A Quantitative methodology to Examine the Development of Moral Judgment

Intention, Act, and Outcome in Behavioral Prediction and Moral Judgment

“…The outcome rule, used at all ages in qualitative judgments of act acceptability, requires participants to consider only a single pair of conditional statements (if crying then punish; if smile then do not punish) and therefore should be within the ken of 3-year-olds (Zeleizo & Reznick, 1991). In contrast to the qualitative judgments, however, the quantitative act acceptability judgments were sensitive to an age-related increase in the use of intention information, consistent with numerous previous studies (e.g., Buchanon & Thompson, 1973;Costanzo et al, 1973;Gutkin, 1972;Hebble, 1971;Helwig et al, 1995;Leon, 1980;Shultz et al, 1986;Surber, 1977;Wellman et al, 1979). Participants appear to use a simple outcome rule to make categorical judg-ments about act acceptability, but for 5-yearolds and adults, ratings of degree of acceptability were sensitive to additional information (i.e., intentions).…”

“…Intentions-based moral judgment has also been found in 3y2-year-olds by Yuill (1984) and in somewhat older preschoolers in many other studies (e.g., Berndt & Berndt, 1975;Feldman, Klosson, Parsons, Rholes, & Ruble, 1976;Moran & O'Brien, 1983;Shultz, Wright, & Schleifer, 1986;Surber, 1977;Wellman, Larkey, & Somerville, 1979). Although these studies demonstrate that young children can use information about intentions in moral judgments, tbere is ample evidence that intentions become more important and are weighted more heavily with age (Buchanon & Thompson, 1973;Costanzo, Coie, Grumet, & Farnill, 1973;Gutkin, 1972;Hebble, 1971;Helwig, Hildebrandt, & Turiel, 1995;Leon, 1980;Surber, 1977). In the current study, it was therefore expected that older children and adults would make greater use of intention information in their moral judgments than would younger children.…”

“…Qualitative judgments (e.g.. Was it okay for X to Y?) are useful for providing general information about the features that are most important in determining evaluations, while quantitative measures provide direct information about the relative weight of different pieces of information in judgments (Buchanon & Thompson, 1973;Surber, 1977) and may be more sensitive to the influence of multiple types of information. Two types of moral judgment (act acceptability and punishment) were included because the rules that are used to make these judgments may differ.…”

Children's Development and Use of Inferences About Intentions and Motives in Moral Judgment

“…Efforts to study moral judgment with a greater degree of experimental control (e.g. Buchanan and Thompson, 1973) have led almost inevitably to an emphasis on the evaluations rather than the reasoning since it proves easier to control the conditions of the former than those of the latter. One need not insist that a Piagetian perspective cannot be assimilated to the requirements of experimental rigour in order to see that this represents a significant change of emphasis.…”

“…Although single stories are increasingly preferred in moral judgment research (cf. Buchanan and Thompson, 1973; Weiner and Peter, 1973) they are poorly suited to an examination of this particular distinction. Judgments of single incidents may appropriately appeal to the deliberate nature of the act or the motives involved.…”