Lee Et Al Flashcards
What previous research did Lee’s study build upon?
Research on moral development, particularly Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s theories, which suggested that moral reasoning develops in stages.
What was a key issue with previous moral development research?
It was mainly based on Western cultures, assuming moral reasoning develops universally without considering cultural differences.
What cultural factor did Lee investigate?
The influence of social and cultural norms on children’s moral judgments about lying and truth-telling.
What was the main aim of Lee’s study?
To investigate whether Chinese and Canadian children rate lying and truth-telling differently, particularly in prosocial and antisocial situations.
What specific aspect of morality did Lee focus on?
How children’s moral judgments are influenced by cultural values, particularly collectivist vs. individualist societies.
Who were the participants in Lee’s study?
120 Chinese children and 108 Canadian children, aged 7, 9, and 11 years.
Where were the participants from?
Chinese children were from Hangzhou, China.
Canadian children were from Fredericton, Canada.
How were participants selected?
They were recruited from elementary schools in China and Canada.
What method was used to study children’s moral judgments?
Participants were told four short stories where a child’s behavior was either prosocial (good) or antisocial (bad).
What were the two types of story conditions?
Prosocial (helpful behavior)
Antisocial (harmful behavior)
What variable was manipulated in the stories?
Whether the child in the story told the truth or lied about their actions.
How did children respond to the stories?
They were asked to rate the truth-telling or lying on a 7-point scale ranging from very, very good to very, very naughty.
What were the two types of story settings in the study?
Physical stories – actions affected objects (e.g., a book).
Social stories – actions affected people (e.g., another child).
How did these conditions test cultural differences?
They examined whether Chinese and Canadian children judged lying and truth-telling differently based on social expectations in their culture.
How did Chinese and Canadian children differ in rating truth-telling?
In antisocial situations, both groups rated truth-telling positively and lying negatively.
In prosocial situations, Canadian children still rated truth-telling positively, but Chinese children increasingly rated it negatively with age.
How did Chinese children’s ratings change with age?
Older Chinese children rated lying in prosocial situations more positively, reflecting collectivist values (modesty and humility).
How did Canadian children’s ratings compare?
They consistently rated truth-telling positively, reflecting individualist values (honesty and self-expression).
What was Lee’s main conclusion?
Moral reasoning is influenced by cultural values—it is not universal, as suggested by earlier theorists like Kohlberg.
What cultural difference did Lee highlight?
Chinese children were more likely to rate lying in prosocial situations as positive due to collectivist cultural norms emphasizing humility.
What does the study suggest about moral development?
It is shaped by both cognitive maturity and cultural upbringing, meaning different societies encourage different moral values.
Why is studying both Chinese and Canadian children a strength?
It allows for a cross-cultural comparison, helping to identify whether moral development is universal or culture-specific. It challenges Western theories of moral development, showing that different societies have different moral norms which improves the study’s validity.
Why is having 228 participants a strength?
It increases the study’s population validity, making the findings more generalizable to other children.
How does having different age groups strengthen the study?
It allows researchers to see how moral reasoning changes with age in different cultures.
How was Lee’s study standardised?
All children heard the same four stories, with the same rating scale, making results more comparable.
Why does this improve reliability?
The use of controlled conditions means the study can be replicated to check for consistent results.
Why is using hypothetical moral stories a limitation?
They may not reflect real-life moral decisions, as children might act differently in actual situations. The study may not accurately predict how children would judge lying or truth-telling in everyday life which impacts ecological validity.
How might children have been influenced by social desirability bias?
They might have given answers they thought were expected rather than their true beliefs. Their responses may reflect cultural norms rather than personal moral reasoning which reduces the validity.
