The development of intention-based morality: The influence of intention salience and recency, negligence, and outcome on children’s and adults’ judgments.

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the influences on 4-8-year olds' and adults' moral judgments. In both, participants were told stories from previous studies that had indicated that children's judgments are largely outcome-based. Building on recent research in which one change to these studies' methods resulted in substantially more intention-based judgment, in Experiment 1 (N = 75) the salience and recency of intention information were increased, and in Experiment 2 (N = 99) carefulness information (i.e., the absence of negligence) was also added. In both experiments even the youngest children's judgments were primarily intention-based, and in Experiment 2 punishment judgments were similar to adults' from 5-6 years. Comparisons of data across studies and experiments indicated that both changes increased the proportion of intention-based punishment judgments -but not acceptability judgments -across age-groups. These findings challenge and help to explain those of much previous research, according to which children's judgments are primarily outcome-based. However, younger participants continued to judge according to outcome more than older participants. This might indicate that young children are more influenced by outcomes than are adults, but other possible explanations are discussed.

Who Is to Blame? Children's and Adults' Moral Judgments Regarding Victim and Transgressor Negligence

“…There has long been interest in and debate over the relationship between intentions and outcomes in moral judgments (Cushman, Sheketoff, Wharton, & Carey, 2013; Nobes, Panagiotaki, & Engelhardt, 2017; Zelazo, Helwig, & Lau, 1996). Even Piaget's seminal research on morality documented important tensions between intentionality and outcomes in determining moral judgments (Piaget, 1932).…”

“…Even Piaget's seminal research on morality documented important tensions between intentionality and outcomes in determining moral judgments (Piaget, 1932). While scholars continue to explore the influence of both intentions and outcomes in driving moral judgments, there is also increasing attention to the role of potential negligence (Finkel & Groscup, 1997; Margoni, Geipel, Hadjichristidis, & Surian, 2019; Nobes et al, 2017; Nobes, Panagiotaki, & Pawson, 2009). The current study seeks to extend our understanding of the role of negligence in moral judgments, with attention to both children's and adults' moral judgments regarding situations in which either victims or transgressors have acted in a negligent manner.…”

“…For instance, Nobes et al (2009) found that children and adults judged careless (negligent) acts as more wrong than careful acts, and thought that careless acts were more deserving of punishment than careful acts. Moreover in recent work, Nobes et al (2017) explored the idea that young children, especially, may conflate accidental transgressions with negligent transgressions and assume culpability for transgressors who caused harm accidentally. Explicitly adding information clarifying that accidental transgressors were not careless was associated with lower punishment judgments, but not differences in acceptability judgments, compared to evaluations of scenarios that did not provide explicit information about carefulness (Nobes et al, 2017).…”

“…Importantly, Nobes et al (2017) documented careful attention to intentions (not just outcomes) even as early as 5–6 years of age, suggesting that arguments which posit that outcomes take priority for young children (Cushman et al, 2013) may not accurately account for children's cognition surrounding transgressions. Clarifying the outcome‐intention shift is complicated by a few factors.…”

“…Cushman and colleagues propose a dual‐process model, suggesting that around 5 years of age children are primarily sensitive to outcomes, and then increasingly begin to attend to intentions, using samples of children aged 4–8 years (Cushman, 2008; Cushman et al, 2013). Using children aged 4–8 as well as an adult sample (18–70 years), Nobes et al (2017) document greater attention to intention among the youngest participants and clarified that assumptions of negligence may play a key role in how young children weigh information about intentions and outcomes. New research is needed, however, that more carefully examines the role of negligence and which extends the age range of children examined in order to further examine age‐related differences in considerations of intentions and outcomes.…”