Are Children Perceived to Be Morally Exceptional? Different Sets of Psychological Variables Predict Adults’ Moral Judgments About Adults and Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptual analyses of moral cognition suggest that different variables may influence moral judgments depending upon the target's age. Five experiments (total N = 1,733) tested the implications for moral judgments about adults and young children. Results show that adults who were perceived to be more cognitively capable were judged to have greater moral rights and their transgressions were judged less harshly, but young children who were perceived to be more cognitively capable were judged to have fewer moral rights and their transgressions were judged more harshly. In addition, the perceived intentionality and disgustingness of transgressions had weaker effects on judgments about child transgressors than about adult transgressors. Perceivers' care-giving motives also had diverging effects on moral judgments, predicting more lenient judgments about children's transgressions and harsher judgments about adults' transgressions. These results have novel implications-both conceptual and practical-for moral judgments regarding adults and children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".