| Literature DB >> 27014110 |
Evelyn Vera-Estay1, Anne G Seni2, Caroline Champagne2, Miriam H Beauchamp1.
Abstract
Moral reasoning (MR) is a socio-cognitive skill essential to appropriate social functioning in childhood, and evolves in quality and complexity during ontogenetic development. Past research suggests that MR is related to age, socioeconomic factors, as well as some social and cognitive skills, such as executive functioning (EF), theory of mind (ToM), empathy, and affect recognition. However, their contributions have been studied in silos rather than comprehensively, with little integration of the relative and combined contribution of these skills to MR. Furthermore, few studies have addressed the putative links between these factors in childhood, a period during which these skills are in maturation. The aim of this study was to explore what factors predict moral maturity in typically developing children (n = 76, 47.4% males, M = 9.2, SD = 1.67 years), explore the potential moderating and mediating role of executive functions and social cognition in the relationship between age and MR maturity, and identify the specific contributions of age, socioeconomic factors, EF, and social cognition, using an innovative visual MR assessment tool (So-Moral). The results indicate that MR maturity was correlated with age, EF (inhibition, verbal fluency, and attentional control), and social cognition (ToM and affect recognition). Neither EF nor social cognition moderated the effect of age on MR maturity. However, verbal fluency and third-order false beliefs had a moderating role in this link. MR maturity in children was predicted by three variables from each of the three domains: age, verbal fluency, and third-order ToM. These results contribute to a better understanding of the underpinnings of MR during childhood, suggesting that MR is not reducible to general developmental factors such as age, but that higher order skills, such EF and social cognition also contribute to moral maturity. The findings have relevance for both typically developing and clinical populations in which social skills may be reduced, as well as for the identification of potential loci for intervention in children at-risk for socially maladaptive behaviors.Entities:
Keywords: affect recognition; childhood; executive functions; moral reasoning; theory of mind
Year: 2016 PMID: 27014110 PMCID: PMC4781849 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Brief description of So-Moral coding and examples.
| Level | Brief description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Moral justifications have an egocentric focus, which is based on obedience to higher authorities and potential consequences of their actions for themselves (e.g., punishment). Thinking at this level is inflexible; there is only one right/wrong way to act. | • Because I could go to jail. | |
| Moral justifications are based on a concept of pragmatic deals or exchanging favours with others (‘fair deals’). Thinking is more flexible and is determined by context. The correct option is the one that is right for oneself (self-interest). | • Because I might need his/her help in the future. | |
| Moral justifications have a focus on interpersonal relationships, a sense of ‘good-ness’, and feelings such as empathy and trust. Decisions are made with good motives and a prosocial perspective of the world. | • Because he/she could get hurt. | |
| Moral justifications start to incorporate a broader view of morality; based on the compliance with rules, regulations and standards that society has established to ensure social order. | • Because if everyone were to be unfaithful, relationships would not have any meaning. | |
| Moral justifications are characterized by the capacity to evaluate situations from various points of view to identify values involved in the specific situation in order to make the fairest decision. Protection of fundamental values and people’s rights is specific to this stage, even though these concepts are expressed very concretely. | • Because people work hard for their things and we should respect their belongings. |
Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.
| Variable | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| Male | 36 | 52.6 |
| Female | 40 | 47.4 |
| White | 72 | 94.7 |
| Hispanic | 2 | 2.6 |
| African–American | 2 | 2.6 |
| Below 20 000 $ | 4 | 5.3 |
| 20 000 through 39 000 $ | 12 | 15.8 |
| 40 000 through 59 000 $ | 17 | 22.4 |
| 60 000 through 79 000 $ | 22 | 28.9 |
| 80 000 through 99 000 $ | 16 | 21.1 |
| 100 000 $ and more | 5 | 6.6 |
| High SES | 5 | 6.6 |
| Middle SES | 54 | 72.4 |
| Low SES | 16 | 21.1 |
| Master’s degree | 1 | 1.3 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 10 | 13.2 |
| College | 29 | 38.2 |
| High school graduate | 28 | 36.8 |
| Incomplete high school | 8 | 10.5 |
| Doctoral degree | 1 | 1.3 |
| Master’s degree | 2 | 2.6 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 4 | 5.3 |
| College | 15 | 19.7 |
| High school graduate | 35 | 46.1 |
| Incomplete high school | 16 | 21.1 |
| Missing values | 3 | 3.9 |
Main descriptive results and correlations of the study.
| Variable | Correlation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MR maturity | Age | SES composite | |||
| Age in months | 0.54*** | 1 | -0.02 | ||
| SES composite | -0.03 | 0.75 | -0.13 | -0.02 | 1 |
| Annual Household income | 0 | 1 | -0.13 | -0.05 | 0.73*** |
| Maternal education | 0 | 1 | -0.09 | 0.08 | 0.74** |
| Paternal education | 0 | 1 | -0.04 | -0.11 | 0.61*** |
| Intellectual functioning (WASI IQ) | 108.6 | 9.9 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.03 |
| Attentional controla | 82.5 | 21.1 | 0.36** | 0.64*** | 0.05 |
| Verbal fluencyb | 30.3 | 9.3 | 0.49*** | 0.58*** | -0.19 |
| Inhibitionc | 74.9 | 26.0 | -0.43*** | -0.66*** | |
| Affect recognitiond | 25.1 | 4.6 | 0.42*** | 0.54*** | -0.22 |
| Empathy (total score)e | 33.2 | 23.4 | 0.21 | 0.34** | -0.09 |
| Cognitive empathyf | 25.5 | 14.2 | 0.22 | 0.32** | -0.10 |
| Affective empathyg | 23.8 | 18.8 | 0.19 | 0.29* | -0.07 |
| Theory of Mindh | 48.7 | 7.8 | 0.32** | 0.44*** | -0.08 |
| First-order false beliefsi | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.11 | 0.27* | -0.05 |
| Second-order false beliefsj | 2.1 | 0.9 | 0.26* | 0.40** | -0.08 |
| Third-order false beliefsk | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.40*** | 0.36** | -0.03 |
| Moral reasoningl | 18.3 | 5.3 | 0.56 | -0.13 | |
Indirect effects of age on MR skills via EF and social cognition.
| Mediator | Bootstrap estimate | SE | BC 95% CI lower | BC 95% CI upper |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attention control | –0.0079 | 0.0212 | –0.0498 | 0.0352 |
| Inhibition | 0.0148 | 0.0250 | –0.0336 | 0.0638 |
| Verbal fluency | 0.0336 | 0.0216 | 0.0030 | 0.0887 |
| Total indirect effect | 0.0465 | 0.0299 | –0.0148 | 0.1075 |
| Affect recognition | 0.0272 | 0.0146 | –0.0043 | 0.0560 |
| Third-order false beliefs | 0.0223 | 0.0131 | 0.0044 | 0.0574 |
| Total indirect effect | 0.0485 | 0.0179 | 0.0195 | 0.0923 |
Contribution of demographic variables, EF, and social cognition to moral reasoning maturity.
| Predictor | MR Maturity | |
|---|---|---|
| Δ | β | |
| 0.28∗∗∗ | ||
| Age | 0.53∗∗∗ | |
| 0.05∗ | ||
| Age | 0.37∗ | |
| Verbal fluency | 0.28∗ | |
| 0.06∗ | ||
| Age | 0.23 | |
| Verbal fluency | 0.24∗ | |
| Affect recognition | 0.16 | |
| Third-order false beliefs | 0.22∗ | |
| 0.39∗ | ||
| 76 | ||