While we often assume that growing up makes us more morally inclusive, our research suggests that young children may start out with broader concern—and become more selective with age.
Fascinating work. I wonder, though: although children are highly caring *in theory*, they are commonly selfish if they have to, for example, give up a prized toy to another child, or otherwise subordinate their wants to those of others. So mightn't their greater moral concern be a function of powerlessness--that they rarely face the compromises that moral decisions demand? This might also explain why the most strident activists are often young, then become far less willing to take moral stands in middle-age when they’d have to pay for others' welfare...
Thanks, Tom. Great point. You’re absolutely right that our study looks at moral judgments (what children say is right or wrong), rather than actual behavior in real-stakes situations. And indeed, some studies suggest that older children are more likely to give up personal resources than younger ones. So in that sense, they may act more prosocially even if their stated judgments are less inclusive.
I like your hypothesis. And it aligns with what we also speculate: that younger children’s broad moral concern may partly stem from not yet understanding trade-offs and resource constraints. As you note, this could reflect their relative powerlessness: they aren’t in positions yet where they have to make such tough moral compromises. Definitely a hypothesis worth exploring further.
As for whether this also explains why younger people tend to be more idealistic than older adults, I’m not so sure. I could imagine multiple mechanisms at play there (shifts in identity, social roles, responsibility, and maybe even moral fatigue -- all not necessarily mutually exclusive with your hypothesis). But it’s an interesting parallel and a great direction for future work.
I'd add loss aversion! Easier to sacrifice resources you don't yet have (and are in fact willing to sacrifice in practice, not just in theory), compared to resources you already have
Fascinating work. I wonder, though: although children are highly caring *in theory*, they are commonly selfish if they have to, for example, give up a prized toy to another child, or otherwise subordinate their wants to those of others. So mightn't their greater moral concern be a function of powerlessness--that they rarely face the compromises that moral decisions demand? This might also explain why the most strident activists are often young, then become far less willing to take moral stands in middle-age when they’d have to pay for others' welfare...
Thanks, Tom. Great point. You’re absolutely right that our study looks at moral judgments (what children say is right or wrong), rather than actual behavior in real-stakes situations. And indeed, some studies suggest that older children are more likely to give up personal resources than younger ones. So in that sense, they may act more prosocially even if their stated judgments are less inclusive.
I like your hypothesis. And it aligns with what we also speculate: that younger children’s broad moral concern may partly stem from not yet understanding trade-offs and resource constraints. As you note, this could reflect their relative powerlessness: they aren’t in positions yet where they have to make such tough moral compromises. Definitely a hypothesis worth exploring further.
As for whether this also explains why younger people tend to be more idealistic than older adults, I’m not so sure. I could imagine multiple mechanisms at play there (shifts in identity, social roles, responsibility, and maybe even moral fatigue -- all not necessarily mutually exclusive with your hypothesis). But it’s an interesting parallel and a great direction for future work.
I'd add loss aversion! Easier to sacrifice resources you don't yet have (and are in fact willing to sacrifice in practice, not just in theory), compared to resources you already have
Tom Rachman has a couple of good points, and 1 viable hypothesis. What say you, Lucius?