children weigh need and level of disloyalty when

1
This study investigated children’s evaluations of disloyal in-group members in low to high-need situations. Do children think loyalty to one’s group is a moral obligation? Past research shows children disapprove of disloyal in-group members who support the out- group (Abrams & Rutland, 2008), while other research indicates out-group helping is tolerated when the out-group needs help. Little is known about the tipping point from intolerance to tolerance of disloyal acts. The current study examines whether children think loyalty to one’s group is a moral obligation, by evaluating their perceptions of varying levels of disloyalty (low- high) to the in-group in low to high need situations. 53 4 th and 8 th graders (64% Female, M AGE = 12.77) Children and adolescents read and responded to hypothetical stories about peer groups that varied in their need for a resource (water) and the disloyalty of an in-group member. Research Support: Funding from the University of San Francisco Children Weigh Need and Level of Disloyalty When Evaluating Disloyal In-group Members Lily Samiee, Valentin Gulyas, Jacquelyn Glidden, MA, Angelica Bueno, Adriana Alvarez, Dakota Corrales, Eleanor Sammons, Emmelyn Hernandez, Aline Hitti, PhD, University of San Francisco Method Introduction Measures Participants responded to three stories about two groups that need water: 1) in-group and out-group have equal need for water, 2) in-group needs more water than the out-group, 3) out-group needs more water than the in-group. In these stories, children responded to a disloyal member who gave a little water to the out-group (2 of 6 bottles), a lot of water to the out-group (5 of 6 bottles), or distributed the water equally (3 of 6 bottles). Participants evaluated the disloyal act and evaluated the importance of helping the in-group and out-group. Results Discussion Children think loyalty to one’s group is not obligatory. Helping the out-group is sometimes a moral necessity, if it comes at a low cost to one’s in-group. Children also view disloyalty as more acceptable if the out-group has high need. Future research should explore other factors which may influence the moral obligation of group loyalty, such as loyalty to one's family. 3) Paired t-tests indicated that helping the out group (M = 5.038, SD = 1.143) was more important than helping the in-group (M = 4.057, SD = 1.447) when the in-group had low need (t(52) = -4.68, p < .001)), the opposite was also true for when the in-group had high need. How okay/not okay was it for Jeremy to do what he did? 1=Really not Okay, to 6 = Really Okay 2) A repeated measures ANOVA indicated significant differences between levels of need for: 1) evaluating the importance of helping the in-group, (F(2, 100) = 15.112, p<.001, η 2 = .232)), and 2) evaluating the importance of helping the outgroup (F(2, 100) = 13.028 p<.001, η 2 = .207)). How important is it that Jeremy give water to in-group/out-group? 1 = Very not important, to 6 = Very important Figure 1. Evaluation of the act, 1 = Really not Okay, to 6 = Really Okay 1) When evaluating the disloyal act, there was a Need X Distribution interaction effect, (F(4, 100) = 21.556, p<.001, η 2 = .463)). When the in-group had high need, participants tolerated a low level of disloyalty (2 bottles to the out-group). The mid- and high- disloyalty situations (3:3 and 5:1 distributions) were least tolerated when the in-group had high need. The high disloyalty situation (5 bottles to the out-group) was most tolerated when the in-group had low need (out-group had high need). Figure 2. Importance of helping the in-group and out- group, 1 = Very not important to 6 = Very important 2.24 5.95 2.59 2.59 4.16 4.00 3.71 3.68 2.29 1 2 3 4 5 6 2-4 3-3 5-1 Evaluation of Disloyal Act Distribution of Water Equal Need Low In-group Need High In-group Need *** ** *** *** *** *** 4.06 4.77 4.91 5.04 4.94 4.28 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Low In-group Need Equal Need High In-group Need Importance of Helping Helping In-group Helping Out-group *** ** Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Ferrell, J. M., & Pelletier, J. (2008). Children's judgments of disloyal and immoral peer behavior: Subjective group dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79(2), 444- 461. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01135.x Sierksma, J., Thijs, J., & Verkuyten, M. (2014). Children’s intergroup helping: The role of empathy and peer group norms. Journal Of Experimental Child Psychology, 126369-383. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.002

Upload: others

Post on 12-Jun-2022

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Children weigh need and level of disloyalty when

Thisstudyinvestigatedchildren’sevaluationsofdisloyalin-groupmembersinlowtohigh-needsituations.

Dochildrenthinkloyaltytoone’sgroupisamoralobligation?Pastresearchshowschildrendisapproveofdisloyalin-groupmemberswhosupporttheout-group(Abrams&Rutland,2008),whileotherresearchindicatesout-grouphelpingistoleratedwhentheout-groupneedshelp.Littleisknownaboutthetippingpointfromintolerancetotoleranceofdisloyalacts.Thecurrentstudyexamineswhetherchildrenthinkloyaltytoone’sgroupisamoralobligation,byevaluatingtheirperceptionsofvaryinglevelsofdisloyalty(low-high)tothein-groupinlowtohighneedsituations.

