Corrections
1 Are Children’s Choice of Moral Decisions More Efficient Than Those of Adults in Modern Society? William C Handy 2 Are Children’s Choice of Moral Decisions More Efficient Than Those of Adults in Modern Society? Moral decision making among children and adults differ significantly. Children’s reasoning is influenced by the actor’s intention when deciding the severity of a harmful action (Powell et al., 2012). Moreover, they have the capacity to separate harmful actions from actions that are against social norms but not harmful. In comparison, adults’ moral judgments differ depending on the context and the nature of the action, even when intention and harm levels are the same (Powell et al., 2012). According to psychologists Piaget and Kohlberg, moral judgment among humans develops in a stage-like process, for instance, children develop the capacity to consider an actor’s intention at age 4 (Powell et al., 2012). On the other hand, adults judge moral dilemmas based on whether there was action or inaction, the principle of double effect, and the physical contact principle (Powell et al., 2012). These differences in adult vs. children’s moral permissibility of harm point to distinct levels of efficiency when evaluating moral decision making that necessitates exploration. Prior research by Beißert & Hasselhorn (2016) shows that these differences can be attributed to cognitive development. Further, Bucciarelli (2015) examines the mental model theory and concludes that children’s moral reasoning is intuitive whereby action and inaction result in varied outcomes. Additionally, Gautam et al. (2023) posit that children develop counterfactual thinking at age 6, which persists into adulthood and influences how adults make moral judgments by examining what could have been done differently. The findings from previous research support the assertion that there are differences in how adults and children approach moral judgments. The present research aims to expand literature on these distinction by hypothesizing that when presented with a moral dilemma, the basis of children’s reasoning is more efficient than adults’. Prior research on moral judgment 3 between children and adults explore various angles. First, Probst et al. (2023) examine how framing of moral dilemmas influences how children evaluate them. Probst et al. (2023) demonstrate how framing behaviors as either self or other oriented differed in how adults and children rated them. Adults were more likely to rate behavior as positive and follow its directives if it was framed as other-oriented then self-oriented while children judged behaviors based on their severity (Probst et al., 2023). According to Powell et al. (2012), the basis of adult moral reasoning is omission bias, the intention principle, and physical contact principle. Adult’s moral reasoning is inflexible and is not influenced by cognition, supporting the position that moral judgment is not based on deliberate reflection but instead unconscious intuitive processes (Powell et al., 2012). The level of concern children across different ages show for other entities differs. As Neldner et al. (2018) demonstrate, older children have a more nuanced understanding of entities, seeing morality as more than just simple in vs. out decision. As children develop, they are more concerned about humans than other entities and their level of concern influences their prosocial behavior (Neldner et al., 2018). Gautam et al. (2023) support the idea that children and adults differ in their moral reasoning by referencing counterfactual considerations. The authors show that counterfactual thinking can be traced to around 6 years and below that, children only consider the facts of the case (Gautam et al., 2023). Bucciarelli (2015) shows how children’s moral decision making is more utilitarian than adults’. Additionally, evidence shows that adults significantly influence children’s moral reasoning. As Limone & Toto (2022) shows, moral reasoning is an innate ability among humans, allowing them to naturally respond to moral dilemmas. However, children’s moral reasoning can be natured by exposing them to environmental influences and distinct social interactions, showing that moral senses emerge and develop based on the environment (Limone & Toto, 4 2022). The findings are supported by Kim et al. (2021) who posit that parent’s values regarding right and wrong influence how children develop neural responses to moral dilemmas and their intervention behavior. Ke (2023) expands on the topic and posits that children’s moral reasoning is influenced by the paternalistic intervention of the adults in their lives. Based on the idea that children develop their autonomy based on paternalism, Ke (2023) maintains that paternalism should be implemented in a way that encourages their autonomy, specifically aiming for moral equality to encourage children participation. How adults guide children’s moral reasoning is important as Hardecker et al. (2019) demonstrate. In an experiment where children received instruction from adults, results