Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.
Department of Psychology.
Dev Psychol. 2022 Jun;58(6):1103-1113. doi: 10.1037/dev0001349. Epub 2022 Apr 4.
Young children robustly distinguish between moral norms and conventional norms (Smetana, 1984; Yucel et al., 2020). In existing research, norms about the fair distribution of resources are by definition considered part of the moral domain; they are not distinguished from other moral norms such as those involving physical harm. Yet an understanding of fairness in resource distribution (hereafter, "fairness") emerges late in development and is culturally variable, raising the possibility that fairness may not fall squarely in the moral domain. In 2 preregistered studies, we examined whether U.S. American children who were primarily White see fairness as a moral or conventional norm. In study 1 ( = 96), we did not obtain the established moral-conventional difference needed to investigate questions about the status of fairness. We improved our design in our second preregistered study. In study 2 ( = 94), 4-year-olds rated moral transgressions (e.g., hitting) as more serious than fairness and conventional transgressions (e.g., wearing pajamas to school), but importantly, they rated fairness and conventional transgressions as similarly serious. In contrast, 6- and 8-year-olds rated moral transgressions as more serious than fairness and conventional transgressions, and fairness as more serious than conventional transgressions. An additional, forced-choice procedure revealed that most 6-year-olds also categorized fairness with moral rather than conventional transgressions; 4- and 8-year-olds' responses on this measure did not show systematic patterns. U.S. American children may not equate norms of fairness in resource distribution with harm-based moral norms, even into middle childhood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
幼儿能够强有力地区分道德规范和常规规范(Smetana, 1984; Yucel et al., 2020)。在现有研究中,关于资源公平分配的规范从定义上讲被认为是道德领域的一部分;它们与涉及身体伤害的其他道德规范没有区别。然而,资源分配公平(以下简称“公平”)的理解在发展后期出现,并且具有文化变异性,这使得公平可能不完全属于道德领域。在两项预先注册的研究中,我们研究了主要是白人的美国儿童是否将公平视为道德规范或常规规范。在第一项研究(n=96)中,我们没有获得研究公平地位问题所需的既定道德-常规差异。我们在第二项预先注册的研究中改进了我们的设计。在第二项研究(n=94)中,4 岁儿童将道德违规(例如,打人)评定为比公平和常规违规(例如,穿睡衣上学)更严重,但重要的是,他们将公平和常规违规评定为同样严重。相比之下,6 岁和 8 岁儿童将道德违规评定为比公平和常规违规更严重,而将公平评定为比常规违规更严重。一项额外的强制选择程序表明,大多数 6 岁儿童也将公平归类为道德违规,而不是常规违规;4 岁和 8 岁儿童在该措施上的反应没有显示出系统的模式。美国儿童甚至在进入童年中期后,可能不会将资源分配公平的规范等同于基于伤害的道德规范。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。