A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Child Development
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
The Homogeneity and Heterogeneity of Moral Functioning in Preschool
Enda Tan , Amori Y. Mikami , Anastasiya Luzhanska, and J. Kiley Hamlin
University of British Columbia
The current study examined relations between distinct aspects of moral functioning, and their cognitive and
emotional correlates, in preschool age children. Participants were 171 typically developing 3- to 6-year-olds.
Each child completed several tasks, including (a) moral tasks assessing both performance of various moral
actions and evaluations of moral scenarios presented both verbally and nonverbally; and (b) non-moral tasks
assessing general cognitive skill, executive functioning, theory-of-mind, and emotion recognition. Shyness and
empathic concern were assessed from video acquired during participation. Results demonstrated positive
associations among distinct moral actions, as well as among distinct moral evaluation tasks, but few associa-
tions between tasks assessing moral actions and moral evaluation. Empathic concern and inhibitory control
each emerged as important predictors of preschoolers’moral functioning.
From an early age, children demonstrate a wide
range of skills which allow them to navigate the
complex social and moral world. As third parties,
children evaluate others based on their moral
actions, viewing intentional moral transgressions as
wrong (Killen, Mulvey, Richardson, Jampol, &
Woodward, 2011), judging prosocial individuals to
be nice, and allocating punishment to antisocial
individuals (Van de Vondervoort & Hamlin, 2017).
As first parties, children engage in their own proso-
cial behaviors, helping others achieve instrumental
goals (Svetlova, Nichols, & Brownell, 2010), com-
forting distressed others (Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yar-
row, Wagner, & Chapman, 1992), and sharing
resources with others (Warneken, Lohse, Melis, &
Tomasello, 2011). The diversity of these morally rel-
evant skills (including moral evaluations and moral
behaviors) begs two important questions: Should
we view children’s moral functioning as a unified
construct? And if so, what are the mechanisms that
unify these seemingly distinct mental and behav-
ioral processes? The current study aimed to address
these questions by assessing the consistency
between different aspects of moral functioning, and
their cognitive and emotional correlates, in pre-
school-age children.
Relations Between Different Forms of Moral Behaviors
Relations Between Types of Prosocial Behaviors
Are there consistencies in children’s production
of different types of moral behaviors? Some scholars
argue that different forms of prosocial behaviors are
unrelated, primarily because they are based on dis-
tinct mechanisms. For instance, Dunfield (2014)
argues that helping, comforting, and sharing are eli-
cited by different negative states (i.e., instrumental
need, emotional distress, and unmet material desire,
respectively), and that these negative states are rep-
resented by different neural mechanisms. In a simi-
lar vein, Paulus (2014) proposes that different
prosocial behaviors are driven by distinct motiva-
tions: While instrumental helping is motivated by a
desire to fulfill others’goals or to engage in social
interactions, comforting is driven by emotional con-
tagion or empathic concerns, and sharing is driven
by compliance to an explicit request, conformity to
social norms, and a desire to interact. These theories
suggest that, given the diverse mechanisms underly-
ing different forms of prosocial behaviors, prosocial
behaviors should not be viewed as a homogeneous
construct (Dunfield, 2014; Paulus, 2014).
Empirically, the heterogeneity of prosocial
behaviors is supported by studies finding no
This work was supported in part by Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Grant and
UBC Hampton Fund Research Grant to K. Hamlin. We thank
Shannon Bridson, Hannah de Vries, Vivian Wong, Rachelle Gra-
ham, Brianna Vissers, Thaddeus Grams, Adam Shillington, Kristi
Atkinson, and Giulia Santaca for their assistance. The data
reported in the paper are deposited in the Department of Psy-
chology at UBC. The authors have no conflict of interest to
declare.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Enda Tan, Department of Psychology, University of British
Columbia, 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4. Electronic mail may be sent to enda.tan@psych.ubc.ca.
©2020 Society for Research in Child Development
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2021/9203-0013
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13458
Child Development, May/June 2021, Volume 92, Number 3, Pages 959–975