Stable same‐sex friendships with higher achieving partners promote mathematical reasoning in lower achieving primary school children

This study was designed to investigate friend influence over mathematical reasoning in a sample of 374 children in 187 same‐sex friend dyads (184 girls in 92 friendships; 190 boys in 95 friendships). Participants completed surveys that measured mathematical reasoning in the 3rd grade (approximately 9 years old) and 1 year later in the 4th grade (approximately 10 years old). Analyses designed for dyadic data (i.e., longitudinal actor‐partner interdependence model) indicated that higher achieving friends influenced the mathematical reasoning of lower achieving friends, but not the reverse. Specifically, greater initial levels of mathematical reasoning among higher achieving partners in the 3rd grade predicted greater increases in mathematical reasoning from 3rd grade to 4th grade among lower achieving partners. These effects held after controlling for peer acceptance and rejection, task avoidance, interest in mathematics, maternal support for homework, parental education, length of the friendship, and friendship group norms on mathematical reasoning.     

Exploitation and Remedial Duties

The concept of exploitation and potentially exploitative real‐world practices are the subject of increasing philosophical attention. However, while philosophers have extensively debated what exploitation is and what makes it wrong, they have said surprisingly little about what might be required to remediate it. By asking how the consequences of exploitation should be addressed, this article seeks to contribute to filling this gap. We raise two questions. First, what are the victims of exploitation owed by way of remediation? Second, who ought to remediate? Our answers to these questions are connected by the idea that exploitation cannot be fully remediated by redistributing the exploiter's gain in order to repair or compensate the victim's loss. This is because exploitation causes not only distributive but also relational harm. Therefore, redistributive measures are necessary but not sufficient for adequate remediation. Moreover, this relational focus highlights the fact that exploitative real‐world practices commonly involve agents other than the exploiter who stand to benefit from the exploitation. Insofar as these third parties are implicated in the distributive and relational harms caused by exploitation, there is, we argue, good reason to assign part of the burden of remediation to them.