Lee et al

dev area

define morality

• principles for how individuals ought to treat one another, with respect to justice, others’ welfare & rights

define individualism

• cultures which adopt the belief that the needs of each person are more important than the needs of the whole society or group

define collectivism

• cultures which adopt the belief that the needs of the whole society or group are more important than the needs of each person individually 

define self-effacement

• modest, not drawing attention to oneself

define self-aggrandisement

• drawing attention to oneself

define prosocial behaviour

behaviour that is helpful to others

define antisocial behaviour

behaviour that is not helpful to others

outline the background (what was Kohlberg’s influence)?

In the classic study, we see that Kohlberg conducted cross-cultural research to supporthis theory of moral development, however, he did not specifically focus on the “art of lying”

Since the early 1980s, developmental psychologists have showed renewed interest in children’s understanding and moral judgements of lying and truth-telling, however, despite the advances of research in recent years, understanding of the development of children’s moral development of lying is still somewhat limited. One of the limitations is that nearly all previous research was conducted with children in Western countries. These children are raised in industrialised environments to emphasise individualism, self-assertion/promotion & competition. It was therefore unclear whether the findings with these children could be generalised to children of other sociocultural backgrounds.

outline Sweetser’s theories and research on lying (background)

Theories & research on lying: Sweetser (1987): Proposed a folkloristic model of lying. She suggested that the concept of lying is not simply a cognitive construct defined by such key semantic (meaningful) features as factuality (whether a statement reflects the truth), intention (whether the speaker intends to deceive), & belief (whether the speaker believes the statement), alone, but it is also a sociocultural construct. She argued that the understanding of lying is greatly influenced by the cultural norms and moral values in which individuals are socialised. However, until this study, little developmental research evidence had been found to support this proposal.

When would lying not cause us stress, and therefore be difficult to measure physiologically?

When people feel they are being morally right, they feel more comfortable lying (e.g. White lie/exaggeration to entertain)

What are 2 examples of cultural differences in lying? 

• collectivist cultures like China feel bad about lying. People use first person pronouns to protect the reputation of everybody in the group

• individualist cultures, like the UK and other Western cultures, lie to protect themselves and their reputation

what was the aim?

• this study's aim was to directly test the effects of culture on children's moral evaluations of lying and truth telling

• this study compares the mall judgements of Canadian children and Chinese children from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in situations in which pro- and antisocial actions were denied or acknowledged

• the original study contains a detailed justification for why Chinese children in the PRC were compared with children from the Western cultures of Canada

what cultural values are associated with China?

• communist society - schools promote modesty and honesty in their curriculum

• promotes personal sacrifice for greater good

• children encouraged to take misdeeds committed by themselves/others

• self-effacement: children told not to brag about personal achievements and minimise their own good behaviour in grades

What cultural values are associated with Canada

• white lies and deception to avoid embarrassment/hurt is tolerated

• self-aggrandisement is not considered a character flaw, whereas it is in Chinese culture

what research method and design was used?

lab experiment (could also be quasi), which used an independent measures design (there were some elements of repeated measures as well)

what type of data was collected?

quantitative

outline the IVs of the study

• culture of the children; Chinese or Canadian (naturally occurring

• age of the child (7, 9 , or 11 yrs old).                    So quasi)

• types of stories read (social or physical) - manipulate by research so lab

     - whether the child read 4 social stories (the child is the main character affecting other people in the story) or 4 physical stories (the child, as a main character, affecting physical objects)

• what is the child heard pro-social stories (involving a child who intentionally carried out good deed, valued by adults in both countries), or antisocial stories (involving a child who intentionally carried out a bad deed, viewed negatively in both cultures

• that was there 4 subconditions:

1. Pro-social behaviour/truth-telling stories

2. Pro-social behaviour/ lie-telling stories

3. Antisocial behaviour/truth-telling stories

4. Antisocial behaviour/ lie-telling stories

what were the DVs?

