"Is it ok?" How Children Perceive Actions Between Religious Groups.

• In Event: Poster Session 05
  In Poster Session: PS 05 Topic - Moral Development

Abstract

Children perceive a negative behavior as more aggressive when the perpetrator and victim identify as the same social group (Rhodes & Chalik, 2013). Additionally, children demonstrate ingroup favoritism when allocating resources, in behavioral attributions, and in implicit and explicit behavior tasks (Dunham, Baron, & Carrey, 2011). It remains unclear, however, the role that religious affiliation plays in children’s judgments about aggressive behavior, especially when thinking about people who are the same or a different religious affiliation than the child. In this within-subjects study, 78 children (Mage = 8.39 years, SD = .91, 57.7% female, 34.6% Christian, 25.6% Catholic, 17.9% Muslim, 17.9% Non-Affiliated, 3.8% Other) rated the ‘wrongness’ [0 (not bad/ok) to -3 (very bad)] of six scenarios, which included 6 different actions (3 prosocial, 3 aggressive) taking place within 3 possible social group dynamics based in religious affiliation (ingroup to ingroup, ingroup to outgroup, outgroup to ingroup). Children also were asked if the behaviors were ok both before and after learning that a teacher said those actions were ok. Finally, children completed 7 theory of mind (ToM) tasks. A 2 (rule change) x 2 (actions) x 3 (social group) Repeated Measures ANCOVA revealed a main effect of the actions that the participants were asked to consider, F(1,66) = 11.19, p = .001, partial eta2 = .145. Participants were significantly more likely to say prosocial behaviors (M = -.12, SE = .05) were ok than aggressive behaviors (M = -1.85, SE = .09). The main effect of the rule change was non-significant, F(1,66) = 2.68, p = .107, partial eta2 = .039. However the interaction between action type and rule change was significant, F(1,66) = 5.59, p = .021, partial eta2 = .078, such that children were more likely to say aggressive behaviors were ok if they learned the teacher had said they were ok. There was no change in the responses about prosocial behaviors. Although there were no main effects of group dynamic, F(2,132) = .73, p = .483, partial eta2 = .011, (indicating children’s responses were consistent whether or not the actions were directed to ingroup or outgroup members), there was a trend toward a significant, but small, interaction between rule change and group dynamic, F(2,132) = 2.62, p = .077, partial eta2 = .038. Children were more likely to change their answer if the vignette was about someone like themselves doing the action (whether to an ingroup member or an outgroup member), not someone in their outgroup. In addition, a small, but significant 3-way interaction was found between rule change, social group, and ToM, F(2, 132) = 3.21, p = .043, partial eta2 = .046. This interaction was driven by the fact that ToM was only correlated with responses about ingroup-ingroup interactions, suggesting that children may be more likely to utilize their theory of mind when reasoning about people like themselves rather than people different from themselves.

Group Authors

Brianna Cabrera
Dr. Rebekah Richert

Authors

• Brianna Marie Cabrera, University of California - Riverside
  Presenting Author

• Rebekah Richert, University of California - Riverside
  Non-Presenting Author