• 534th and8th graders• (64%Female,MAGE = 12.77)• Children andadolescentsread

andrespondedtohypotheticalstoriesaboutpeergroupsthatvariedintheirneedforaresource(water)andthedisloyaltyofanin-groupmember. ResearchSupport:FundingfromtheUniversityofSanFrancisco

ChildrenWeighNeedandLevelofDisloyaltyWhenEvaluatingDisloyalIn-groupMembersLilySamiee,ValentinGulyas,JacquelynGlidden,MA,AngelicaBueno,AdrianaAlvarez,DakotaCorrales,EleanorSammons,

EmmelynHernandez,AlineHitti,PhD,UniversityofSanFrancisco

Method

Introduction MeasuresParticipantsrespondedtothreestoriesabouttwogroupsthatneedwater:1)in-groupandout-grouphaveequalneedforwater,2)in-groupneedsmorewaterthantheout-group,3)out-groupneedsmorewaterthanthein-group.Inthesestories,childrenrespondedtoadisloyalmemberwhogavealittlewatertotheout-group(2of6bottles),alotofwatertotheout-group(5of6bottles),ordistributedthewaterequally(3of6bottles). Participantsevaluatedthedisloyalactandevaluatedtheimportanceofhelpingthein-groupandout-group.

ResultsDiscussion

Childrenthinkloyaltytoone’sgroupisnotobligatory.Helpingtheout-groupis

sometimesamoralnecessity,ifitcomesatalowcosttoone’sin-group.Childrenalsoviewdisloyaltyasmoreacceptableiftheout-grouphashighneed.Futureresearch shouldexploreotherfactors whichmayinfluencethemoralobligationofgrouployalty,such

as loyaltytoone'sfamily.

3) Pairedt-testsindicatedthathelpingtheoutgroup(M =5.038,SD =1.143)wasmoreimportantthanhelpingthein-group(M =4.057,SD =1.447)whenthein-grouphadlowneed(t(52)=-4.68,p <.001)),theoppositewasalsotrueforwhenthein-grouphadhighneed.

Howokay/notokaywasitforJeremytodowhathedid?1=ReallynotOkay,to6=ReallyOkay

2)ArepeatedmeasuresANOVAindicatedsignificantdifferencesbetweenlevelsofneedfor:1)evaluatingtheimportanceofhelpingthein-group,(F(2,100)=15.112,p<.001,η2=.232)),and2)evaluatingtheimportanceofhelpingtheoutgroup(F(2,100)=13.028p<.001, η2 =.207)).

HowimportantisitthatJeremygivewatertoin-group/out-group?1=Verynotimportant,to6=Veryimportant

Figure1.Evaluationoftheact,1=ReallynotOkay,to6=ReallyOkay

1) Whenevaluatingthedisloyalact,therewasaNeedXDistributioninteractioneffect,(F(4,100)=21.556,p<.001,η2=.463)).Whenthein-grouphadhighneed,participantstoleratedalowlevelofdisloyalty (2bottlestotheout-group).Themid- andhigh- disloyaltysituations(3:3and5:1distributions)wereleasttoleratedwhenthein-grouphadhighneed.Thehighdisloyaltysituation(5bottlestotheout-group)wasmosttoleratedwhenthein-grouphadlowneed(out-grouphadhighneed).

Figure2.Importanceofhelpingthein-groupandout-group,1=Verynotimportantto6=Veryimportant

2.24

5.95

2.592.59

4.164.00

3.71 3.68

2.29

1

2

3

4

5

6

2- 4 3- 3 5- 1

Evalua

tionofDisloyalAct

DistributionofWater

EqualNeed LowIn-groupNeed HighIn-groupNeed

***

**

***

*** ******

4.06

4.77 4.915.04 4.94

4.28

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

LowIn-groupNeed EqualNeed HighIn-groupNeed

Impo

rtan

ceofH

elping

HelpingIn-group HelpingOut-group*** **

Abrams,D.,Rutland,A.,Ferrell,J.M.,&Pelletier,J.(2008).Children'sjudgmentsofdisloyalandimmoralpeerbehavior:Subjectivegroupdynamicsinminimalintergroupcontexts.ChildDevelopment,79(2),444-461.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01135.x

Sierksma,J.,Thijs,J.,&Verkuyten,M.(2014).Children’sintergrouphelping:Theroleofempathyandpeergroupnorms.JournalOfExperimentalChildPsychology,126369-383.doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.06.002