What Are They Thinking? The Moral Judgment of Children With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

This study was conducted to describe the moral judgment of 12 third- through fifth-grade children with and without emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and to explore how feelings affected their thought processes. Data were gathered via three individually conducted moral dilemma interviews with each child participant. These procedures produced 2,107 moral judgments that were coded and submitted to an analysis using case study research methodology. The results showed that 10 of the children voiced an egocentric moral orientation and that only 2 voiced a developmentally typical cooperative moral orientation. The children also described how caring, just relationships engendered feelings of happiness and love and inspired a sense of moral autonomy while harsh, unjust relationships fueled feelings of anger, sadness, and fear and led to prescriptions of disobedience and retaliation. The implications of the results are discussed with respect to the importance of children’s experiences in inclusive classroom communities.

Keywords

anger emotional and behavioral disorders moral judgment childhood inclusion

Moral judgments are represented in an intentional endeavor to discover the connections between what one does in social situations and its consequences (Piaget, 1932/1965). Piaget conducted the seminal study of the development of moral judgment in childhood, urging researchers to move beyond merely observing how precisely children comply with the rules that govern social interactions and to examine more closely how they judge the good and bad in what they do. Piaget studied moral judgment as it typically develops but conjectured that the richest material for analysis might be supplied by, “difficult children, whom parents and teachers send or ought to send up for psycho-therapeutic treatment” (p. 112). It is indeed the assumed relationship between judgment and behavior that lies at the heart of Piaget’s theory and defines its importance for continued research (Hardman, 2012). Yet, researchers have produced very little information about the moral judgment of children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) receiving special education services. Thus, the present study was conducted in response to this omission in the research literature, primarily for the purpose of describing the moral judgment of children with and without EBD but also to explore how feelings affected their thought processes.

Theoretical Framework

Piaget (1932/1965) began his study of moral judgment by observing children as they played and questioning them about the fairness of various deviations from the rules of the games they played. To test the explanatory power of the reasoning patterns he discovered, he then conducted moral dilemma interviews with children ages 3 to 13 using stories about objective responsibility in the cases of clumsiness, stealing, and lying; retributive versus distributive justice; collective and/or communicable responsibility; immanent justice; equality and authority; and justice among children. As a result, he found that the practice of rules develops in four stages—sensorimotor, egocentric, cooperation, and codification—but that the consciousness of obligation develops in three—nonmoral, heteronomy, and autonomy.

Although the age of onset for each stage may vary, the stage sequence itself is considered universal and invariant, in that one’s present mode of thinking is a natural outgrowth of all prior modes. A child does not simply internalize higher stage reasoning but can only move forward to the next logical step of cognitive reorganization (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010a). Piaget (1932/1965) observed that the developmental progression begins in infancy with the sensorimotor stage. Infants are considered nonmoral because they have no awareness of rules or moral obligation. At about age 2 or 3, toddlers become aware of rules as the egocentric stage emerges but practice them only as it suits their own purposes. Heteronomy dominates their sense of obligation in that they believe that rules are created and imposed by all powerful authorities who must be obeyed. They also do not understand intention and must rely almost entirely upon salient clues like reward, punishment, and the severity of damage done to determine right from wrong. Perspective taking emerges at about age 5 or 6 and provides the cognitive structure necessary to transition into the cooperation stage (Siegler, 1998). Although children continue to be heteronymous with respect to obligation throughout childhood, experiences of cooperation enable a gradual understanding that laws and rules are internally obligated social constructions that allow society to function fairly and harmoniously. The process is complete at about age 12 as the codification stage develops along with a nascent sense of moral autonomy.

Colby and Kohlberg (1987/2010a) refined Piaget’s (1932/1965) definition of a moral judgment and developed a method for scoring moral dilemma interviews based on the following definition. A moral judgment is an imperative derived from some rule or principle that is (a) a judgment of value, not fact; (b) a social judgment involving people; (c) prescriptive or normative, and (d) about rights and responsibilities as opposed to liking and preference. For example, people exercise judgment when deciding their favorite color, but this is a judgment of liking or preference, not a moral judgment. As a result of their research, Colby and Kohlberg identified six moral orientations grouped into three levels; (a) the preconventional level which is egocentric in intent and includes the punishment−obedience and personal reward orientations, (b) the conventional level which is cooperative in intent and includes the good boy/nice girl and law and order orientations, and (c) the postconventional level which is principled in orientation and includes the social contract and universal ethical principle orientations.

