Adolescents' judgments about resource inequality involving group disparities.

To understand complex and multifaceted nature of judgments about equality, this research investigated adolescents' judgments and reasoning about social inequalities among different social groups. Adolescents ranging in age from 12 to 17 years (N = 72) were presented with hypothetical situations depicting inequalities in distribution of resources among different groups based on social class, race, and gender. The situations bearing on social class inequalities involved allocation of resources associated with levels of personal wealth, and the other situations pertained to inequalities based on group characteristics of race and gender. Although the majority of adolescents negatively evaluated the inequalities in all situations, fewer judged the inequalities as unacceptable in the situations pertaining to social class inequalities involving personal goods. The evaluations about the inequalities based on race or gender were not contingent on conflicting personal choices, authority, rules, or common practices and were justified mostly with considerations of equality. However, when making judgments about inequalities based on social class, adolescents attended to the need to promote others' welfare and nonmoral concerns in the personal and conventional domains.

Culture and children's reasoning about preferences and gender norms.

To examine how children and young adults in two cultures think about gender norms, participants evaluated preferences that were inconsistent with gender norms. Participants (N = 200) included 53 children aged 5 years, 49 children aged 7 years, and 49 children aged 9 years, and 49 young adults from Korea and the United States. Both Koreans and Americans reasoned about violations of gender norms primarily as matters of personal choice in both public and private, with some conventional concerns in public settings. In both cultures, participants rejected the idea that an authority could have jurisdiction over gender-norm-related choices, and both groups suggested that being unable to express those preferences in public has a negative impact on individuals.

What They Don't Know Won't Hurt Them: Parents' Judgments About Lying to Their Adolescents.

This research examined judgments about parents lying to their adolescents. Ninety-six participants from four primarily Caucasian groups (24 parents of 18-year-olds, 24 parents of 14-year-olds, 24 18-year-olds, and 24 14-year-olds) assessed hypothetical situations in which a parent lies to their adolescent about their past experience engaging in risky activities such as drug use and shoplifting. Evaluations and justifications for deception varied as a function of the domain of each act, the age of the adolescent being lied to, and consideration of parents' duty to foster a protective and trusting relationship. Results are discussed in terms of parents' and adolescents' reasoning about deception to achieve and resist socialization goals in several (moral, personal, prudential, and multifaceted) social-cognitive domains.

Using naturalistic recordings to study children's social perceptions and evaluations.

Children often encounter events that bear on their moral and other evaluations, such as physical aggression and material disorder. Children's perceptions and evaluations are decisive for how they respond to and learn from these everyday events. Using a new method for investigating the development of social perceptions and evaluations, researchers interviewed 3- to 6-year-olds about naturalistic video recordings of harm, disorder, and joint play events. Children distinguished between the situations in the perceived intent of the protagonists, evaluations, justifications, and what they thought the protagonist should do after. Age differences suggested that perceiving and evaluating simple everyday situations was challenging for younger children. This research highlights the importance of studying children's everyday social perceptions and evaluations and validates a new paradigm for doing so. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Authority, Autonomy, and Deception: Evaluating the Legitimacy of Parental Authority and Adolescent Deceit.

This research examined adolescents' judgments about lying to avoid parental control over different types of activities. Participants (N = 66, Mage  = 16.38, 73% European American) were interviewed about hypothetical situations describing adolescents who defied parental directives and lied about their defiance. Judgments about the legitimacy of parents' directives and protagonists' deception differed by types of parent relationship with adolescents (mutual or unilateral). Directives were least accepted, and deception was most accepted, in the context of unilateral relationships. Judgments also differed by domain of the action (personal, prudential, or conventional). Participants were least accepting of parental directives, and most accepting of deception about personal activities. Findings indicate that adolescents value honesty and parental authority, but sometimes give priority to concerns with autonomy and mutuality.

To include or not to include: Evaluations and reasoning about the failure to include peers with autism spectrum disorder in elementary students.

Given the significant role that typically developing children play in the social lives of children with autism spectrum disorder, it is important to understand how they evaluate and reason about the inclusion/exclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder in social situations. The objective of this study is to determine elementary students' evaluations, reasoning patterns, and reasoning complexity regarding the failure to include children with autism spectrum disorder in social activities. Forty-four elementary-aged students participated in interviews, which included vignettes describing four contexts in which a child with autism spectrum disorder is not invited to a social event. Responses were analyzed according to social domain theory, an approach emphasizing that children identify and coordinate different domains of social knowledge, including the moral, personal, societal, and prudential. Results showed that regardless of grade and context, most children judge that failure to include on the basis of disability status is not acceptable. However, the complexity of children's reasoning (i.e. the extent to which they drew upon and coordinated multiple domains) was higher in older children. Mean complexity scores were also higher in a birthday party context as compared to a playdate context. We offer implications for future research and practice regarding the social inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder.

