairness. However, developmental information is required to further understand its role in human cooperation. Similarly, the number of studies that examine fairness sensitivity during infancy is increasing (Burns & Sommerville, 2014; Geraci & Surian, 2011; Lucca, Pospisil, & Sommerville, 2018; Schmidt & Sommerville, 2011). Seemingly, fairness-related sensitivities appear to emerge considerably earlier than previously assumed (Kohlberg, 1981). For example, Meristo, Strid, and Surian (2015) demonstrated that even infants at 10 months can distinguish fair and unfair resource allocations. As such, future studies are required to clarify the mixed evidence obtained from the existing research, which posits that fairness expectations are in place during infancy (e.g., Burns & Sommerville, 2014; Geraci & Surian, 2011; Lucca et al., 2018). Although emerging fairness expectation is a starting point, displaying fair behaviors certainly requires in-depth investigation. Numerous previous findings have illustrated that children aged 4–5 years start to display the avoidance of having less than others (Blake & McAuliffe, 2011; Takagishi, Kameshima, Schug, Koizumi, & Yamagishi, 2010; see also Bereby-Meyer & Fiks, 2013). According to recent findings, disadvantageous inequity avoidance may emerge during early childhood (LoBue, Nishida, Chiong, DeLoache, & Haidt, 2011). By contrast, findings related to the age of onset of advantageous inequity avoidance behavior are mixed. For example, a recent study reports that among seven countries, only children from the United States, Canada, and Uganda (but not from India, Mexico, Peru, and Senegal) rejected gaining more than peers during childhood. Various investigations demonstrated similar results. Moreover, children from Turkey (Acun & Karakelle, 2019) and China (Kajanus, McAuliffe, Warneken, & Blake, 2019) display avoidance of gaining more than peers during childhood. In summary, cross-cultural evidence suggests that disadvantageous inequity avoidance is consistently evident during childhood with less cultural variability. Therefore, avoidance of gaining less than others may be a universally crucial sensitivity consistent with the assumptions of cooperation-based explanations (Brosnan & de Waal, 2012). Alternatively, advantageous inequity avoidance may be more sensitive to social norms and cultural expectations regarding its emergence (McAullife, Blake, Steinbeis, & Warneken, 2017). A body of evidence gained from collectivistic cultures has suggested that children display inequity avoidance at a younger age (Kajanus et al., 2019), whereas other studies put forward that children from collectivistic cultures display inequity avoidance at a later age (Blake et al., 2015). These findings may motivate researchers to re-think the definition of the term cultural.

Discussion

Although the individualistic/collectivistic dual classification is one of the most referred dimensions for explaining cultural variations, this cultural classification seemingly provides a poor explanation for the emergence of fairness-related sensitivities. In other words, further investigations must exceed individualistic/collectivistic dual perspectives to explain cultural variations in relation to the emergence of inequity avoidance. Therefore, expecting that gaining sensitivity to unfairness to others is closely related to social practices, family attitudes, relationship dynamics, and social context is reasonable. In this manner, determining the age of onset of displaying inequity avoidance is necessary by specifically considering the social context.