Moral Judgment, Antisocial Behavior, and Emotionality

Cooperation dominates most children’s moral judgment by about age nine (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010a; Piaget, 1932/1965) although there are exceptions. For example, youths remanded to the juvenile justice system for detention and children with low socioeconomic status (SES) tend to remain egocentric into adulthood. This effect is attributed to the limited opportunities these individuals may have to achieve full member status in society and its institutions (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1987/2010). It is important to note, however, that when egocentrism continues into adolescence, it seems to heighten the risk for the development of antisocial behavior. Although heteronomy renders the adolescent dependent upon external authorities for moral direction, egocentrism allows rule-oriented behavior only as it suits selfish interests, but at a time when size and level of freedom necessitate a cooperative moral orientation and an emerging sense of moral autonomy (Gibbs, 1995).

Childhood defines the time frame for the development of a cooperative moral orientation (e.g., Piaget, 1932/1965) but also some of the most serious forms of EBD (e.g., Kauffman & Landrum, 2009; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). Antisocial behavior is often present in early childhood but tends to intensify as children mature into adolescence (Reid et al., 2002). EBD is defined in federal statute as an emotional disturbance (ED) that is characterized by depression and/or anxiety although many believe that it is anger that fuels the aggressive, acting out behaviors that are manifested in the most prevalent types (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2004). Although anger is a primary emotion that is not mentioned in the federal statute, many believe that it may play a role in the development of anxiety and depression (Downey, Lebolt, Rincon, & Freitas, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 2009; Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992; Levine, 1995; Murphy & Eisenberg, 1996). For example, Eisenberg and her colleagues (2009) found that young children who exhibit social withdrawal in early childhood were more prone to anger as opposed to depression or anxiety as they matured into adolescence.

Anger is defined as an uncomfortable subjective experience that evokes thoughts, beliefs, and images in response to perceived threats, insults, frustration, injustice, intentional harm, or conflict (e.g., Kassinove, 1995; Lehnert, Overholser, & Spirito, 1994; Levine, 1995). Hoffman (2000) described anger as the hot button that can render ordinarily reasonable people irrational and sometimes violently aggressive. Likewise, Dodge and his colleagues found that when anger mediates the interpretation of morally relevant information, it can lead to aggressive behavioral responding (e.g., Dodge et al., 2003; Dodge & Rabiner, 2004). In some cases, anger can become so chronically intense that it is no longer represented in an occasional emotional state but becomes a debilitating personality trait, or anger disorder (Kassinove) that has an adverse effect on the quality of children’s social interactions (e.g., Boekaerts, 1993; Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992; Murphy & Eisenberg, 1996).

Astor (1994) and his colleague Behre (Astor & Behre, 1997) studied the moral judgment of children referred for the treatment of violent behavior and found that these children considered aggressive retaliation justifiable when provoked regardless of the harm it may cause others. Hardman (2002) studied the moral judgment of third- through fifth-grade children with and without EBD and found that when trait anger was modeled into a regression analysis, it was the only predictor of moral theme comprehension after accounting for grade, gender, ethnicity, SES, and reading comprehension. Hardman (2012) also conducted case study research to describe the moral judgment of 3 third- through fifth-grade children with EBD using moral dilemma interviews to collect data and found that all three of the children voiced an egocentric as opposed to a cooperative moral orientation. As no typical peers were interviewed, it is not known how they would have responded to the same moral dilemma prompts.

Method

The present study was conducted to describe the moral judgment of 12 third- through fifth-grade children with and without EBD and to explore how feelings affected their judgment. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: (a) Are the reasoning patterns voiced in the moral judgments of third- through fifth-grade children with and without EBD similar or different with respect to moral orientation and (b) How do feelings of anger, fear, and sadness affect the children’s thought processes? Data were collected and analyzed using case study research, which is defined as an in-depth study of one or more instances of a phenomenon in its real-life context from the perspective of those involved in it (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). These methods are well suited for studies in which the primary objective is to make the intricate details of a phenomenon explicit by exposing thought processes and feelings that are difficult to observe quantitatively (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Setting and Participants

Each case in case study research represents a particular instance of the phenomenon and the unit of analysis that will be studied across one or more cases (Gall et al., 2007). Twelve cases, 6 students with EBD and 6 typical peers, were purposively selected from a random sampling of third- through fifth-grade students attending 43 elementary schools and 3 special education centers for students with ED in two moderately sized, rural school districts in Central Florida. Parental consent was obtained to participate in this study and a larger one conducted simultaneously to investigate the relationship between moral theme comprehension and anger using causal comparative research methods (see Hardman, 2002). Third through fifth graders were selected for study because they are at least 8 years old, an age at which cooperation should be the dominant cognitive structure represented in their moral judgment. Grade, as opposed to age, also provides a more meaning measure of cognitive maturation.

