Literature DB >> 19740483

The influence of negligence, intention, and outcome on children's moral judgments.

Gavin Nobes1, Georgia Panagiotaki, Chris Pawson.   

Abstract

Piaget (1932) and subsequent researchers have reported that young children's moral judgments are based more on the outcomes of actions than on the agents' intentions. The current study investigated whether negligence might also influence these judgments and explain children's apparent focus on outcome. Children (3-8 years of age) and adults (N=139) rated accidental actions in which the valences of intention, negligence, and outcome were varied systematically. Participants of all ages were influenced primarily by intention, and well-intentioned actions were also evaluated according to negligence and outcome. Only two young children based their judgments solely on outcome. It is suggested that previous studies have underestimated children's use of intention because outcome and negligence have been confounded. Negative consequences are considered to be important because children assume that they are caused by negligence. The findings indicate that young children can show sophisticated understanding of the roles of intention and negligence in moral judgments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19740483     DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol        ISSN: 0022-0965


  13 in total

1.  Asking Children to "Be Helpers" Can Backfire After Setbacks.

Authors:  Emily Foster-Hanson; Andrei Cimpian; Rachel A Leshin; Marjorie Rhodes
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2018-09-19

2.  The accidental transgressor: morally-relevant theory of mind.

Authors:  Melanie Killen; Kelly Lynn Mulvey; Cameron Richardson; Noah Jampol; Amanda Woodward
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2011-03-04

3.  Children's group identity is related to their assessment of fair and unfair advantages.

Authors:  Alexander P D'Esterre; Bonnie Woodward; Melanie Killen
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2021-10-06

4.  "There are no band-aids for emotions": The development of thinking about emotional harm.

Authors:  Isobel A Heck; Jessica Bregant; Katherine D Kinzler
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2021-06

5.  Theory of Mind and Resource Allocation in the Context of Hidden Inequality.

Authors:  Leon Li; Michael T Rizzo; Amanda R Burkholder; Melanie Killen
Journal:  Cogn Dev       Date:  2017-02-24

Review 6.  Explaining the U-Shaped Development of Intent-Based Moral Judgments.

Authors:  Francesco Margoni; Luca Surian
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-02-18

Review 7.  Why (and how) should we study the interplay between emotional arousal, Theory of Mind, and inhibitory control to understand moral cognition?

Authors:  Marine Buon; Ana Seara-Cardoso; Essi Viding
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-12

8.  To punish or to leave: distinct cognitive processes underlie partner control and partner choice behaviors.

Authors:  Justin W Martin; Fiery Cushman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The Side-Effect Effect in Children Is Robust and Not Specific to the Moral Status of Action Effects.

Authors:  Hannes Rakoczy; Tanya Behne; Annette Clüver; Stephanie Dallmann; Sarah Weidner; Michael R Waldmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Priming Children's Use of Intentions in Moral Judgement with Metacognitive Training.

Authors:  Katarina Gvozdic; Sylvain Moutier; Emmanuel Dupoux; Marine Buon
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-03-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.