The Neurophysiological Correlates of Children's and Adults' Judgments of Moral and Social Conventional Violations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults and young children have been found to distinguish between moral and social conventional acts, which are considered to entail distinct domains of reasoning (e.g., Turiel 1983). Recently, research has begun to examine the neural basis of moral judgments (e.g., Greene et al., 2001), but these studies did not examine the development of neurocognitive processing of judgments in these two domains. The present study focused on detection of cognitive conflict as a neurocognitive process that distinguished judgments of moral and conventional violations. The N2 component of the ERP was examined in order to determine whether the two types of violation are associated with different neurophysiological correlates and whether they change with development. In a series of five experiments, reaction times and ERPs were recorded from 12- to 14-year-old children and undergraduates who read scenarios that had one of three possible endings: (1) moral violations, (2) conventional violations, (3) no violation (neutral acts). Participants judged whether the act was acceptable or unacceptable when a rule was assumed or removed. Results indicate that reaction times were faster for moral than conventional violations when a rule was assumed for both undergraduates and children, as well as when a rule was removed for children but not for undergraduates. ERP data indicated that adults’, but not children’s, N2 amplitudes were larger (i.e., more negative) for conventional than iii moral violations when a rule was assumed. Furthermore, source analysis indicated generators for the N2 in dorsomedial and ventromedial prefrontal cortices. The results suggest that judgments of conventional violations involve increased conflict detection as compared to moral violations, and these two domains are processed differently across development. The findings were explained by the idea that judgments of conventional violations are more explicitly dependant on rules, whereas judgments of moral violations are based more directly on the intrinsic negative consequences of the act.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".