showed that their moral reasoning changed. Evidence shows that when children were instructed by an adult in a sharing game, they were less likely to share with a deserving partner than when they were left to make the decision independently (Hardecker et al., 2019). The implication is that adults make children’s moral decision making more rigid (Hardecker et al., 2019). The findings discussed above show how adults’ and children’s moral decision making differs. The current research hypothesizes that without adult instruction, allowing children to exercise their autonomy, their moral decision making is more efficient than adults’. Testing the hypothesis adds to literature on how children and adults differ in deciding moral dilemmas and opens up discussions on how social interactions influence moral development Method Participants 5 The participants comprised 100 individuals, with 50 children aged between 5 and 10 years old (25 boys, 25 girls) and 50 adults aged between 25 and 50 years old (25 men, 25 women). Participants were recruited from local schools for children and through community postings for adults. All participants were treated in accordance with the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (American Psychological Association, 2002). Materials 1. Timer or Stopwatch: To measure participants’ decision-making time. 2. Response Sheets: Sheets for participants to record their decisions and reasoning. 3. Parental Consent Forms: Forms outlining study details and participant consent. 4. Debriefing Materials: Information about the study’s goals and participant feedback. 5. Recording Equipment (Optional): For capturing participants’ responses and to show progress for repeat sessions All materials were treated in accordance with the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (American Psychological Association, 2002). Procedure Introduction: Participants were introduced to the purpose of the study and provided informed consent. 6 Preparation: Participants were briefed on the nature of the moral dilemmas they would encounter and instructed to respond based on their intuitive judgment. Task Execution: Each participant was presented with a series of moral dilemmas involving hypothetical scenarios where a moral decision was required. They were instructed to provide their response promptly. Data Collection: The time taken by each participant to resolve the moral dilemmas was recorded. Additionally, the accuracy of their responses was assessed based on predetermined criteria. Debriefing: After completing the task, participants were debriefed about the study’s objectives and provided an opportunity to ask questions. All procedures were treated in accordance with the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (American Psychological Association, 2002). Discussions Limitations Future Studies 7 Conclusion 8 References American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.57.12.1060 Bucciarelli, M. (2015). Moral dilemmas in females: Children are more utilitarian than adults [none]. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01345 Consuela Eusis. (1994). Use of Conselor Street Talk to Stimulate Self-Disclosure of Inner-City Youths. https://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/course/research/paper1.pdf 8. Neldner, K., Crimston, C., Wilks, M., Redshaw, J., & Nielsen, M. (2018). The developmental origins of moral concern: An examination of moral boundary decision making throughout childhood. PLoS One. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197819 4. Hardecker, S., Buryn-Weitzel, J. C., & Tomasello, M. (2019). Adult instruction limits children’s flexibility in moral decision making. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.06.005 Probst, S., Nowack, A., & Warneken, F. (2023). Children’s moral reasoning about self- versus other-benefiting public health measures [none]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 229, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2022.105623 Tung, I., Hipwell, A. E., Grosse, P., Battaglia, L., Cannova, E., English, G., Quick, A. D., Llamas, B., Taylor, M., & Foust, J. E. (2023). Prenatal stress and externalizing behaviors in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis [none]. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000407 9 Current Rating: 1. Draft quality 5/10 The general outline of the Method was given, but there was no Discussion section. 2. APA format 10/10 3. Having a grammatically correct, well-written, and error-free paper 5/5 4. Your method reflects a clear, concise recipe for replicating the study 3/5 I have several questions about how the study will actually be done. 5. Discussion logically connects results to prior related research 5/5 The idea is straightforward and will be simple enough to test. 6. Discussion presents limitations of the research 0/5 Not provided 7. Discussion suggests useful future research ideas 0/5 Not provided 8. Reference section is formatted correctly and includes 8+ sources 5/5
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
