1. “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

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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. Design of the Studies Experimental lab study (total of 2 studies)
Independent measures study
Participants:
Study kids total, yrs. & 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.

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. “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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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)

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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?

26. 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”

27. “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

28. 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?

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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...?

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

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

36. 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

37. 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?