The goal of purposeful sampling is to select cases that are information rich with respect to the purposes of the study (Gall et al., 2007). Since maturation and SES are both related to the development of moral judgment, each group of 6 children included 2 third graders, 2 fourth graders, and 2 fifth graders and was evenly divided on SES by group and grade, with SES being determined by eligibility for free or reduced lunch. The final sample included 4 female, 8 male, 2 African American, and 10 Caucasian children. Two of the children with EBD attended a special day school for students with ED, 1 Caucasian student with full pay lunch status and 1 African American student with free/reduced lunch status. Pseudonyms were assigned to the children by grade levels as follows. The names of third graders begin with the letter A, fourth graders the letter B, and fifth graders the letter C. An asterisk (*) was used to denote the children with EBD.

Research Procedures

Moral dilemma interviews

Data were collected over the course of three individually conducted interviews with each child participant using 12 moral dilemmas that presented a conflict in values in which there was no clear choice about what should be done. The four Interview I dilemmas were selected from Colby and Kohlberg (1987/2010b), the five Interview II dilemmas were selected from Piaget (1932/1965), and the three Interview III dilemmas were selected from The Boxcar Children (Warner, 1977). Table 1 lists the 12 dilemmas by interview number, title, issue choice, and story plot. Louise’s Dilemma was selected from Colby and Kohlberg’s interview protocol because it is child friendly. The Heinz Dilemma was also selected from Colby and Kohlberg but is more sophisticated and adult focused. The Heinz Dilemma was chosen nevertheless, because it is one of the most familiar of the Kohlbergian dilemmas. The Heinz Dilemma is about a man who wants desperately to save his wife who is dying of a rare form of cancer. He is considering stealing a lifesaving drug from a greedy local druggist who will not lower the inflated price or sell the drug to him on time. The Piagetian dilemmas were all child friendly in content as were The Boxcar Children dilemmas. The Boxcar Children is a book about four children who run away from home and live in a boxcar in the woods. This story was selected because it presents moral choices in a way that entices children to value cooperation among peers over obedience to authority. The Interview III dilemmas were worded exactly as they are in the book and every child received a copy of the book as a thank you gift at the conclusion of the Interview III. The wording for the Piagetian and Kohlbergian dilemmas was slightly edited but the content and moral choices presented were not.

Table 1.

Issues Represented in Twelve Dilemmas.

Interview no.	Dilemma title	Issue choice	Plot
I. Colby and Kohlberg (1987/2010b)	The Heinz Dilemma		Heinz steals a drug to save his wife, is caught, and tried
	Part 1	Life/law
	Part 2	Conscience/law
	Part 3	Conscience/punishment
	Louise’s Dilemma	Authority/contract	A mother breaks a promise
II. Piaget (1932/1965)	Father’s Pen	Conscience/punishment	A child finds Father’s lost pen
	Mother’s Scissors	Punishment/equity	Two children play with Mother’s scissors, but one does not
	Doing Chores	Authority/contract	A scoutmaster asks a scout to do someone else’s chores
	The Foolish Brother	Authority/contract	A father asks his son to tell on his disobedient brother
	The Long Walk	Equality/equity	A big boy and a little boy must share one lunch
III. Warner (1977)	The Boxcar Children
	Part 1	Affiliation/authority	An adult asks runaway siblings to identify themselves
	Part 2	Affiliation/law	The siblings run away from the baker’s wife
	Part 3	Affiliation/life	The youngest sister becomes ill

Data collection

Each of the 36 interviews (12 informants × 3 interviews each) was scheduled in consultation with the children’s teachers and lasted approximately 30 min. All of the dilemmas were read aloud and comprehension of character, setting, and plot was confirmed by asking the child to relate what the story was about immediately after each story was told. If any critical comprehension information was omitted in the retelling of the story, the researcher reviewed the story with the child and questioned the child again before prompting an issue choice. For example, after confirming comprehension of the basic story elements of the Heinz Dilemma, the researcher asked, “Should Heinz steal the drug?” Regardless of the choice made, the researcher followed up with additional open-ended questions that probed the child’s reasoning about why one issue was chosen over the other. The purpose of this line of questioning was to generate as much data as possible about the child’s thought processes but also to increase the generalizability of the themes and patterns that developed both within and across informants.

