CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Children's Social Reasoning in Context: Reply to Gabennesch

Helwig, Charles C., Tisak, Marie S., Turiel, Elliot·1990·Child Development
DOI 10.2307/1130860
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Children's social reasoning is multifaceted. Moral judgments of justice, welfare, and rights are an important aspect of domains of social reasoning that are not merely the arbitrary and relative products of social formations. In defining all social formations as conventions that are either reified or accurately perceived as arbitrary and relative human inventions, Gabennesch relegates the moral concepts of many philosophers, moral leaders, and laypersons to ethnocentrism and reification. In the process, he fails to distinguish between metaethics relating to the source of knowledge and the form of knowledge. He also fails to account for distinctions between conventionality and moral concepts that do not constitute realism or reification. His review of the evidence of moral realism in children is selective in that isolated findings are taken out of the context of a particular study and of the entire body of evidence. Moreover, he has incorrectly interpreted many of the findings he cites in support of childhood realism. We present a summary of 48 studies demonstrating that children distinguish morality and convention. Gabennesch's perceptual metaphors hinge on an exaggerated role for conventionality in social formations at the expense of other complex social phenomena.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1130860

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The measure identified by Smetana (2006) for assessing moral judgment, in which children provide social reasons for what makes an act wrong from a moral viewpoint, has extensive empirical validation and cross-cultural generalizability.

    “This measure, which has served as a prototypic moral judgment assessment given its extensive empirical validation (Helwig, 1990; Killen, 2007; Nucci, 2001; Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1998, 2008), derives from social domain theory (Turiel, 2006), and has been replicated in many countries, with cross-cultural generalizability”

    From The accidental transgressor: Morally-relevant theory of mind (2011) · cites this paper as Helwig, 1990

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Helwig, C. C., Tisak, M. S., & Turiel, E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Bowling Green State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Child Development
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1990-12
Volume
61
Issue
6
Pages
2068
ISSN
0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/1130860
OpenAlex
W2045975102
Cited by
72
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Child Development (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
children's moral reasoning, moral realism, moral judgment, justice, welfare, rights, conventionality, reification, metaethics, social formation, moral concepts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review