Appealing to consequences, or authority? The influence of explanations on children's moral judgments across two cultures

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105994
Pearl Han Li , Melissa A. Koenig
{"title":"Appealing to consequences, or authority? The influence of explanations on children's moral judgments across two cultures","authors":"Pearl Han Li ,&nbsp;Melissa A. Koenig","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent research shows that children's moral judgments can be influenced by testimony, but it remains unclear whether certain types of testimony are more influential than others. Here we examined two specific types of moral testimony - one that appealed to the authority of the speaker and one that appealed to the consequence of the action - and measured how each type of testimony moved children's judgments about harm. Chinese (<em>N</em> = 181; 45.3 % girls; all ethnically Chinese, middle-class) and U.S children (<em>N</em> = 198; 55.6 % girls; predominantly White, middle-class) were presented with countervailing testimony that justified novel, distress-inducing actions as acceptable, either by appealing to the speaker's authority or by reasoning about the positive consequences of the action. Both types of explanations significantly influenced children's moral judgments, leading children from both cultures to judge harm-related actions as more morally permissible. However, with age, children across both cultures became less receptive towards authority-based explanations. Neither type of explanation affected adults' (<em>N</em> = 180, recruited online from across China and the U.S.) moral judgments. Together, these findings provide developmental evidence on the types of explanations that influence children's moral judgments about actions that cause harm.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 105994"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002804","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent research shows that children's moral judgments can be influenced by testimony, but it remains unclear whether certain types of testimony are more influential than others. Here we examined two specific types of moral testimony - one that appealed to the authority of the speaker and one that appealed to the consequence of the action - and measured how each type of testimony moved children's judgments about harm. Chinese (N = 181; 45.3 % girls; all ethnically Chinese, middle-class) and U.S children (N = 198; 55.6 % girls; predominantly White, middle-class) were presented with countervailing testimony that justified novel, distress-inducing actions as acceptable, either by appealing to the speaker's authority or by reasoning about the positive consequences of the action. Both types of explanations significantly influenced children's moral judgments, leading children from both cultures to judge harm-related actions as more morally permissible. However, with age, children across both cultures became less receptive towards authority-based explanations. Neither type of explanation affected adults' (N = 180, recruited online from across China and the U.S.) moral judgments. Together, these findings provide developmental evidence on the types of explanations that influence children's moral judgments about actions that cause harm.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
诉诸后果还是权威?解释对两种文化背景下儿童道德判断的影响。
最近的研究表明,儿童的道德判断会受到证词的影响,但目前还不清楚某些类型的证词是否比其他证词更有影响力。在此,我们研究了两种特定类型的道德证词--一种是诉诸说话者的权威,另一种是诉诸行为的后果--并测量了每种类型的证词如何影响儿童对伤害的判断。研究人员向中国儿童(人数=181;45.3%为女孩;均为中国人,中产阶级)和美国儿童(人数=198;55.6%为女孩;主要为白人,中产阶级)提供了反面证词,通过诉诸说话者的权威或推理行为的积极后果,证明新颖的、会造成痛苦的行为是可以接受的。这两类解释都对儿童的道德判断产生了重大影响,使两种文化背景下的儿童都认为与伤害相关的行为在道德上更被允许。然而,随着年龄的增长,两种文化中的儿童都越来越不容易接受基于权威的解释。这两种解释都不会影响成年人(人数=180,从中国和美国招募)的道德判断。这些发现为影响儿童对造成伤害的行为进行道德判断的解释类型提供了发展证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers? Relative source credibility affects the continued influence effect: Evidence of rationality in the CIE. Decoding face identity: A reverse-correlation approach using deep learning How does color distribution learning affect goal-directed visuomotor behavior? Bias-free measure of distractor avoidance in visual search
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1