Longitudinal Associations among Psychological Control, Positive and Negative Interactions, and Adolescents' Domain-Specific Disclosure to Parents.

Although much research has shown that parental psychological control undermines adolescents' routine disclosure to parents, past research has not examined whether the effects of psychological control on disclosure are domain-specific and mediated by the quality of adolescents' interactions with mothers and fathers. The present one-year longitudinal study examined whether parental support and negative interactions with each parent mediated longitudinal associations between adolescents' ratings of psychological control and adolescents' disclosure about routine prudential, personal, and multifaceted activities, as defined by social domain theory. These issues were examined over one year in 174 mostly White (74%), U.S. middle class middle adolescents (M = 15.70 years, SD = 0.63, 83 males). Greater parental psychological control was associated over time with less disclosure to both parents about personal activities and less disclosure to fathers about multifaceted issues. Perceived declines in support fully mediated the effects of psychological control on adolescent disclosure to mothers about personal issues and partially mediated the effects on disclosure to fathers about personal and multifaceted issues. In addition, negative interactions led to decreased disclosure about prudential issues. Thus, perceived psychological control and relationship quality had domain-specific and parent-specific longitudinal effects on adolescent disclosure to parents about their routine activities.

Why do children comply with parental restrictions in the personal domain?

Numerous studies have shown that children judge some issues as personal and up to them to decide, yet they often comply with parental restrictions regarding these choices. The current study investigated children's judgments and justifications in response to stories where hypothetical mothers prohibited children's personal choices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 123 U.S. children (56 male) ranging from 5 to 9 years of age (M = 6.80 years). Responses were examined as a function of age, type of domain explanation, and whether punishment was specified or not. Across ages, and when presented initially without a prohibition, children judged personal activities as acceptable and wrong for the hypothetical mother to prohibit, based mainly on personal reasons. However, when mothers were described as giving prudential or social-conventional explanations for restricting children's choices, most children reported that the actor should comply regardless of domain condition. Children rated prudential explanations as more acceptable than conventional explanations, provided mostly domain-consistent justifications for their judgments, and attributed more negative emotions to being unable to pursue personal choices in the conventional condition than in the prudential condition. In addition, justifications but not judgments varied by punishment condition in interaction with maternal explanation domain. Children also believed that they themselves should comply with maternal prohibitions more than the hypothetical story actor should. Thus, although prototypical issues were viewed as personal, children across middle childhood thought that children should and would comply when mothers provide explanations for maternal prohibitions and more so for prudential explanations than for conventional explanations.

Preschoolers learn new moral and conventional norms from direct experiences.

By observing others, children can learn about different types of norms, including moral norms rooted in concerns for welfare and rights, and social conventions based on directives from authority figures or social consensus. Two experiments examined how preschoolers and adults constructed and applied knowledge about novel moral and conventional norms from their direct social experiences. Participants watched a video of a novel prohibited action that caused pain to a victim (moral conditions) or a sound from a box (conventional conditions). Next, they saw a transgressor puppet, who had either watched the video alongside participants or not, engage in the prohibited action. Preschoolers and adults rapidly constructed distinct moral and conventional evaluations about the novel actions. These distinctions were evident across several response modalities that have often been studied separately, including judgments, reasoning, and actions. However, children did not reliably track the puppet's knowledge of the novel norms. These studies provide experimental support for the idea that children and adults construct distinct moral and conventional norms from social experiences, which in turn guide judgments, reasoning, and behavior.

Middle school students' engagement in and beliefs about student misbehavior: A social domain approach.

INTRODUCTION: Through the lens of social domain theory, the present study examined how 7th grade students coordinated social and moral reasoning when thinking about transgressions. METHOD: Eighty-nine 7th-grade students (Meanage = 13.05 years; 46 female students) were sampled to assess their beliefs about and engagement in school and classroom misbehavior. Interactive sorting tasks were employed to examine how participants coordinated competing social concerns inherent in everyday misbehaviors. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that engagement and reasoning were domain differentiated; students engaged most in conventional and contextually conventional transgressions and least in transgressions that involved harm to others (moral) or to the self (prudential). Sorting task responses revealed that, over and above domain-consistent reasoning (e.g., moral reasoning used to justify decisions about moral transgressions), students appealed to conventional justifications like teacher authority, school rules, and peer norms when reasoning about all types of misbehavior (i.e., moral, conventional, contextually conventional, and prudential). Reasoning also differed by misbehavior groupings. Analyses also indicated that the number of social cognitive domains that a participant considered relevant when defining a transgression was negatively associated with engagement in that transgression. Finally, a multigroup path analysis model revealed that the association between type of reasoning and misbehavior was moderated by misbehavior group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study increased understanding of the ways that individuals coordinate social and moral concerns in everyday decision making. Moreover, discussion focused on how the results can be used to support domain-based values education and in more effective teacher/administrator responses to student misbehavior.

Does group membership affect children's judgments of social transgressions?

