The moral choices children attribute to adults and to peers: Implications for moral acquisition

Thirty-six children (half 6–8 years old and half 10–12) in Northeast Brazil heard three hypothetical dilemmas featuring a choice between telling the truth and keeping a promise. Each dilemma was initiated by a different kind of lie: an exculpable pro-social lie (teasing), a lie in the personal domain (hiding) and a lie in the service of an anti-social act (cheating). They were asked to choose between truth and promise, and to attribute choices to adults and to peers. More younger than older children chose truth on all three dilemmas. Both regression and SSA analysis showed that “peer-judgments” predicted own judgments on all three dilemmas, but “adult-judgments” did so only on the dilemma, which featured an exculpable lie and involved no adults. The findings may be interpreted as supporting either (a) a constructivist account of development or (b) a learning account that features implicit processes.