Abstract

Development of understanding of moral and social-conventional rules was examined with 4-, 6-, and 8-year-old Korean children. In Experiment 1, children evaluated moral and social-conventional transgressions on six criterion judgements, nonpermissibility, seriousness, degree of punishment, authority contingency, rule contingency, and generalizability. Moral transgressions were judged to be worse in six- and eight-year-olds, but more generalizable and worth of more punishment than social-conventional transgressions in eight-year-olds. In Experiment 2, children evaluated moral and two kinds of social-conventional transgressions-transgressions of general social-conventional rules and rules concerning respect for adults. Transgressions of rules for adults were judged to be worse in all ages, more generalizable in six- and eight-year-olds, and more rule-independent in eight-year-olds than other transgressions. These results suggest that children were more likely to treat social rules for adults as moral rules. In Experiment 3, children evaluated two kinds of social-conventional transgressions-transgressions involving and not involving obvious harms to others. Transgressions involving obvious harms were judged to be worse and worth of more punishment in six- and eight-year-olds than other transgressions. In Experiment 4, 5-year-olds from middle and lower social classes evaluated moral and social-conventional transgressions. Only children from middle class judged moral transgressions to be worse than social-conventional transgressions. However, children from both classes justified moral transgressions on the basis of other's welfare and fairness, but social-conventional transgressions on the basis of the existence of rule or authority.