Children's and adolescents' judgments about social responsibility: Moral identity and the public good
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research sought to assess children's (10-11 years), adolescents' (13-14 years), and adult's (Psy100 students) perceptions regarding the importance and obligation to engage in various civic activities. Drawing from previous research on the topic of civic obligation, participants were presented with five different types of civic acts (voting, volunteering, charity work, clubs sports, and petitions/protests) and were asked to assess the extent to which these acts were important, obligatory, and legally mandatory. Of interest was also participants' justifications for their responses, which were coded according to moral reasoning, personal choice, or practical factors which mitigated responses. Finally, measures of moral identity were administered to explore the extent to which individual differences in the personal importance of moral qualities influenced responses. Results suggested that younger participants rated charitable endeavors as more obligatory and legally mandatory than did the young adults. Conversely, the young adults tended to prioritize voting more highly relative to the younger participants. Supplementing these findings were the justification analyses, which suggested that younger participants used more moral reasoning in their responses to questions about charitable organizations compared to the young adults. Results also suggested that moral identity was related to the quantitative evaluations of the different civic activities. Moral identity was also positively associated with the use of moral reasoning within morally salient activities across all situations. Regression models indicated that this link between moral identity and moral cognition persisted when age effects were controlled.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".