Data analysis

The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and entered into The Ethnograph (v5.0) for coding and analysis. The 36 interviews produced 547 pages of data that were coded using Standard Issue Scoring (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010b) as a guide. A comprehension category (COMP) was created to facilitate an evaluation of each child’s understanding of plot, setting, and character and the remaining data were then broadly categorized as either an issue choice (IC) or a moral judgment (MJ). For example, when asked, “Should Heinz steal the drug to save his wife,” a simple “no” indicated that upholding the law was the IC. When informants changed their initial decision after further deliberation, the final decision was coded as the issue choice and the original issue choice was coded as a MJ as were all other responses to the open-ended questions about the issue choice. Judgments offered in support of the issue choice were coded with a plus (MJ+) and against the issue choice with a minus (MJ−).

Segments of text were coded as MJ only if the response included a valued norm and was prescriptive. The norm (N) is the moral value or object of concern offered in support of the issue choice (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010b). For example, in The Heinz Dilemma, the child might determine that Heinz should not steal the drug because you should not take things that do not belong to you. The issue choice is to uphold the law (IC: LAW), but the norm offered in support of that choice is respect for individual property rights (N: PROP). The prescriptive part of the moral judgment includes a modal element (ME) that expresses the mood or modality of the moral language. If the child reasons that Heinz should not steal the drug because “It’s wrong,” the child is indicating that one should not steal simply because stealing is sanctioned by society (ME: BLAME). A moral judgment may or may not include a value element (VE) that provides the terminal value or justification for the norm or issue choice. If the child says, “Stealing is wrong because you might go to jail,” this indicates that the ultimate end or reason for the valuing the norm is to avoid punishment (VE: PUNISH).

Reliability and validity

Researchers apply criteria such as plausibility, authenticity, credibility, and relevance as evidence of validity in case study research, but additional evidence of validity may also be provided with the use of multiple data collection methods (3 types of dilemmas, 12 stories, 36 data collection points), multiple data sources (12 children), and overall fit with theory (Gall et al., 2007). Estimating the reliability of the analysis also provides evidence of validity. A doctoral student in educational psychology conducted an external audit of the interview results by selecting 7 of the 36 interviews to review independently and marking every code in the chosen interviews with a plus (+) for agree or a minus (−) for disagree. Reliability was then estimated by dividing the number of agreements by the sum of disagreements and agreements, observing the following results: comprehension (1.00), issue choice (1.00), moral judgment (.99), norm (.93), modal element (.96), and value element (.91).

Results

The analysis of the comprehension results indicated that all of the children understood the basic elements of character, setting, and plot before interpreting the moral elements of each story. The next step was to identify and segment the issue choices and moral judgments. A moral judgment must contain a norm and a model element to be complete, but it may also include a value element that justifies the norm or issue choice. Using this criterion as a guide, the results showed that the typical peers generated 1,069 moral judgments and the children with EBD 1,038, yielding a total of 2,107 moral judgments to submit to further analysis.

Table 2 summarizes the results of the analysis and shows that the children tended to favor heteronymous issue choices and norms such as authority, law, and punishment but with one notable exception, affiliation (i.e., maintaining relationships). They usually responded with clear issue choices when first prompted but occasionally needed to reason through various justifications for each choice before making a final decision.

Table 2.

Frequency of Issue Choices, Norms, and Moral Elements by Group.

		Norms by interview					Moral elements
Issues	Total		I	II	III	Total	Modal	Value	Total
Authority (4)^a	17/14^b	Authority	102/73^b	119/94	31/37	252/204	Obey/consult		563/434^b
Law (3)	12/11	Law	114/117	4/0	7/14	125/131	Blame/approve		430/515
Affiliation (4)	11/12	Punishment	46/39	52/86	0/0	98/125	Retribute/exonerate		46/75
Punishment (3)	11/11	Affiliation	10/23	9/3	80/85	99/111	Have a right		11/11
Conscience (3)	4/8	Contract	8/30	38/17	0/0	46/47	Have a duty		19/3
Life (2)	6/4	Property	11/46	0/0	29/0	40/46		Punishment/reward	72/125
Equality (1)	3/6	Conscience	23/17	0/28	0/0	23/45		Egoistic concerns	129/170
Equity (2)	7/3	Life	0/16	22/0	0/13	22/29		Consequences to others	132/64
Contract (2)	1/3	Fairness^c	0/0	27/38	0/0	27/38		Fairness^c	51/23
								Social order	18/10
								Perspective taking	5/7

Note. Issues, norms, and moral elements are listed in order of frequency from most to least. EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders.

Numbers in parentheses represent the number of times the issue was presented. ^b Typical/EBD. ^c Equality/equity.