• the rating given to the story character’s deed (ranging between very, very good and very, very naughty)

• the rating given to what the character said (verbal statement) (ranging between very, very good and very, very naughty)

• the fact that ps were read 4 scenarios (2 prosocial, 2 antisocial) & asked to apply the same rating scale to both the character’s deed and its response in each story means the study had elements of a repeated measures design within it

outline the sample of the study?

120 Chinese children: 40 7-year-olds (M age = 7.5 years, 20 male, 20 female), 40 9-year-olds (M age = 9.4 years, 20 male, 20 female), and 40 11-year-olds (M age = 11.3years, 20 male, 20 female). They were recruited from elementary schools in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, a medium sized city (provincial capital) in China. 

108 Canadian children: 36 7-year-olds (M age = 7.4 years, 20 male, 16 female), 40 9-year-olds (M = 9.6 years, 24 male, 16 female), 32 11-year-olds (M age = 11.5 years, 14 male, 18 female). They were recruited from elementary schools in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. Like Hangzhou, Fredericton is a provincial capital but its population is considerably smaller than Hangzhou. 

Although the socio-economic status of the Chinese children was not known (no such categorisation existed in the PRC), most Canadian children were from middle-class families. 

how were ps allocated to the conditions?

• half of the Chinese children participated in the social story condition & the other half were placed in the physical story condition. The children were randomly assigned to each condition.

• from the Canadian sample: 19 7 yr olds, 20 9 yr olds, 17 11 yr olds were randomly assigned to the social story condition & the other children were assigned to the physical story condition

outline examples of social and physical stories

1. Pro-Social / Lie-Telling (The "Modesty" Story)

• Social Example: A child named Alex deliberately cleans the classroom while the teacher is out. When the teacher returns and asks who did it, Alex says, "I didn't do it."

• Physical Example: A child picks up loose papers that blew off a teacher's desk and puts them back. When asked if they did it, the child denies it.

2. Pro-Social / Truth-Telling

• Social Example: A child cleans the classroom while the teacher is out. When asked who did it, the child says, "I did it."

• Physical Example: A child notices loose garbage scattered all over the schoolyard during recess and picks it up to tidy the school. When asked who cleared the yard, the child says, "I did it."

3. Anti-Social / Lie-Telling (The "Standard" Lie)

• Social Example: A child pushes a classmate over. When asked if they did it, the child says, "I didn't do it."

• Physical Example: A child purposely tears a page out of a library book. When asked if they did it, the child denies it.

4. Anti-Social / Truth-Telling

• Social Example: A child pushes a classmate over. When asked if they did it, the child says, "I did it."

• Physical Example: A child is in the school library and purposely tears a page out of a book. When asked who did it, the child says, "I did it."

what were ps ratings converted according to? What type of data did this collect?

outline the procedure

• children were tested individually & were first told about the meaning & symbols on a 7-point rating chart. The children then read either 4 physical stories or 4 social stories.

• after each story, children were asked, “is what the child did good or naughty?”. They then had to rate either verbally or non-verbally, their response on a rating chart.

• as a control, the meaning if each symbol was repeated every time the question was asked.

• children were then read the second section of the story and asked, “was what the child said good or naughty?”. The child answered again.

• another control was that the words good or naughty were alternated within the subjects

• to control for order effects, the stories were presented in random orders from each ps.

outline the findings for prosocial behaviour/truth-telling situations

• an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the ps ratings of the deeds as covariates was conducted on the ps’ ratings of truth telling

• 2X2X3 ANCOVA analysis = 2 (culture: Canadian or Chinese X 2 (conditions: physical & social stories) X 3 (age: 7, 9, or 11 yrs old)

• the covariate was not significant, t(1) = .34ns; indicating that children of both cultures rated the prosocial behaviours similarly

• the age & culture main effects were significant with Canadian children at each age giving similar ratings to truth telling, whereas Chinese children’s ratings became less positive as age increased

• the condition (physical vs social) effect was not signifcant

outline the findings for prosocial behaviour/lie-telling situations

• 2 X 2 X 3 ANCOVA with the ratings of deeds as covariates was conducted on participants’ ratings of lie telling.  

