“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Nelson (1980) Study on Morality AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 1

Factors Influencing Young Children's Use of Motives and Outcomes as Moral Criteria Nelson (1980) Study AICE Psychology- Developmental Unit

Classic Scenario… A man’s wife is dying There is a new trial drug that may save his wife The drug costs too much for the man to buy and the company that created the drug will not sell the drug at a price low enough for the man to afford The man has become desperate and considers stealing the drug.

Background to the Study Jean Piaget’s theory of moral development Piaget noted that morality develops gradually during childhood Based on observation and interviews with children Moral development is a function of cognitive development

Background to the Study Piaget asserted that: birth to 5yrs- basically it is ok to do if they don’t get in trouble 6-10 yrs- Moral judgments are based on outcomes (consequences) and not on motives 10-13yrs- Judgments are based on motives (rather than outcomes)

Contrary to Piaget’s belief… Research in the 1970s demonstrated that moral motives and outcomes can be understood in children at 6 years rather than at least 10 Studies used single hypothetical stories where the motives and outcomes were systematically varied and analyzed through quantitative measures Sparked wave of research into how young kids use (or do not use) motives & outcomes as part of their moral criteria

Aim of the Study To demonstrate that the children as young as 3 years old use motives and outcomes as relevant criteria for making moral judgments

Hypothesis of the Study Children as young as 3 years old use both motive and outcome in making moral judgments. Additionally, the mode of presentation that makes both motives and outcomes salient, explicit, and available at the time of judgment will allow 3 year olds to demonstrate sensitivity to motives and outcomes. CUE 1: In your own words, explain the hypothesis of the study.

Design of the Studies Experimental lab study (total of 2 studies) Independent measures study Participants: Study 1- 90 kids total, 60 3-4 yrs. & 30 6-8 yrs 1:1 M:F, middle class, mostly white urban parental consent was received Study 2: 27 kids, 3-4 yrs old (same makeup) CUE 2: Describe one strength and one weakness concerning the participants in the study.

Variables within the studies IVs: Age of the Ps -story condition (4 possible as listed) motive + outcome +, motive + outcome – motive - outcome +, motive - outcome – -Presentation condition (verbal, verbal + picture implicit, verbal + picture explicit) DVs: overall moral judgment judgment of motive and outcome recall of story

Good motive, good outcome Good motive, bad outcome N = 60 30 boys & 30 girls EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR STUDY 1 Picture-motive implied presentation n =20 Verbal presentation n =20 Picture-motive explicit presentation n =20 All 4 studies Good motive, good outcome Good motive, bad outcome Bad motive, good outcome Bad motive, bad outcome CUE 3: Explain one strength of using an independent measures design

Study 1 Participants Overview 60 pre-school children 30 Boys and 30 girls Age range: 3 – 4 years Mean Age: 3.4 years Study 1 Participants Overview 30 second-grade children 15 Boys and 15 girls Age range: 6 – 8 years Mean Age: 7.4 years From White, Middle Class, Urban Area Participated with parental consent

Stories (4): Study 1 Methodology In each story, a boy acting with a good or bad motive throws a ball toward a friend, resulting in a good or bad outcome Children hear story with good motive and good outcome Children hear story with good motive and bad outcome Children hear story with bad motive and good outcome Children hear story with bad motive and bad outcome

Study 1 Methodology Participants randomly assigned to a story presentation condition (verbal, verbal+ picture implicit, or verbal+picture explicit) 20/group for the 3-4 kids & 10/group of the 6-8 kids Each child heard all 4 versions of the story (order of presentation was also random) Each child was interviewed after hearing the story Each child was familiarized with the rating scale (smiley faces!) with practice stories and were told that they would have to describe back the real stories

Study 1 Methodology After each story, the child was asked if the boy in the story was good, bad, or ok & they had to rank the boy’s goodness/badness using the smiley face system In both picture presentation conditions, drawings were introduced 1 by 1 and laid next each other and remained while child made the moral judgment call After judgments were made, the pics were removed and the child had to recount the story If the child skipped motive or outcome info of the story, the researcher prodded for it

“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Nelson (1980) Study on Morality AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 2

Study 1 Methodology Story Example (motive + outcome -) This boy was playing with a ball. His friend did not have anything to play with. He wanted to throw the ball so he and his friend could play catch together with the ball. He threw the ball but his friend did not catch the ball. The ball hit his friend on the head and made him cry.

Study 1 Methodology Motive Statements: (1) Good Motive: This boy was playing with a ball; his friend did not have anything to play with. He wanted to throw the ball to his friend so they could play catch together with the ball. (2) Bad Motive: This boy was playing with a ball; he was very mad at his friend that day. He wanted to throw the ball at his friend so he could hit him on purpose.