Table 2 also shows that the children most frequently offered obey/consult or blame/approve to justify their issue and norm choices. For example, *Alex explained that a father should spank his son when he disobeys to, “Teach a lesson,” indicating that parents must use corporeal punishment to teach obedience. Barbie reasoned that Heinz should not steal the drug to save his wife’s life because stealing is sanction by society saying, “Um, I think it’s wrong.” The children chose retribute/exonerate, have a right, and have a duty with less frequency. For example, Betty did not think it was fair for a mother to punish all of the children when the guilty party is unknown but also believed that the guilty party must not be allowed to escape punishment. She suggested that the mother “pick up fingerprints” to identify the guilty child. Likewise, *Carey said the mother “should put a camera right there, near her scissors and see who messed with them.” In responding to Louise’s Dilemma, Allison explained that a daughter must obey her mother because mothers have a duty to “like not have their child a liar and a cheater when they grow up,” bur also asserted that a daughter has a right to spend her own money however she wants. “Because she was the one who earned it and she was the one who put on a goal.”

The value element represents the ultimate end or purpose of the moral judgment and is critical in determining the child’s moral orientation. Avoiding punishment/seeking reward, other egoistic concerns, and consequences to others were the terminal values the children selected most frequently to justify their issue and norm choices. For example, Albert argued that children do not steal because they do not want to be punished. Spanking “would teach them a lesson about being punished and all that, and they would probably never steal again.” *Allen noted also other egoistic consequences that might result if one steals. “You could probably get in trouble, deep trouble. You could probably go to jail.” *Cory explained that you should obey the law “because if you don’t, sometimes you go to jail.” That is, sometimes you go to jail but you might also get a reward. According to Cory, “Something good might happen to him [Heinz] for keeping the person alive.” *Brian reasoned that if he were Heinz, “I would steal it even though it’s not right,” but when asked why, he replied, “You might even be able to get out of prison with $2,000 dollars.” Similarly, *Alex determined that a child would not return his father’s lost pen, “Because he wanted the pen and so his father wouldn’t know that he found it, [with pride and a grin] but he did.” *Cory said that a daughter should do good things so her mother will “brag about her and talk about her a lot . . . She would want her mama to say my daughter was in the newspaper for helping somebody.”

The results show that the typical peers more frequently considered the consequences of their actions to others. For example, Barbie stated that it is important to keep your promises because, “Sometimes you can hurt people’s feelings when you don’t keep your promises.” Allison reasoned that if a mother punishes all of the children because she does not know who actually played with her scissors, a child might “think his mother was mean and it’s not good to have a child think you’re mean.” The children offered fairness, perspective taking, and social harmony as terminal values with far less frequency. For example, Betty valued fairness, saying that it is wrong to steal even under dire circumstances, “Because you didn’t pay for it and maybe somebody else did.” *Allen engaged in perspective taking to determine why it is wrong to hurt others saying, “Because you wouldn’t want that happening to yourself and if everybody hurt everybody it wouldn’t be that good of a place.” Allison revealed a basic understanding of laws as social constructions created for the purpose of maintaining harmony and justice as she explained that we have laws because

I think it came from somebody who had something that was stolen from them and something really bad happened to ’em like someone stole money and then one of their children died because they didn’t have enough food. So he talked to the police about it and they made a law that you can’t steal.

The Children’s Thought Processes

Table 3 summarizes the children’s moral orientations and shows that all but two, Allison and Carl, reasoned from an egocentric or preconventional level moral orientation. Previous research indicates that egocentrism dominates children’s thinking until about age 5 or 6, when the cognitive transformation from egocentrism to cooperation or conventional level reasoning begins with the emergence of a good boy/nice girl orientation. By age 9, the transformation is complete and cooperation becomes the cognitive structure that dominates children’s judgment (cf. Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010a; Piaget, 1932/1965).

Table 3.

Moral Orientation by Informant Group.

Name	Grade	SES	Gender	Ethnicity	Moral orientation
EBD
*Allen	3	Full pay	M	W	Personal reward
*Alex	3	Free/reduced	M	W	Personal reward
*Brian	4	Full pay	M	W	Personal reward
*Bonnie	4	Free/reduced	F	W	Personal reward
*Carey	5	Full pay	M	W	Personal reward
*Cory	5	Free/reduced	M	B	Personal reward
Typical
Allison	3	Full pay	F	W	Good boy/nice girl
Albert	3	Free/reduced	M	W	Personal reward
Betty	4	Full pay	F	W	Personal reward
Barbie	4	Free/reduced	F	B	Personal reward
Carl	5	Full pay	M	W	Law and order
Chris	5	Free/reduced	M	W	Punishment/obedience

Note. SES is based on lunch status. SES = socioeconomic status; EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; M = male; W = White; F = female; B = Black.