PDF View

References

  • Acun, E. ve Karakelle, S. (2019). 4-6 yaş çocuklarında kaynak dağıtımında eşitsizlikten kaçınmayı etkileyen faktörlerin incelenmesi. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 39(1), 99-119. DOI: 10.26650/SP2018-0034 google scholar
  • Baumard, N., Mascaro, O. ve Chevallier, C. (2012). Preschoolers are able to take merit into account when distributing goods. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 492- 498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026598 google scholar
  • Benenson, J. F., Pascoe, J. ve Radmore, N. (2007). Children’s altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evolhumbehav.2006.10.003 google scholar
  • Bereby-Meyer, Y ve Fiks, S. (2013). Changes in negative reciprocity as a function of age. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(4), 397-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1768 google scholar
  • Blake, P. R. ve McAuliffe, K. (2011). “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition, 120(2), 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.006 google scholar
  • Blake, P. R. ve Rand, D. G. (2010). Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. evolhumbehav.2009.06.012 google scholar
  • Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., Barry, O., Bowie, A., ... & Wrangham, R. (2015). The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies. Nature, 528(7581), 258-261. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature15703 google scholar
  • Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K. ve Warneken, F. (2014). The developmental origins of fairness: The knowledge-behavior gap. Trends in C'ognitive Sciences, 18(11), 559-561. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j. tics.2014.08.003Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19(2), 153-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/ PL00022136 google scholar
  • Brosnan, S. F. ve de Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425(6955), 297-299. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01963 google scholar
  • Brosnan, S. F. ve de Waal, F. B. (2012). Fairness in animals: Where to from here?. Social J u s t i c e Research, 25(3), 336-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0165-8 google scholar
  • Brosnan, S. F. ve de Waal, F. B. (2014). Evolution of responses to (un) fairness. Science, 346(6207). doi: 10.1126/science.1251776 google scholar
  • Burns, M. P. ve Sommerville, J. (2014). “I pick you”: The impact of fairness and race on infants’ selection of social partners. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(93), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00093 google scholar
  • Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364- 6613(03)00094-9 google scholar
  • Carpendale, J. I. (2000). Kohlberg and Piaget on stages and moral reasoning. Developmental Review, 20(2), 181-205. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1999.0500 google scholar
  • Castelli, I., Massaro, D., Sanfey, A. G. ve Marchetti, A. (2014). “What is fair for you?” Judgments and decisions about fairness and Theory of Mind. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(1), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2013.806264 google scholar
  • Cesur, S. (2018) Ahlakın sosyal psikolojisi. İstanbul: Pales Yayınları. google scholar
  • Corbit, J., McAuliffe, K., Callaghan, T. C., Blake, P. R. ve Warneken, F. (2017). Children’s collaboration induces fairness rather than generosity. Cognition, 168, 344-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2017.07.006 google scholar
  • Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred approach. T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology. The evolution of morality içinde (s. 27-51). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2 google scholar
  • Damon, W. (1975). Early conceptions of positive justice as related to the development of logical operations. Child Development, 46(2), 301-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128122 google scholar
  • Damon, W. (1981). The Development of Justice and Self-Interest during Childhood. Lerner, M. J. ve Lerner, S. C. (Ed.), The justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times ofscarcity and change içinde (s. 57-72). New York: Springer Press. google scholar
  • DesChamps, T. D., Eason A. E. ve Sommerville J. A. (2015). Infants associate praise and admonishment with fair and unfair individuals. Infancy. 21, 478-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12117 google scholar
  • Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583-610. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7 google scholar
  • Fehr, E., Bernhard, H. ve Rockenbach, B. (2008). Egalitarianism in young children. Nature, 454(7208), 1079-1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7 google scholar
  • Fehr, E. ve Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151 google scholar
  • Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E. ve Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games andEconomicBehavior 6, 347- 369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021 google scholar
  • Geraci, A. ve Surian, L. (2011). The developmental roots of fairness: Infants’ reactions to equal and unequal distributions of resources. Developmental Science, 14(5), 1012-1020. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01048.x google scholar
  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  • Gummerum, M., Hanoch, Y., Keller, M., Parsons, K. ve Hummel, A. (2010). Preschoolers’ allocations in the dictator game: The role of moral emotions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(1), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.09.002 google scholar
  • Güroğlu, B., van den Bos, W. ve Crone, E. A. (2009). Fairness considerations: Increasing understanding of intentionality during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(4), 398-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.07.002 google scholar
  • Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. ve Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7 google scholar
  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814- 834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814 google scholar
  • Haidt, J. ve Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. google scholar
  • W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), In Moral Psychology: Vol. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity içinde (s. 181-217). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Haidt, J. ve Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z google scholar
  • Hamann, K., Bender, J. ve Tomasello, M. (2014). Meritocratic sharing is based on collaboration in 3-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 50(1), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032965 google scholar
  • Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R. ve Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not in chimpanzees. Nature, 476(7360), 328-331. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature10278 google scholar
  • Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Liday, S. (2003). Bargaining by children (University of Oregon Economics WorkingPaper, 2002-4). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.436504 google scholar