Children judge in-group members more favorably than out-group members. They also judge moral transgressions as more serious and more worthy of punishment than conventional transgressions. Here we asked whether children's judgments of moral and conventional transgressions vary by the group membership of the transgressor (in-group, neutral, out-group, or self). In addition, we asked whether judgments of the transgressions would extend to the transgressors themselves, including cases in which the self was the transgressor. Results show that transgressions committed by out-group members were judged as being more serious and more punish-worthy than those committed by members of other groups. In addition, children judged out-group transgressors more harshly, and the self more leniently, than other group members. Overall, results suggest that group membership does affect judgments of transgressions and transgressors, with out-group members consistently judged the most negatively and the self consistently judged the least negatively. However, when judging the transgressor or the seriousness of the transgression, domain distinctions do persist even as group membership varies. Although, when assigning punishment, domain distinctions persist only when judging the transgressions of out-group members and neutral individuals. These findings demonstrate the powerful effect of group membership on the judgments of both acts and actors, indicating that when judging transgressions children consider not only the moral or conventional status of the act but also the group membership of the actor.

Young children's inclusion decisions in moral and social-conventional group norm contexts.

Being a member of a peer group involves making decisions about whom to include in or exclude from the group. Sometimes these decisions are related to whether members of the group support or challenge the norms of the group. To examine how young children weigh concerns for group norms and group membership in both moral and social-conventional norm contexts, children (3- to 6-year-olds; N=73) were asked to decide between including an ingroup member who challenged the group's norm or an outgroup member who supported the norm. Groups held either moral (equal or unequal resource allocation) or social-conventional (traditional or nontraditional) norms. In the moral contexts, children were more likely to include the peer who advocated for the moral concern for equality regardless of the peer's group membership or their group's specific norm. In the social-conventional contexts, however, children were more likely to include the peer who advocated for the conventional concern for maintaining traditions but only at the group-specific level. Furthermore, with age children increasingly based their inclusion decisions on normative concerns, rather than on group membership concerns, and differed in their inclusion decisions for ingroups and outgroups. Finally, children reasoned about their decisions by referencing concerns for fairness, group norms, and group membership, suggesting that preschool children weigh multiple concerns when deciding whom to include in their groups. Overall, the current study revealed differences in how preschool children weigh moral and social-conventional concerns in intergroup contexts.

Preschoolers, but not adults, treat instrumental norms as categorical imperatives.

Hypothetical norms apply only when agents have specific goals, whereas categorical norms apply regardless of what agents want. Deciding whether a rule is hypothetical or categorical is crucial for navigating many social situations encountered by children and adults. The current research investigated whether preschoolers viewed instrumental norms (about how to accomplish practical tasks), prudential norms (pertaining to agent welfare), and moral norms (pertaining to others' welfare) as hypothetical or categorical. A second main question was whether preschoolers draw distinctions between instrumental and other norms. Participants were interviewed about norm violations in which the agent did or did not have the relevant goal. The goal manipulation had no effect on children's judgments of permissibility; most children treated all three norm types as categorical. Nevertheless, children distinguished instrumental events from prudential and moral events along several dimensions. In contrast, participants in two adult samples treated instrumental norms, and some prudential norms, as hypothetical, but treated moral norms as categorical (applicable regardless of agent goal). These findings suggest that preschoolers do not yet reliably distinguish between hypothetical and categorical norms, yet do view rules of instrumental rationality as a distinct type of norms.

A matter of fact? Adolescents' assumptions about crime, laws, and authority and their domain-specific beliefs about punishment.

This study examined adolescents' beliefs about the amount of punishment individuals should receive for violating different laws and whether these beliefs are connected with their informational assumptions (i.e., perceived facts) about crime, laws, and authority. American adolescents (N = 340; Mage = 16.64, 58.2% female) reported their judgments concerning the appropriate punishment for violating laws regulating domain-specific behaviors and their informational assumptions regarding the prevalence and causes of crime, beliefs that authority is knowledgeable, and the purpose of punishment. Greater internal attributions for crime was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate moral and conventional issues. Greater beliefs that punishment teaches right from wrong was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate drug-related prudential issues, and lower punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate personal issues. Greater beliefs that authorities are more knowledgeable than others was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate personal issues.

When and Why Parents Prompt Their Children to Apologize: The Roles of Transgression Type and Parenting Style.

Young children are sensitive to the importance of apologies, yet little is known about when and why parents prompt apologies from children. We examined these issues with parents of 3-10-year-old children (N = 483). Parents judged it to be important for children to apologize following both intentional and accidental morally-relevant transgressions, and they anticipated prompting apologies in both contexts, showing an 'outcome bias' (i.e., a concern for the outcomes of children's transgressions rather than for their underlying intentions). Parents viewed apologies as less important after children's breaches of social convention; parents recognized differences between social domains in their responses to children's transgressions. Irrespective of parenting style, parents were influenced in similar fashion by particular combinations of transgressions and victims, though permissive parents were least likely to anticipate prompting apologies. Parents endorsed different reasons for prompting apologies as a function of transgression type, suggesting that they attend to key features of their children's transgressions when deciding when to prompt apologies.