Egocentrism

Chris, a fifth-grade typical peer with low SES, was the only informant who reasoned almost exclusively from a preconventional level, punishment-obedience moral orientation. This moral orientation is characterized egocentrism but also an inability to provide a reason why one issue is chosen over another. Quite simply, laws and rules are created by all powerful authorities who must be obeyed. For example, when asked why it is wrong to steal, Chris responded, “Because it’s not right to steal.” When further pressed to provide a reason, he replied, “Because.” Chris was able to justify his issue choice in only 15 of his 135 judgments. When he did offer a terminal value, his reasoning was egocentrically focused on avoiding certain punishment. According to Chris, a scout must obey his scoutmaster, even when the request is not fair because if he does not, the scoutmaster might make him “do all the chores.” When asked if a son should refuse to tell on his foolish brother, Chris replied, “No . . . Because if he told the good boy to tell him what the other boy did and if he said that, he’d probably get punished.”

All of the children with EBD, low SES, and one typical peer without low SES reasoned from a personal reward orientation. A personal reward orientation is different from a punishment-obedience orientation in that reward and other egoistic consequences in addition to punishment are offered to justify issue choices. Unlike a punishment-obedience orientation, adverse consequences are considered in terms of their probability as opposed to certainty (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010a). For example, Heinz should not seal the drug because “[*Allen] even if he did steal it he would probably go to jail.” Similarly, *Cory justified choosing life over law saying, “Because if he steal[s] it, um, for his wife . . . he might get an award.” Cory also reasoned that a daughter should obey her mother, “Because . . . your mother buy[s] you food . . . Sometimes she buy[s] you new clothes and new shoes, and a car, and chocolates,” but a daughter does not have to obey if “the mama don’t like her, uh uh [shaking his head no].”

When the children reasoned from a personal reward orientation, selfish needs and concerns guided moral decision making. An instrumental morality prevailed as moral judgment became a simple task of deciding what works best for me. When the researcher asked *Brian what should Heinz do, he replied, “I think Heinz should give the [druggist] sleeping medicine and take [the drug].” In response to the Boxcar Children Dilemma, *Allen advised,

If they want [Violet] to die, well don’t take her [to the hospital], but if they want her to live . . . take her. [Would there be a situation where you wanted someone to die?] No. Well, yeah, once . . . If they like killed somebody or something. If they killed somebody and I wanted them to die.

Cooperation

Allison’s concern for others was far more than an occasional reference point and supplied the terminal value in 58 of her moral judgments compared with her third-grade peers, Albert (20), *Alex (1), and *Allen (17). For example, a mother should be concerned about breaking promises to her daughter because, “I think the mother thinks that that’s all right but if she thought it through, I think that she wouldn’t like doing it because she loved her daughter and she doesn’t want anything bad to happen to her.” She argued that, even though a mother has the right to break a promise, she should also be aware that her child might suffer the consequences. She explained that the daughter might be so upset that she could cause harm to herself or others by doing something foolishly disobedient. Allison believed that moral authority should be tempered by mutual respect by applying laws and rules equally, regardless of one’s power or allegiances. Officer Brown should report his friend Heinz, “Because he is just a normal citizen. He is not no more special than anybody else. So he should pay his price.” Allison then elaborated her reasons why justice should be equally applied.

Even though he’s his friend, it’s his duty to arrest anybody that does something wrong because if that happens and he doesn’t go to jail, then he might do it again and again and again. And then something might happen that’s even worse than just going to jail.

Carl voiced a law and order orientation, which is also cooperative in nature but is considered by some to represent a higher stage of development (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987/2010a). Gilligan and her colleagues (Brown, Tappan, & Gilligan, 1995; Gilligan, Ward, & Taylor, 1988) argued that a law and order orientation is not indicative of higher stage development but differs from a good boy/nice girl orientation in perspective only. For example, Carl stated that equal treatment defines the moral because it necessitates care but also imposes social order. He also reasoned that two boys should share, half-and-half, one lunch because equal treatment is the best method for insuring social harmony.

Yes, because um, because it wouldn’t cause fights . . . If they decided to flip a coin for it, then it just might cause fights, you know. And the little one might . . . start like saying, “That wasn’t fair,” you know. Even though he agreed to [it] . . . Or the big boy might think the same thing . . . saying, “Hey, that wasn’t fair.” Even though he agreed, you know. It would just cause fights, you know. And you should just split it down the middle.

When asked whose business is it anyway if children run away, Carl replied,

Well . . . the USA really doesn’t want people to be poor. There’s already enough poor people like in New York, you know, that just, that beg for stuff or anything, you know . . . Just live out like in trees and have to beg for places to sleep, you know. These things, it’s just not right.