  • İmamoglu, E. (1987). An interdependence model of human development. Ç. Kağıtçıbaşı (Ed.), Growth and progress in cross-culfural psychology içinde (ss.138-145). Lisse, Holland: Swets & Zeitlinger. google scholar
  • Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2012). Benlik, aile ve insan gelişimi (kültürel psikoloji). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları. google scholar
  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S285-S300. Retrieved May 23, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2352761 google scholar
  • Kajanus, A., McAuliffe, K., Warneken, F. ve Blake, P. R. (2019). Children’s fairness in two Chinese schools: A combined ethnographic and experimental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 282-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.08.012 google scholar
  • Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization. Moral Development and Behavior, 31-53. google scholar
  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row. google scholar
  • Kohlberg, L. (2008). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order. Human Development, 51(1), 8-20. DOI: 10.1159/000112530 google scholar
  • Lane, I. M. ve Coon, R. C. (1972). Reward allocation in preschool children. Child Development, 43(4), 1382-1389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127523 google scholar
  • LoBue, V., Nishida, T., Chiong, C., DeLoache, J.S. ve Haidt, J. (2011). When getting something good is bad: Even three-year-olds react to inequality. Social Development, 20, 154-170. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00560.x google scholar
  • Lucca, K., Pospisil, J. ve Sommerville, J. A. (2018). Fairness informs social decision making in infancy. PloS One, 13(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192848. google scholar
  • Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Chaparro, M. P. ve Buchmann, M. (2012). Early sympathy and social acceptance predict the development of sharing in children. PloS One, 7(12). doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0052017. google scholar
  • McAuliffe, K., Blake, P. R., Kim, G., Wrangham, R. W. ve Warneken, F. (2013). Social influences on inequity aversion in children. PLoS One, 8(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080966. google scholar
  • McAuliffe, K., Blake, P. R., Steinbeis, N. ve Warneken, F. (2017). The developmental foundations of human fairness. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0042 google scholar
  • McAuliffe, K., Blake, P. R. ve Warneken, F. (2014). Children reject inequity out of spite. Biology Letters, 10(12), 20140743. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0743 google scholar
  • Meristo, M., Strid, K. ve Surian, L. (2015). Preverbal infants’ ability to encode the outcome of distributive actions. Infancy, 21(3), 353-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12124 google scholar
  • Moore, C. (2009). Fairness in children’s resource allocation depends on the recipient. Psychological Science, 20(8), 944-948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02378.x google scholar
  • Nisan, M. (1984). Distributive justice and social norms. Child Development, 55(3), 1020-1029. google scholar
  • Paulus, M. (2015). Children’s inequity aversion depends on culture: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 240-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.12.007 google scholar
  • Piaget, J. (1932/1968). The moral development of the child. Kegan Paul: London. google scholar
  • Rai, T. S. ve Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57-75. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0021867. google scholar
  • Rizzo, M. T. ve Killen, M. (2016). Children’s understanding of equity in the context of inequality. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 569-581. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12150 google scholar
  • Rochat, P., Dias, M. D., Liping, G., Broesch, T., Passos-Ferreira, C., Winning, A. ve Berg, B. (2009). Fairness in distributive justice by 3-and 5-year-olds across seven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(3), 416-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022109332844 google scholar
  • Schmidt, M. F. ve Sommerville, J. A. (2011). Fairness expectations and altruistic sharing in 15-month-old human infants. PloS One, 6(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023223. google scholar
  • Shaw, A., Choshen-Hillel, S. ve Caruso, E. M. (2016). The development of inequity aversion: Understanding when (and why) people give others the bigger piece of the pie. Psychological Science, 27(10), 1352-1359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616660548 google scholar
  • Shaw, A. ve Olson, K. R. (2012). Children discard a resource to avoid inequity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141(2), 382-395. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025907 google scholar
  • Sloane, S., Baillargeon, R. ve Premack, D. (2012). Do infants have a sense of fairness?. Psychological Science, 23(2), 196-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611422072 google scholar
  • Smith, C. E., Blake, P. R. ve Harris, P. L. (2013). I should but I won’t: Why young children endorse norms of fair sharing but do not follow them. PloS One, 8(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059510. google scholar
  • Snarey, J. R. (1985). Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 202-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.202 google scholar
  • Sommerville, J. A. ve Ziv, T. (2018). The developmental origins of infants’ distributive fairness concerns. K. Gray ve J. Graham (Ed.), Atlas of moral psychology içinde (s. 420-429). New York, New York: Guilford Press. google scholar
  • Takagishi, H., Kameshima, S., Schug, J., Koizumi, M. ve Yamagishi, T. (2010). Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1-2), 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.005 google scholar
  • Tepe, B. ve Aydınlı-Karakulak, A. (2019). Beyond harmfulness and impurity: Moral wrongness as a violation of relational motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 310337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000169 google scholar
  • Tomasello, M. (2018). The normative turn in early moral development. Human Development, 61(4-5), 248-263. https://doi.org/10.1159/000492802 google scholar
  • Tomasello, M. ve Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych- 113011-143812 google scholar
  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755 google scholar
  • Van Wolkenten, M., Brosnan, S. F. ve de Waal, F. B. (2007). Inequity responses of monkeys modified by effort. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(47), 18854-18859. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.0707182104 google scholar
  • Xie, D., Pei, M. ve Su, Y. (2019). “Favoring my playmate seems fair”: Inhibitory control and theory of mind in preschoolers’ self-disadvantaging behaviors. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.03.004 google scholar
  • Ziv, T. ve Sommerville, J. A. (2017). Developmental differences in infants’ fairness expectations from 6 to 15 months of age. Child Development, 88(6), 1930-1951. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12674 google scholar

