Individual Differences in Prototypical Moral and Conventional Judgments and Children's Proactive and Reactive Aggression

Jambon, Marc; Smetana, Judith G.

doi:10.1111/cdev.12757

Cited by 34 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(182 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although most children judge aggression as morally wrong, some still act aggressively, possibly because of individual differences in distinguishing moral from conventional concepts. For example, in one study, children who differentiated moral from conventional norms less successfully engaged in more proactive aggression (Jambon & Smetana, ). Because values reflect an important individual difference among adolescents, adding this component to studies of the moral domain may deepen our understanding of variations in how the moral domain relates to aggression.…”

Section: Directions and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can We Learn About Aggression From What Adolescents Consider Important in Life? The Contribution of Values Theory to Aggression Research

Benish‐Weisman

2019

Child Dev Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Values are abstract goals that serve as guiding principles in people's lives. Schwartz's theory (1992) offers a comprehensive framework to understand what motivates human behavior. It classifies people's broad motivations into a system of values organized in a circumplex structure. In this article, I explain how recent findings from studies of values can add to our knowledge of what motivates adolescents to behave aggressively. For example, during adolescence, values emphasizing caring for others and maintaining social norms relate negatively to aggression, whereas values promoting self-focus and pursuing new experiences and stimulation relate to aggressive acts. I also discuss the potentially protective role of some values, the mechanisms mediating the relations between values and aggression, and the relations between values and aggression over time. Finally, I suggest new directions for research and discuss the importance of including values in interventions to prevent aggression.

show abstract

Section: Directions and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can We Learn About Aggression From What Adolescents Consider Important in Life? The Contribution of Values Theory to Aggression Research

Benish‐Weisman

2019

Child Dev Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Empirical support for this assertion is mixed, however [Brody & Shaffer, 1982], perhaps because differences in children's propensity to experience fear and worry alter how they interpret psychologically controlling tactics. In unpublished data from Jambon and Smetana [2018b], we therefore elicited parent ratings of children's temperamental fearfulness, as well as the reported likelihood that they would use various disciplinary tactics in response to their children's misbehavior. Consistent with an interactional hypothesis, temperamentally fearful children whose parents reported more love withdrawal were less able to differentiate moral and conventional transgressions in their criterion judgments, whereas love withdrawal was not associated with temperamentally fearless children's judgments.…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative Changes and Individual Differences in Early Moral Judgments: A Constructivist Developmental Perspective

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the emergence and development of morality as a distinct form of social knowledge in early childhood. Drawing on social domain theory, we define morality in terms of individuals’ concerns regarding others’ welfare, fair treatment, rights, and the equitable distribution of resources. Moral judgments are described as building on early predispositions but constructed through children’s varied social experiences. We highlight some of the morally relevant interactions in the first few years of life that contribute to early moral development and then summarize evidence regarding young children’s increasing ability to distinguish moral and nonmoral concepts in their judgments. Consistent with our constructivist emphasis, we also draw attention to sources of individual differences in early moral judgment development. We conclude with some suggestions for future research that build on the innovative methods and new findings reported here to further expand our understanding of early moral development.

show abstract

“…However, judgments of the two types of social rules also involved differential responsiveness of cerebral areas, supporting the theoretical distinction between moral and conventional rules. Moreover, a behavioral study revealed that a lower capacity to differentiate moral and conventional rules was associated with proactive aggressive behavior in 4- to 6-year-old NT children [ 16 ]. These studies confirm the importance of this moral/conventional distinction when considering social reasoning abilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social knowledge and social reasoning abilities in a neurotypical population and in children with Down syndrome

Barisnikov

Lejeune

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social knowledge refers to the ability to analyze and reason about social situations in relation to social rules which are essential to the development of social skills and social behavior. The present research aimed to assess these abilities with the “Social resolution task” in a neurotypical population of 351 children (4 to 12 years) and 39 young adults, and in 20 participants (10 to 18 years) with Down syndrome. Results showed that young children aged 4 to 6 were well able to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate social behavior but they had significantly more difficulties in judging and identifying social cues for the transgression of conventional rules than for moral ones. Between age 4 and 8, their social reasoning was mainly based on factual answers, while older children showed significantly more social awareness, making more reference to emotional and social consequences for the “victims”. The representation of a more universal applicability of social rules seemed to develop later in childhood, as of age 8. In contrast, participants with Down syndrome exhibited significantly more difficulties in judging, identifying and reasoning about transgression of social rules without social awareness. In conclusion, the results have shown that social reasoning abilities develop throughout childhood. Social awareness seems to have a long developmental course, which includes a sensibility about welfare and intersubjectivity, critical for the development of prosocial behavior. The clinical population with difficulties in social interaction and socio-emotional behavior could benefit from an early assessment and from learning social reasoning abilities to improve social skills.

show abstract

Individual Differences in Prototypical Moral and Conventional Judgments and Children's Proactive and Reactive Aggression

Cited by 34 publications

References 71 publications

What Can We Learn About Aggression From What Adolescents Consider Important in Life? The Contribution of Values Theory to Aggression Research

What Can We Learn About Aggression From What Adolescents Consider Important in Life? The Contribution of Values Theory to Aggression Research

Normative Changes and Individual Differences in Early Moral Judgments: A Constructivist Developmental Perspective

Social knowledge and social reasoning abilities in a neurotypical population and in children with Down syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About