Normative Changes and Individual Differences in Early Moral Judgments: A Constructivist Developmental Perspective

Abstract

This paper discusses the emergence and development of morality as a distinct form of social knowledge in early childhood. Drawing on social domain theory, we define morality in terms of individuals’ concerns regarding others’ welfare, fair treatment, rights, and the equitable distribution of resources. Moral judgments are described as building on early predispositions but constructed through children’s varied social experiences. We highlight some of the morally relevant interactions in the first few years of life that contribute to early moral development and then summarize evidence regarding young children’s increasing ability to distinguish moral and nonmoral concepts in their judgments. Consistent with our constructivist emphasis, we also draw attention to sources of individual differences in early moral judgment development. We conclude with some suggestions for future research that build on the innovative methods and new findings reported here to further expand our understanding of early moral development.

Revisiting the Social Origins of Human Morality: A Constructivist Perspective on the Nature of Moral Sense-Making

“…The central story in the study of morality is, therefore, how morality develops during early childhood through social interactions, and how children develop an understanding of morality as a distinctive form of social knowledge (Smetana et al 2018). Contrary to this idea, innatist alternatives in developmental psychology have proposed that human beings come with a natural capacity to evaluate prosocial and antisocial agents, in brief, innate social preferences (Hamlin et al 2007;Bloom 2013;Hamlin 2013).…”

“…The constructivist perspective is instead inspired by the classical cognitive-evolutionary approach to human development according to which the development of human cognition goes beyond the imposition of biological or cultural determinations (Piaget 1932(Piaget /2013(Piaget , 1977(Piaget /2015Kohlberg 1981Kohlberg , 1984Damon 1977;Turiel 1985;Smetana 1984Smetana , 1989Carpendale et al 2013;Jambon and Smetana 2014;Dahl and Killen 2018a, b;Smetana et al 2018;Paulus 2020). From this perspective, it is necessary to evaluate when during development human children concretize normative stances which are the expression of different forms of social knowledge, including morality.…”

Peer victimization and sympathy development in childhood: The moderating role of emotion regulation

“…Although chronic victimization can have lasting negative consequences on victims' health and well-being (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015), being the target of aggression also provides children with direct knowledge about the consequences of being harmed. As such, early victimization experiences are hypothesized to contribute to the development of young children's other-oriented concern (Arsenio & Lover, 1995;Dahl, Waltzer, & Gross, 2018;Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2018). To date, however, research has yet to establish a clear link between peer victimization and children's sympathy development (van Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, & Bukowski, 2015), suggesting that this relation may depend on other factors.…”

Bilingual children judge moral, social, and language violations as less transgressive than monolingual children

“…In contrast, social-conventional judgments relate to organizational structures and behavioral regularities that are relatively arbitrary, driven by social consensus, and highly variable over context and culture. Social Domain Theory is a constructivist account, arguing that our understanding of moral and social domains develops through active attempts to interpret and make sense of our experiences and observations (see Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2018 for a review). According to Social Domain theory, our moral and conventional knowledge form separate conceptual domains (Smetana, 2006).…”

“…For example, when teachers respond to moral violations, they are more BILINGUAL CHILDREN'S SOCIAL JUDGMENTS 4 likely to discuss the emotional impact of the act (e.g., the feelings of the victims of the transgressions), whereas, when they discuss conventional violations they are more likely to highlight the rules that govern social behavior (e.g., following school rules). While research suggests that early social experiences shape children's developing social knowledge, few studies have explored the types of experiences that influence these judgments, and fewer studies still have done so in non-affective domains (Smetana et al, 2018).…”