• The covariate was significant, t(1) = 2.88, p≤ .01, indicating that children from the two cultures rated the prosocial behaviours differently both in different age groups and in the two conditions. 

• The condition (Physical vs Social) effect was not significant. Only the interaction between age and culture was therefore significant. 

• Overall, Canadian children rated lie telling in this situation negatively but as age increased their ratings became somewhat less negative. 

• Overall, Chinese children’s ratings of lie telling in this situation changed from negative to positive as age increased. 

outline the findings for antisocial behaviour/truth-telling situations

• A 2 x 2 x 3 ANCOVA with the ratings of deeds as covariates was conducted on participants’ ratings of truth telling. 

• The covariate was not significant, t(1) = -1.51, ns, indicating that children from both cultures rated the antisocial behaviours similarly. No main effect or interaction was significant. 

• Children from both cultures rated truth telling in this situation very positively. 

outline the findings for antisocial behaviour/lie-telling situations

• A 2 x 2 x 3 ANCOVA with the ratings of deeds as covariates was conducted on participants’ ratings of lie telling.  

• The covariate was significant, t(1) = 4.96, p ≤ .01, indicating that children of both cultures rated the antisocial behaviours differently in different age groups in the two conditions. 

• After removing the effect of the covariates, the age main effect remained significant. The culture and conditions main effects were not significant. Only the interaction between age, culture and condition was significant. 

• Both Chinese and Canadian children rated lie telling negatively in this condition. 

• Overall, negative ratings increased with age, irrespective of culture. 

• Chinese 7-year-olds rated lie telling less negatively then older children in the physical story condition  (and very similar for social story), whereas Canadian 7-year-olds rated lie telling less negatively than older children in the social story condition.  

what conclusions were drawn from the study?

• in the realm of lying & truth telling, a close relationship between socio-cultural practices & moral judgements exists

• specific social & cultural norms have an impact on children’s developing moral judgements, which in turn, are modified by age & experience in a particular culture.

• Chinese children rate truth telling in prosocial situations less positively & lie telling in the same situations less negatively than Canadian children. “One should not leave his or her name, following a good deed.”

• both Chinese & Canadian children show similar moral evaluations of lie telling & truth telling related to antisocial behaviours. 

• the emphasis on self-effacement & modesty in Chinese culture increasingly exerts its impact on Chinese children’s moral judgments as children age

• moral development is a highly contextualised process & is affected by the culture and/or social environment in which individuals are socialised.

what is an advanatge of Lee’s study over Kohlberg’s?

less socially sensitive

evaluate the research method

• lab exp - extraneous variables are controlled (controlled env)

• quasi bc IVs are naturally occurring 

• types of story & story order - either randomised or predetermined by researcher - manipulated

evaluate reliability and validity

• lab exp - highly controlled & standardised - can be easily replicated - high internal validity 

• low pop val - not representative of other age groups & other cultures

• lab exp - low ecol val - not representative of real life, task itself is v artificial 

• high pop val tho bc large sample size (more generalisable) & 2 diff cultures

• quantitative data lowers risk of researcher bias

evaluate ethics

• under 18 - cannot give informed consent themselves, parents must on their behalf

• ps debriefed after exp

• protected from harm - just stories

• children had right to withdraw if they felt distressed during questioning ? maybe?

evaluate ethnocentrism

• specific elementary schools in capital schools - not representative of non-capital schools, not generalisable to other age groups. Also only 2 cultures from all individualist and collectivist cultures across the world, can’t really be generalised to everyone

evaluate the type of data collected

quantitative data is easy to compare, but no in depth data to show cause & effect & reasoning (qualitative data needed) - quant is more reliable tho bc not open to interpretation or bias so does not lead to inconsistent analysis