Does children's moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments.

The current study tested whether preschoolers' moral and social-conventional judgments change under social pressure using Asch's conformity paradigm. A sample of 132 preschoolers (Mage=3.83years, SD=0.85) rated the acceptability of moral and social-conventional events and also completed a visual judgment task (i.e., comparing line length) both independently and after having viewed two peers who consistently made immoral, unconventional, or visually inaccurate judgments. Results showed evidence of conformity on all three tasks, but conformity was stronger on the social-conventional task than on the moral and visual tasks. Older children were less susceptible to pressure for social conformity for the moral and visual tasks but not for the conventional task.

Vocal tones influence young children's responses to prohibitions.

Vocal reactions to child transgressions convey information about the nature of those transgressions. The current research investigated children's ability to make use of such vocal reactions. Study 1 investigated infants' compliance with a vocal prohibition telling them to stay away from a toy. Compared to younger infants, older infants showed greater compliance with prohibitions elicited by moral (interpersonal harm) transgressions but not with prohibitions elicited by pragmatic (inconvenience) transgressions. Study 2 investigated preschoolers' use of firm-stern vocalizations (associated with moral transgressions) and positive vocalizations (associated with pragmatic transgressions). Most children guessed that the firm-stern vocalizations were uttered in response to a moral transgression and the positive vocalizations were uttered in response to a pragmatic transgression. These two studies suggest that children use vocal tones, along with other experiences, to guide their compliance with and interpretation of prohibitions.

Executive function as a mechanism for the emergence and expression of moral knowledge.

We outline two accounts by which executive function (EF) supports children's moral reasoning: an emergence and an expression account. The emergence account postulates that EF supports the development of moral concepts because it relates to how children navigate their early social environments and how well they can internalize moral messages. The expression account postulates that EF supports children's in-the-moment moral reasoning for complex moral situations. We present data from two studies with preschool children to assess each account. In support of the emergence account, EF longitudinally and positively predicted moral reasoning, but only for children who have experienced moderate forms of peer conflict. In support of the expression account, EF was only correlated with judgments that required the coordination of multiple pieces of information (i.e., retaliation and criterion judgments). We conclude that EF is an important cognitive mechanism of moral development and discuss various implications of these findings for both moral development and EF theory.

College Students' Evaluations and Reasoning About Exclusion of Students with Autism and Learning Disability: Context and Goals may Matter More than Contact.

This study used mixed-effects logistic regression to examine undergraduates' (N = 142) evaluations and reasoning about scenarios involving disability-based exclusion. Scenarios varied by disability [autism spectrum disorder (ASD) versus learning disability (LD)], the context of exclusion (classroom versus social), and whether or not a grade was at stake. Participants were more likely to determine exclusion was acceptable if the excluded student had an ASD diagnosis, there was a grade at stake, and it occurred in a classroom. Exclusion was less likely to be considered acceptable in the "no grade" compared to the "grade" conditions for LD students, but remained high in both conditions for autistic students. This study also describes contextual variations in participants' justifications for their evaluations.

To include or not to include: Evaluations and reasoning about the failure to include peers with autism spectrum disorder in elementary students.

Given the significant role that typically developing children play in the social lives of children with autism spectrum disorder, it is important to understand how they evaluate and reason about the inclusion/exclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder in social situations. The objective of this study is to determine elementary students' evaluations, reasoning patterns, and reasoning complexity regarding the failure to include children with autism spectrum disorder in social activities. Forty-four elementary-aged students participated in interviews, which included vignettes describing four contexts in which a child with autism spectrum disorder is not invited to a social event. Responses were analyzed according to social domain theory, an approach emphasizing that children identify and coordinate different domains of social knowledge, including the moral, personal, societal, and prudential. Results showed that regardless of grade and context, most children judge that failure to include on the basis of disability status is not acceptable. However, the complexity of children's reasoning (i.e. the extent to which they drew upon and coordinated multiple domains) was higher in older children. Mean complexity scores were also higher in a birthday party context as compared to a playdate context. We offer implications for future research and practice regarding the social inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder.

Mothers' Insistence when Prohibiting Infants from Harming Others in Everyday Interactions.

Social interactions about transgressions provide a context for the development of children's moral aversion to harming others. This study investigated mothers' insistence when communicating the prohibition against harming others to infants in everyday home interactions. Mothers' reactions to infants' use of force against others (moral harm transgressions) were compared to their reactions to transgressions pertaining to infant wellbeing (prudential) and transgressions pertaining to inconvenience (pragmatic). Twenty-six infants and their families participated in 2.5-h naturalistic home observations when infants were 14, 19, and 24 months old. Mothers' interventions on moral harm transgressions involved increased use of physical interventions and direct commands, and decreased use of distractions, softening interventions, and relenting/compromising, compared to their interventions on prudential and pragmatic transgressions. Children showed the greatest immediate compliance with, and least protests against, maternal interventions on moral harm transgressions.