Children’s Judgments of Three Forms of Authority Misuse

• In Event: The Many Faces of Social Power: Children's Reasoning About Respect-, Dominance-, and Institution-based Control

Abstract

People who misuse their position, such as when applying their authority to grant or take unwarranted advantages, often betray the public’s trust. Examples of authority misuse include bribery by soliciting inducements to provide public services, nepotism when hiring unqualified family members, and embezzlement as in using campaign funds for personal enrichment (Transparency International, n.d.). Societies reject these actions because of their negative implications (Husted, Dozier, McMahon, & Kattan, 1996); for example, institutional bribery threatens a nation’s economic growth, democratic and moral values (Mazar & Aggarwal, 2011). Do children recognize that under some circumstances the actions of those who are in control indicate a breach of trust? If so, do they condemn such deeds?

Thirty-seven preschoolers, 37 elementary schoolers, and 34 adults were asked to rate story characters’ actions on a 0–5 scale, with 0 = very, very good, and 5 = very, very bad. Three types of actions were evaluated, resembling embezzlement, bribery, and nepotism. There was a story for each type of power misuse, alongside a second, control story. For each pair of stories, the key actions performed by the characters were held constant. Also, in the misuse stories the characters represented others (e.g., a teacher, classmates, the school), whereas in the control they did not.

1. Embezzlement: A character always purchased stickers and crayons; in the misuse story she did so with money from classmates given to her for crayons, whereas in the control story she used her own money.
2. Bribery: A character always solicited a cupcake in exchange for something; in the misuse story he did so to pick the potential benefactor as the school’s drawing contest winner, whereas in the control story he solicited a cupcake in exchange for a toy he had brought to school.
3. Nepotism: A character always favored her brother over another kid; in the misuse story she did so when acting as the school’s singing contest judge, whereas in the control story she was picking a soccer teammate.

Children’s harsher ratings for the same actions in the misuse story compared to the control story were anticipated to indicate children’s recognition of a breach of trust by the powerful. Additionally, harsh ratings for characters’ actions in the misuse stories, if at above-chance levels, would suggest intentional and systematic condemnation of the corruption-related actions.

For each type of power misuse story, participants’ moral judgment was evaluated by trial type (misuse, control) and age group. Like adults, elementary schoolers but not preschoolers rated more harshly a comparable behavior if performed by individuals representing others (e.g., classmates) versus representing themselves, and across scenarios resembling embezzlement, bribery, and nepotism (p< .017 via logistic regressions; see Figure 1). Moreover, the for bribery and nepotism stories, elementary schoolers but not preschoolers systematically condemned the characters’ actions (p< .008 via chi-square tests). In sum, though still developing when compared to adults’ judgments, a promising foundation for a morality against various types of authority misuses is present by the early grade years.

Authors

• Boli Reyes-Jaquez, University of New Hampshire
  Presenting Author

• Melissa A. Koenig, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities