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

Abstract

This study investigated whether recipients' past moral or immoral behaviour shapes 4-year-olds' judgements of the agents who either harm or help the recipients. Children (N = 161) watched the agent who either harmed or helped the antisocial, prosocial, or neutral recipient. Afterwards, children indicated their sociomoral judgement of the agent's act, their attitude towards the agent and their perception of the agent's emotions. Children liked the agent more, ascribed less sadness to the agent, and judged the agent's actions as less bad when the agent inflicted harm against the antisocial recipient than on the prosocial and neutral recipient. The recipient's past behaviour did not influence children's evaluations when the agent helped the recipient. The presented evidence indicates that by the age of 4, children develop the ability to use complex moral reasoning that allows them to monitor whether the harmful behaviour of antisocial others is justified by retaliation for past transgressions.

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.…”

“…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. More importantly, children also displayed a positive attitude toward individual who harmed antisocial other and negative attitude toward individual who harmed prosocial other (Bocian & Myslinska Szarek, 2020). Therefore, our studies confirm that in the context of beneficial relationships, young children's attitudes reflect their desire to sustain cooperation with the antisocial partner.…”

“…For example, we used a bipolar scale for moral judgment (good vs. bad) which might not capture the more nuanced differences in children's judgments of harm that well. Future studies could use five‐point scales (e.g., lightning bolts vs. suns; Bocian & Myslinska Szarek, 2020) which help probe more deeply into how good or wrong a behavior was in the children's opinion. We also did not manipulate the quantity of the reward, which seems relevant in light of studies demonstrating that aversion to antisocial others may be overcome by large rewards (Tasimi et al, 2017).…”

Egocentrism shapes moral judgements

“…Additionally, recent research has shown that when young children collaborate with partners who help them to acquire resources but also harm third parties, their obligation to sustain the beneficial relationship is stronger than the aversion to antisocial others. In the result, children express a positive attitude towards the partner, even though they recognize the partner's actions as immoral (Myslinska Szarek, Bocian, Baryla, & Wojciszke, 2020).…”

“…Only recently was the idea that automatic evaluations might bias people's judgements of others' actions directly tested. Specifically, studies have investigated how positive outcomes (e.g., personal benefits, group interests) and attitudes (e.g., liking) influence moral judgements of others' behaviour (Bocian, Baryla, & Wojciszke, 2016; Bocian, Cichocka, & Wojciszke, 2020b; Bocian & Wojciszke, 2014a, 2014b; Wojciszke & Bocian, 2018), and moral character judgements (Bocian, Baryla, Kulesza, Schnall, & Wojciszke, 2018; Bocian & Myslinska Szarek, 2020; Grizzard et al, 2020; Melnikoff & Bailey, 2018).…”