Citations

Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the options to export in your chosen format


EXPORT



APA

Aktaş, B. (2021). Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler. Studies in Psychology, 41(2), 403-425. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658


AMA

Aktaş B. Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler. Studies in Psychology. 2021;41(2):403-425. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658


ABNT

Aktaş, B. Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler. Studies in Psychology, [Publisher Location], v. 41, n. 2, p. 403-425, 2021.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aktaş, Büşra,. 2021. “Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler.” Studies in Psychology 41, no. 2: 403-425. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658


Chicago: Humanities Style

Aktaş, Büşra,. Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler.” Studies in Psychology 41, no. 2 (Sep. 2021): 403-425. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658


Harvard: Australian Style

Aktaş, B 2021, 'Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler', Studies in Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 403-425, viewed 24 Sep. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aktaş, B. (2021) ‘Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler’, Studies in Psychology, 41(2), pp. 403-425. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658 (24 Sep. 2021).


MLA

Aktaş, Büşra,. Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler.” Studies in Psychology, vol. 41, no. 2, 2021, pp. 403-425. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658


Vancouver

Aktaş B. Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler. Studies in Psychology [Internet]. 24 Sep. 2021 [cited 24 Sep. 2021];41(2):403-425. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658 doi: 10.26650/SP2020-816658


ISNAD

Aktaş, Büşra. Adalete İlişkin Hassasiyetlerin Gelişimsel İzleri: Haksızlıktan Kaçınma Davranışına İlişkin Güncel İncelemeler”. Studies in Psychology 41/2 (Sep. 2021): 403-425. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816658



TIMELINE


Submitted26.10.2020
Accepted21.01.2021
Published Online07.07.2021

LICENCE


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.