Poster #49 - “Happy Victimizer” Moral Attributions and Lie-Telling Behaviours in Elementary School Children

• In Event: Poster Session 05

Abstract

Research confirms that lie-telling emerges in the preschool years and develops throughout elementary school (e.g., Evans & Lee, 2013; Talwar, Arruda, & Yachison, 2015; Talwar & Lee, 2002). Another well-established phenomenon is the “happy victimizer”, in which kindergartners and early elementary children comprehend moral violations associated with victimizing but attribute positive, “happy” emotions to perpetrators (Krettenauer, Malti, & Sokol, 2008). This phenomenon has been considered within socio-emotional and bullying literature (e.g., Arsenio & Kramer, 1992; Perren et al., 2012), but has never been examined in the context of lie-telling. Yet, research suggests that children’s moral understanding may be associated with lie-telling (e.g., Xu et al., 2010; Popliger et al., 2011) and, therefore, could influence how children view lying and their subsequent tendencies to act morally.

This study investigated the association between “happy victimizer” response patterns and lie-telling in 76 elementary school children (age range: 6-12 years, M = 110 months, SD = 25.37). To measure lie-telling, a modified Temptation-Resistance Paradigm was used (TRP; Talwar et al. 2007), where participants could cheat on a quiz by peeking at an answer when left alone. The TRP was modified to provide two opportunities to lie as, after being questioned about peeking, participants were given a better prize than promised and asked whether it was the correct one. Moral understanding was examined using eight “happy victimizer” vignettes (Arsenio, 2014; Malti et al., 2009; Malti & Krettenauer, 2013) featuring a child character violating a moral rule. Participants were read each vignette, asked to imagine themselves as the character, and to share (1) how they would feel after committing the violation (0 = negative/mixed emotion; 1 = positive emotion), (2) whether the protagonist’s actions were good or bad (1 = very bad to 5 = very good), and (3) their reasoning why (1 = moral reasons; 2 = empathic concern for the victim; 3 = sanction-oriented reasons; 4 = hedonistic, self-serving reasons; 5 = unelaborated reasons).

In our TRP, children had the opportunity to lie zero, one, or two times for self-serving purposes. In total, 40 told the truth, 27 lied once, and 9 lied twice. Preliminary correlational analyses found no differences between genders or age in months (Table 1). Multinomial regression was used to examine whether “happy victimizer” scores (how children would feel, moral evaluation, and justification) predicted children’s lying behaviour in the TRP. The overall model was significant, χ2(10, N = 76) = 85.16, p = .027, Nagelkerke’s R2 = .81. Children’s own feelings, moral evaluations, and justifications were significant predictors, χ2(5, N = 76) = 34.159, p < .001 and χ2(18, N =76) = 60.50, p = .050, respectively. Children who told the truth were more likely to feel bad in the “happy victimizer” scenarios and to provide moral justifications (Table 2).

Results suggest children’s moral reasoning is related to decisions to act morally when they can lie or tell the truth for selfish reasons. Research is currently being conducted with preschool children, to further elucidate the relationship between moral reasoning and behaviour.

Authors

• Emilie Bélanger, McGill University
  Presenting Author

• Jennifer Lavoie, University of Edinburgh

• Victoria Talwar, McGill University