Struggles for Equal Rights and Social Justice as Unrepresented and Represented in Psychological Research.

Issues of equality and social justice remain important concerns for contemporary societies. Struggles for equal rights and fair treatment continue in both organized movements and in acts of everyday life. We first consider trends in psychological research that fail to address such struggles and may even impede theoretical understanding of the complex processes of thought and action involved when individuals confront situations of welfare, justice, and rights. Then, we consider research, which attempts to address these issues. We review studies on the development of moral judgments and on understandings of equality and distributive justice. We also discuss research that accounts for the varying social contexts of individual lives and conceives of human behavior as engaged in moral judgments, which often produce resistance and opposition to injustice. In conclusion, we call for more attention in psychological research to issues of equity and social justice.

Adolescents' reasoning about parental gender roles.

In an examination of how adolescents reason about several factors related to division of childcare labor, 38 adolescents, including 20 girls (M age = 16.36 years, SD = .50) and 18 boys (M age = 16.59 years, SD = .62) were interviewed about conflicts between a mother and a father over which parent should stay home with the child, the authority of the father, and similar issues in a traditional culture. The relative income of each parent was varied. Participants considered the needs of the child most when reasoning about infants, and the right to work most frequently when reasoning about preschoolers (p < .001, eta2 = .35). The majority (71%) did not endorse the husband's authority over the wife. However, boys were more likely than girls to emphasize the mother's responsibility to the child over her right to work (p < .01, eta2 = .23). Implications for gender equity and adolescents' future goals were discussed.

Jimmy's baby doll and Jenny's truck: young children's reasoning about gender norms.

To assess the flexibility of reasoning about gender, children ages 4, 6, and 8 years (N = 72) were interviewed about gender norms when different domains were highlighted. The majority of participants at all ages judged a reversal of gender norms in a different cultural context to be acceptable. They also judged gender norms as a matter of personal choice and they negatively evaluated a rule enforcing gender norms in schools. Older children were more likely to show flexibility than younger children. Justifications obtained from 6- and 8-year-olds showed that they considered adherence to gender norms a matter of personal choice and they viewed the rule enforcing gender norms as unfair.

Domain specificity in social interactions, social thought, and social development.

J. E. Grusec and M. Davidov (this issue) have taken good steps in formulating a domain-specific view of parent-child interactions. This commentary supports the introduction of domain specificity to analyses of parenting. Their formulation is an advance over formulations that characterized parental practices globally. This commentary calls for inclusion of definitions of the classification system of domain-specific interactions and criteria for each domain. It is also maintained that Grusec and Davidov's domains of social interaction imply that processes of development are involved, along with socialization; that bidirectionality in parent-child relations needs to be extended to include mutual influences and the construction of domains of social thought; and that conflicts and opposition within families coexist with compliance and social harmony.

To lie or not to lie: to whom and under what circumstances.

This research examined adolescents' judgments about lying to circumvent directives from parents or friends in the moral, personal, and prudential domains. One hundred and twenty-eight adolescents (12.1-17.3 years) were presented with situations in which an adolescent avoids a directive through deception. The majority of adolescents judged some acts as acceptable, including deception regarding parental directives to engage in moral violations and to restrict personal activities. Other acts of deception were judged as unacceptable, including deception of parents regarding prudential acts, as well as deception of friends in each domain. In addition, lying to conceal a misdeed was negatively evaluated. Most adolescents thought that directives from parents and friends to engage in moral violations or to restrict personal acts were not legitimate, whereas parental directives concerning prudential acts were seen as legitimate. Results indicate that adolescents value honesty, but sometimes subordinate it to moral and personal concerns in relationships of inequality.

Reasoning about interpersonal responsibility when making judgments about scenarios depicting close personal relationships.

This study examined the moral reasoning of 36 young adults (M age = 20.8 yr., evenly divided by sex) about situations involving close interpersonal relationships: best friends, spouses, and parents or children. Participants were presented stories in which personal needs and desires were in conflict with interpersonal concerns. When asked how the conflicts should be resolved, the large majority of participants judged that personal desires should be subordinated to interpersonal concerns, justifying their judgments with reference to concern for others, relationship maintenance, or relationship responsibilities. No sex differences in judgments or justifications were found. In addition, most judged that the act of meeting another's needs in a close relationship was an obligatory responsibility and that such responsibilities generalized to people living in other societies. Thus, participants considered interpersonal responsibilities to be moral obligations that apply across cultural boundaries and did not consider them to be matters of personal choice.