Moral Reasoning Mediates Children’s Evaluations of Social Exclusion, Empathy, and Own Desires for Intergroup Friendships

• In Event: Leveraging Developmental Science to Advance Social Justice

Abstract

Moral reasoning is a catalyst for developmental and societal change (Killen & Dahl, 2021). Reasoning about disagreements between individuals and groups can help or hinder positive change. In early childhood, children use reasoning based on fairness, equity, and equality and, by middle childhood, these reasons are used to rectify inequalities and address social injustice (Elenbaas et al., 2021). Reasoning that promotes change is necessary for countering the negative motivations that spur stereotypes, biases, and prejudice across development (Roberts & Rizzo, 2020). The current study examined the role of moral reasoning in children’s evaluations of social exclusion, empathy, and own desires for intergroup friends within an interactive intervention program administered to students in grades 3, 4, and 5 (N = 528, 50.0% female, 55.3% White, 40.5% Ethnic/racial minority, Mage = 9.64 years).

Students participated in an eight week intervention program aimed at promoting intergroup friendships and decreasing stereotypes and biases. As part of the program, students participated in a weekly web-based curriculum tool in which they viewed peer inclusion/exclusion scenarios based on group identity. Students also took a pre-test and post-test survey. We focus on three measures from the pre-test/post-test survey: Social Reasoning about Exclusion, Empathy, and Own Desires for Play with a Diverse Peer. The target group memberships included gender (e.g., boy, girl) and race/ethnicity (European American, African American, and Asian American). Responses were aggregated into composite variables.

Social Reasoning about Exclusion Results. We found a positive indirect effect of pre-test social reasoning about exclusion scores on post-test social reasoning about exclusion scores via the proportion of moral reasoning used over the eight week intervention (Figure 1). Partial mediation was observed, with 27.21% of the direct effect mediated for evaluations of social exclusion. Students who used more moral reasoning during the intervention viewed social exclusion as more wrong at post-test.

Empathy Results. We found a positive indirect effect of pre-test empathy scores on post-test empathy scores via the proportion of moral reasoning used over the eight week intervention (Figure 2). Partial mediation was observed, with 43.37% of the direct effect mediated for empathy scores. Students who used more moral reasoning during the intervention reported more empathy at post-test.

Own Desires Results. We found a positive indirect effect of pre-test own desires scores on post-test own desires scores via the proportion of moral reasoning used over the eight week intervention. Partial mediation was observed, with 47.09% of the direct effect mediated for own desires scores. Students who used more moral reasoning during the intervention reported a greater desire to play with peers at post-test.

Students who used more moral reasoning within the program evaluated social exclusion as more wrong, reported more empathy for an excluded peer, and reported a greater desire for intergroup friendships at post-test. This provides new evidence that moral reasoning is a catalyst for improving children’s empathy, intergroup contact, and social inclusion decisions.

Authors

• Riley N. Sims, University of Maryland - College Park
  Presenting Author

• Arvid Samuelson, University of Maryland - College Park

• Jacquelyn Glidden, University of Maryland - College Park

• Melanie A. Killen, University of Maryland - College Park