Study 1 Methodology Outcome Statements: (1) Good Outcome: The boy threw the ball. His friend caught the ball and was happy to play with it. (2) Bad Outcome: The boy threw the ball. His friend did not catch the ball; the ball hit his friend on the head and made him cry.

Study 1 Methodology Pictures of the stories: 2 sets of black and white line drawings Each set contained a series of drawings illustrating the motive, the behavior, and the outcome in each story First set: motives are implied by the facial expressions. (implied pictorial presentation) Second set: motives are conveyed explicitly by presenting thought bubbles (explicit pictorial presentation)

Example Story Pictorial CUE 4: This picture is an example of which testing condition?

Study 1- DV: Child’s Judgement Response “Is the actor good or bad?” “How good/bad?” → scale 1 to 7 After the child’s judgement, they were asked to tell the story exactly as they had heard it. Why did they do this? They were checking for errors of valence by the kids

Study 1 Results p827 By story condition (remember 4 possible) Motive made little difference Outcome had a greater effect on moral judgements in the ‘explicit motive’ condition Outcome information was used more (i.e. made more difference to judgements) in ‘bad motive’ stories in the two picture conditions than verbal only condition

Study 1 Results p826 By age – compare the 3-y/o and 7-y/o Compared to 7-y/o children, 3-y/o children judged the actor worse after one negative cue (whether motive or outcome) 3 y/o (n=60) 7 y/o (n=30) + motive - motive + outcome 6.55 2.27 6.20 3.46 - outcome 4.17 1.60 4.47 1.56

Study 1 Results Recall Inter-coder reliability = 97% 3-y/o children made more errors than 7-y/o More recall errors in motive than outcome Fewer recall errors in picture presentations Do all children make more valence errors when information is conflicting? 3-y/o 7-y/o CUE 5: What is inter-coder reliability?

Study 1 Discussion It could be possible that children learn the concept of bad before the concept of good (like Piaget asserted) It could be possible that young children define the concept of good as the absence of bad, e.g. “being good is not lying”

“This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law” Nelson (1980) Study on Morality AICE AS Level Psychology Lecture 3

Study 2 Background There was an unexpected finding in the 3yr. old verbal only condition- it yielded that the motive was greater than the outcome in judgment calls In study 1, many kids only made a positive judgment when no negative cue was encountered Just one negative cue was sufficient to produce negative judgements 3-year-olds’ judgements in bad motive stories were affected by motive but not by outcome. Were these results because motive was presented first?

Study 2: Aim To investigate the possibility that emphasis given to motive by the 3yr-olds in Study 1 reflects confounding information about valence of cues with order of presentation of sources of the cues (huh?) Basically wanted to see if presenting the outcome before the motive would yield the same results.

Study 2: Methodology Sample: Material: Procedure: 27 preschool boys and girls Mean age: 3.8 years Material: Same as before In all stories, outcome preceded motive Procedure: In all stories and conditions, outcome preceded motive The rest was the same as before

Study 2 Results p828 As in study 1: When one cue is negative, the other cue had less effect Children made more recall errors when cues were inconsistent As predicted: Judgements in Verbal only condition were less affected by motive than in picture conditions So...?

Overall Discussion …what does it all mean? how the story is presented affects the judgments of motives and outcomes in young children kids make judgments relying on either motive or outcome at different times (that are influenced by the concepts of good and bad) children’s use of motive/outcome info

Overall Discussion For 3-y/o, one negative cue → negative judgement In verbal presentations, children tend to focus more on the first cue they encounter Judgements are primed for any of negative valence, whether motive or outcome Kids justified evaluations by motive and outcome- thus they have an awareness of morality

Overall Discussion Making moral judgments requires an understanding of good and bad (motive) and the relationship between motives and outcomes Preschoolers (3-4 yrs) put more emphasis on negative valence of cue, supporting idea that in terms of nurture, children develop concept of ‘bad’ before ‘good

Strengths of the Study Strengths of the study: Lab experiment which allows replicability Good control of variables Pilot study (practice stories) for kids’ understanding

Weaknesses of the study Low ecological validity Use of child participants could skew results Reductionist view of morality Non-representative sample Stories/pictures may have been known or foreign to the participants

Ethics of the Study Parental consent was obtained right to withdraw not mentioned but assumed? Long-term effects really not an issue Overall though not much going on… CUE 6: Describe two issues of ecological validity within the Nelson study. CUE 7: How can the Nelson study be considered useful? CUE 8: How can the developmental approach be applied to the Nelson study?