Young Children's Moral Judgments, Justifications, and Emotion Attributions in Peer Relationship Contexts

Abstract

Children (n = 160, 4- to 9-year-olds; M = 6.23 years, SD = 1.46) judged, justified, attributed emotions, and rated intent for hypothetical physical harm, psychological harm, and resource distribution transgressions against close friends, acquaintances, disliked peers, or bullies. Transgressions against bullies were judged more acceptable than against friends and disliked peers and less deserving of punishment than against acquaintances and disliked peers. Transgressions against friends were judged least intended and resulting in more negative emotions for transgressors; actors transgressing against disliked peers, as compared to bullies or acquaintances, were happy victimizers. Across relationships, children viewed moral transgressions as wrong independent of rules and authority, based primarily on welfare and fairness justifications. Peer context colors but does not fundamentally change moral evaluations.

Children’s sociomoral judgements of antisocial but not prosocial others depend on recipients’ past moral behaviour

“…Only when the transgressor displayed guilt with an apology were the 4-year-olds able to draw the same conclusion as the 5-year-olds about the wrongdoer's feelings (Vaish et al, 2011, Study 2). Finally, in the context of peer relationships, research has shown that children aged 4 to 9 years attributed less negative emotion to actors transgressing against bullies than against friends (Smetana & Ball, 2018). Therefore, it seems essential to investigate whether the happy victimizer phenomenon occurs when information on the recipient's moral behaviour is introduced.…”

“…This evidence suggests that infants and young children can evaluate acts not solely based on their value but also by considering the value of the recipient's previous actions. According to the social-cognitive domain theory (Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2014;Smetana & Ball, 2018), children in their sociomoral judgements consider not only the act but also the current context and the recipient's characteristics (Helwig & Principe, 1999;Slomkowski & Killen, 1992). Therefore, children may form sociomoral judgements from different perspectives embedded in different social domains (e.g., moral norms, conventional norms, and social norms).…”

“…Specifically, with increasing age (from 5 to 11 years old), children rate more leniently necessary harm (actor transgresses to prevent injury); however, prototypical harm is not less wrong and less deserving of punishment . Moreover, children aged 4 to 9 years judge that transgressions against bullies and disliked peers are more acceptable and less deserving of punishment than those against friends (Smetana & Ball, 2018). Finally, recent research has shown that when young children collaborate with partners who help them acquire resources but also harm third parties, their obligation to sustain the beneficial relationship is stronger than their aversion to antisocial others.…”

Partner in crime: Beneficial cooperation overcomes children’s aversion to antisocial others

“…Second, according to RRT, moral judgments should be understood as a manifestation of different social relationship motives (Rai & Fiske, 2011). We know that infants (Hamlin & Wynn, 2011; Hamlin et al, 2007) and preschoolers (Bocian & Myslinska Szarek, 2020; Li & Tomasello, 2018; McAuliffe et al, 2015; Smetana & Ball, 2018; Smetana et al, 2014) do not have a simple aversion to individuals who harm third parties, but rather consider whether harmful actions were justified, which suggests that they are capable of making complex social judgments. For example, a recent study had demonstrated that 4‐year‐old children judged harmful behavior as less bad when the behavior was directed at the antisocial recipient than at the prosocial recipient.…”

Keeping friends in mind: Development of friendship concepts in early childhood

“…In fact, starting at around four years, children take peer relationships, particularly friendship, into account when making third-party moral judgments about harm (e.g. Smetana & Ball, 2018), and 4-to 6-year-olds judge partiality towards friends positively when equal distribution is not an option (Paulus, Christner, & Wörle, 2020). Do such attitudes translate to behavior?…”