Cultural Differences in Moral Justifications Enhance Understanding of Chinese and Canadian Children’s Moral Decisions

Abstract

Chinese, Chinese-Canadian, and Euro-Canadian children 7, 9, and 11 years of age were presented scenarios in which story characters either lied or told the truth to help themselves but harm a collective, or vice versa. Children classified, evaluated, and justified their evaluations of the truthful or untruthful statements in each scenario. Cultural differences emerged in the children's evaluations but were especially apparent in their justifications. Chinese children rated more positively statements that helped a collective and harmed an individual than vice versa, and they showed concerns for a group over the self when evaluating moral statements, thus reflecting collectivist inclinations. Euro-Canadian children did the reverse, demonstrating individualistic tendencies. Bicultural, Chinese-Canadian, children's judgments and justifications were situation specific, offering preliminary evidence for the possibility that bicultural individuals shift, at a relatively early age, between cultural frames in their interpretations and evaluations of moral dilemmas, depending upon the context.

Development of Cultural Perspectives on Verbal Deception in Competitive Contexts

“…These findings support expectations that Chinese children would differentiate more than Canadian children between contexts when making moral evaluations of verbal deception (Fu et al, 2010; Fu et al, 2001; Fu et al, 2007; Lau et al, 2013). Increased exposure to their respective cultures likely contributes to a corresponding increase in identification with the moral values of the culture in which the child or youth is socialized (Shweder & Much, 1991; Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, & Park, 1997).…”

“…As in the Lau et al (2013) cross-cultural study of verbal deception, participants’ justifications in making their moral judgments clarified and amplified their perspectives on their moral evaluations. Their foci on the “goodness” or moral value of a statement, which were classified as Moral Judgments , as opposed to a more relativistic Consideration for Self, Others , or the Context , interestingly delineated judgment differences between both ages and cultures.…”

The Whistleblower's Dilemma in Young Children: When Loyalty Trumps Other Moral Concerns

“…The studies that have come closest to investigating the conflict between loyalty and other moral concerns are studies on so-called “blue lies”—the opposite of whistleblowing—that is, lies that are told to protect someone else. Several studies have investigated children's evaluations of blue lies in story vignettes and found that with age, children evaluate blue lies to cover up the ingroup's transgression more positively (e.g., Sweet et al, 2010 ; Lau et al, 2013 ; Chiu Loke et al, 2014 ; Fu et al, 2016 ). To our knowledge, only one behavioral study has directly focused on children's blue lies by asking participants to report their own group's wrongdoing.…”

Exploring Repressive Suffering Construal as a Function of Collectivism and Social Morality

“…Strains of Confucianism and collectivism in the nation’s history created a traditional emphasis on considering the well-being of others and the group to an equal if not greater extent than one’s own well-being, and elements of this social morality continue to be documented among contemporary Chinese individuals (Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007). For example, in a recent study (Lau et al, 2013), Chinese (compared with Euro-Canadian) children more positively evaluated moral decisions that benefited a group at the expense of an individual, displaying an orientation toward social morality. We therefore would expect Chinese participants to be more willing to endorse RSC compared with U.S. participants.…”