Luciano Gasser

Aggressive and prosocial children's emotion attributions and moral reasoning.

Aggressive and prosocial childrens emotion attributions and moral reasoning were investigated. Participants were 235 kindergarten children (M=6.2 years) and 136 elementary-school children (M=7.6 years) who were selected as aggressive or prosocial based on (kindergarten) teacher ratings. The children were asked to evaluate hypothetical rule violations, attribute emotions they would feel in the role of the victimizer, and justify their responses. Compared with younger prosocial children, younger aggressive children attributed fewer negative emotions and were more likely to provide sanction-oriented justifications when evaluating rule violations negatively. Furthermore, age-, gender- and context-effects in moral development occurred. The context-effects included both effects of transgression type (i.e., prosocial morality vs. fairness) on emotion attributions and moral reasoning and the effects of the context of moral evaluation and emotion attribution on moral reasoning. Findings are discussed in terms of the role of emotion attributions and moral reasoning as antecedents of childrens aggressive and prosocial behavior.

Swiss Children's Moral and Psychological Judgments About Inclusion and Exclusion of Children With Disabilities

Childrens judgments about inclusion and exclusion of children with disabilities were investigated in a Swiss sample of 6-, 9-, and 12-year-old children from inclusive and noninclusive classrooms (N = 422). Overall, the majority of children judged it as morally wrong to exclude children with disabilities. Yet, participants were less likely to expect the inclusion of children with mental or physical disabilities in academic and athletic contexts compared to social contexts. Moreover, older children more consistently coordinated disability type with context of exclusion. There were also significant differences depending on the type of classroom. The findings extend existing research on exclusion by investigating exclusion based on disability across different age groups and educational settings.

Children's moral judgments and moral emotions following exclusion of children with disabilities: Relations with inclusive education, age, and contact intensity

We investigated relations between childrens moral judgments and moral emotions following disability-based exclusion and inclusive education, age, and contact intensity. Nine- and 12-year-old Swiss children (N=351) from inclusive and noninclusive classrooms provided moral judgments and moral emotion attributions following six vignettes about social exclusion of children with disabilities. Children also reported on their level of sympathy towards children with disabilities and their contact intensity with children with disabilities. Overall, children condemned disability-based exclusion, attributed few positive emotions to excluder targets, and expressed high sympathy for children with disabilities, independent of age and educational setting. However, younger children from inclusive classrooms exhibited more moral judgments and moral emotions than younger children from noninclusive classrooms. Moreover, children who expressed high sympathy towards children with disabilities were more likely to report frequent contact with children with disabilities. The findings extend existing research on social exclusion by examining disability-based exclusion and are discussed with respect to developmental research on social and moral judgments and emotions following childrens inclusion and exclusion decisions.

Children’s and their friends’ moral reasoning Relations with aggressive behavior

Friends’ moral characteristics such as their moral reasoning represent an important social contextual factor for children’s behavioral socialization. Guided by this assumption, we compared the effects of children’s and friends’ moral reasoning on their aggressive behavior in a low-risk sample of elementary school children. Peer nominations and teacher reports were used to assess children’s aggressive behavior and friendships. During individual interviews, moral reasoning was measured by justifications following moral judgments and moral emotion attributions. Results revealed that, compared to individuals’ moral reasoning, friends’ moral reasoning was more consistently related to children’s aggressive behavior. Moreover, friends’ aggressive behavior mediated the relationship between friends’ moral reasoning and children’s aggressive behavior. The findings provide evidence for the important role that friends’ moral development plays in children’s behavioral socialization, and highlight the need for integrated, systematic approaches to moral development and friendship relations.

Moral Emotions and Moral Judgments in Children's Narratives: Comparing Real-Life and Hypothetical Transgressions.

How children make meaning of their own social experiences in situations involving moral issues is central to their subsequent affective and cognitive moral learning. Our study of young childrens narratives describing their interpersonal conflicts shows that the emotions and judgments constructed in the course of these real-life narratives differ from the emotions and judgments generated in the context of hypothetical transgressions. In the narratives, all emotions mentioned spontaneously were negative. In contrast, emotions attributed in the interview part covered a broader spectrum. Ones own real-life transgressions were judged less severe and more justified than hypothetical transgressions.

Aggressive and nonaggressive children's moral judgments and moral emotion attributions in situations involving retaliation and unprovoked aggression

ABSTRACT The authors investigated 7- and 9-year-old childrens moral understanding of retaliation as compared to unprovoked aggression with regard to their aggressive behavior status. Based on peer ratings, 48 children were selected as overtly aggressive and 91 as nonaggressive. Their moral understanding of retaliation and unprovoked aggression was assessed by an interview including questions about their moral judgments and emotion attributions. Aggressive children judged retaliations as less serious than did nonaggressive children. They also referred less often to the harmful consequences of retaliation and were more likely to excuse the retaliation because of the provocation. In unprovoked aggressive situations younger aggressive children, compared with the younger nonaggressive children, attributed more happiness to transgressors, more anger to victims, and less sadness to transgressors and victims. The results are discussed in terms of previous research on aggressive childrens moral understanding of retaliation and unprovoked aggression.

Moral Emotion Attributions and Moral Motivation

Ruby is complaining about Lucy who hit her in order to get on the swing. Lucy is swinging happily. Michael feels sorry for Ruby and tells Lucy to leave the swing to her, whereas Peter does not care, a common enough situation.