Feelings and Moral Judgment

An advantage of case study research is that interviews can be individualized with situation specific follow-up questions. It was in responding to follow-up questions that the children often recalled their personal experiences to clarify their understanding of right and wrong and engaged in insightful conversation about how feelings affected their moral judgment.

Anger, Sadness, and Fear

The researcher never asked any questions about how the actors might feel in the given scenario, but the children often shared their feelings quite spontaneously nevertheless as they talked about their own real-life experiences. For example, Albert became visibly agitated as he described intense feelings of anger when his little brother broke one of his action figures.

My other little brother, my stepbrother Ned, he [pause]. I had this action figure. He doesn’t really know what my dad’s hammer does, but he took my dad’s hammer out of his tool belt and slammed in on my action figure and he broke it into pieces that were like an inch tall. I was just so mad that my pressure just got out of rage and I yelled at him. But anger just took over me and I knew I wasn’t supposed to yell at him, at my little brother, but my anger just took control of me . . . So instead, I got in trouble. I told my dad that Ned got the hammer and slammed it on my action figure and broke it into pieces. [And the stepfather said] he’s just a baby. [With agitation] I know Ned knows what that thing does.

*Brian’s facial expression signaled anger as he tallied the mother’s moral indiscretion score for breaking a promise to her daughter but his words demonstrated how anger can interfere with thinking as he interpreted a hypothetical dilemma.

Louise shouldn’t tell. Because the mother did two things wrong and the child did one thing wrong. I mean the mother did three things wrong and the child did two things wrong. [Tell me what three things the mother did wrong?] The mother broke a promise and she made her child mad. That’s two so far, and I forget the third thing that I was going to say.

When the children perceived injustice in social situations, they frequently described feelings of anger followed by a need to retaliate. For example, *Cory determined that Louise should keep quiet and not tell her mother that her younger sister lied about going over to a friend’s house, “Because [the mother] made a promise that she couldn’t keep . . . Then [she will] be lying.” It is wrong to break promises “because sometimes when you don’t keep your promise you hurt other people’s feelings. And sometimes you will hurt yours too.” His anger was visible in his demeanor and tone, as he went on to explain that when a mother lies to her child, the child is no longer obligated to obey. “Because . . . a daughter might not like her mom, and she might not talk to her or when her mother asks her to do something, she’ll say no.” Betty also described anger and motives to retaliate in response to a mother’s broken promise predicting that, “Then they’ll try to do something that they weren’t supposed to do.” Allison explained how fear can sometimes lead to anger and retaliation in response to harsh or unfair punishment. “The little boy will start acting afraid [if punished] and if you’re afraid of something, then you start acting mean also.” Likewise Barbie determined that, “Maybe [the boy] who got a whipping, maybe he was mad at his dad. Maybe he decided to keep [the pen].”

The children also described how sadness can sometimes lead to retaliation in response to perceived injustices. According to Barbie, “[I]f you hurt somebody’s feelings, maybe somebody will hurt your feelings and you’ll see how they feel.” *Allen shared that one of his friend broke a promise to him and made him “very mad and sad, upset.” *Bonnie explained how happiness can turn to sadness when promises are broken. Promises should be kept “because, people get all happy when you say you promise them. And it kind of puts them down when you say no.” *Alex also described feelings of sadness for both the mother and daughter when a mother breaks a promise. “[The daughter] will start crying . . . [Because] the mom broke her heart,” and the mother will be crying too, “because she broke a promise with her daughter.” Anticipated feelings of sadness led Allison to conclude that the boxcar children should turn themselves in and go live with their mean grandfather because, “Their grandfather might miss them. He might be sad.” She went on to explain that “If you leave somebody, someone could be so sad that something really bad could happen to them. Like they could, you know, do something against the law just because they are so sad.”

Love and Happiness

Just as social injustices led to feelings of anger, sadness, and fear; just, caring relationships generated feelings of love and happiness. *Alex said that Heinz should steal the drug even though it is against the law because, “He loves her very, very much,” *Cory choose life over law in the Heinz dilemma “because they love each other.” Allison portrayed love as the glue that binds mothers and their daughters in spite of the imbalance in power. “It’s her mother and they’ve got a strong relationship with each other . . . Even if the daughter lies to her mother, or you know, like they still get mad at each other, they still love each other.” When questioned about punishment, Allison proclaimed love, not fear of punishment, as the motivation that fuels a child’s desire to “tell the truth.” *Bonnie, also presented love as the reason why children obey their mothers, even when mothers break promises, “because it’s right.” *Allen stated that promises should be kept, “Because it makes people feel good.” Albert frequently referenced personal experiences of punishment issued by his stepfather but concluded nevertheless, that when your dad punishes you, “He still loves you.” *Cory explained that, “the most important thing [for a daughter] to think [about is] that her mom love[s] her,” and Albert described a mother’s obligation saying, “To love her [daughter] and to keep loving her for all of her life.”

Allison also extolled the bonds of love and the ethic of care in sibling relationships saying, “She should love her sister because they’re related. They’re part of the same family and they’re closer than like anybody else. And she should care about her sister . . .” or a brother, “Because he’s your family and . . . you love him. So you wouldn’t want him to be anywhere else besides with you.” She was quite sure that the boxcar children should take their little sister to the hospital, “because they don’t want their sister to die. They love each other and they’d feel real sad. They want her to be as happy as she can be. She’s only a little girl, so she should live longer.” In response to The Long Walk, Albert said he would give all of his lunch to his little stepbrother, the central character in many of his tirades about injustice, because “I love him.”

Moral Judgment, Feelings, and Children’s Relations With Society

The present study was conducted to describe the moral judgment of 12 third- through fifth-grade children with and without EBD and to explore how their feelings affected their thought processes. The results showed that only two (2) typical peers without low SES voiced a cooperative moral orientation and that the rest (10) judged from an egocentric perspective. Although these results are contrary to what one would expect to find with third- through fifth-grade children, that may be because children with EBD have not been included in theory building or previous research efforts. The results also showed that the children’s feelings played an influential role in their moral decision making, sometimes leading them to prescribe that which they knew to be right and sometimes not. Caution should be observed however, in generalizing the results to any persons or hypothetical situations other than those addressed in the study. It should also be noted that the children could relate only what they might do in a given situation, which may or may not be what they actually would do given similar circumstances.

Research on the development of moral judgment in childhood assumes a transactional theoretical perspective (Bornstein & Lamb, 1992), wherein constitution and environment are thought to influence each other in a continual process of development and change. Thus, moral development is considered to be a naturally occurring, biologically based phenomenon that is influenced by maturation and the child’s experiences in society with others over time. Researchers have identified egocentrism as the cognitive structure that dominates young children’s judgment but have also found that cooperation becomes the dominant cognitive structure as children develop an awareness that others’ may have legitimate interests and desires that are different from their own. It is this insight into others’ intentions that allows them to experience mutually respecting, egalitarian relations with their peers and increasing equality with adults (Siegler, 1998).

Experiences in mutually respecting, egalitarian relations with peers and increasing equality with adults do not describe the social life of children with EBD in school. Children with EBD are considered the most difficult to teach, the least liked by their peers, and a threat to the development of a secure, safe classroom community (Kauffman & Wong, 1991; Langdon, 1997). Moreover, identification for special education usually follows years of alienation and rejection and often results in physical exclusion from the classroom community in some of the most highly restrictive special education settings (Kauffman & Landrum, 2009; Rutherford, Quinn, & Mathur, 2004). It is important to note that children with low SES are disproportionately represented in the population of children with EBD and often share similar experiences of alienation from the mainstream of school life. Palakow (1998) described the social context of the classroom community as one where “poor children, particularly difficult and angry children, become landscapes of condemnation that reveal shared experiences of exclusion, humiliation, and indifference” (p. 15). When children with and without EBD perceive the moral context of the classroom community as harsh and uncaring, egocentrism may become a necessary, adaptive response to a hostile environment (Hardman, 2012) as they self-define as outcasts who must fend for themselves, for no one else will (Nucci, 2001).

Palakow (1998) characterized the emotionality of “difficult” children with low SES as angry. Similarly, anger is thought to be the defining emotional characteristic of the most prevalent types of EBD (Walker et al., 2004). Anger, cognition, behavior, and social status are mysteriously woven together in the research literature. For example, researchers have found that minority children with low SES angrily expect social rejection, behave more aggressively, and decline in academic learning over time (Downey et al., 1998); that socially immature children with low SES seem to invite angry conflict with their peers (Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992); children in treatment for violent behavior consider provocation a justifiable reason for aggressive retaliation, regardless of the harm it may cause (Astor, 1994; Astor & Behre, 1997); and that anger predicts moral theme comprehension in elementary aged children with EBD after accounting for grade, ethnicity, reading comprehension, and SES (Hardman, 2002). In addition, the results of the present study showed that, regardless of the child’s disability status, social status, or moral orientation; authoritarian “do what I say or else” relationships led to prescriptions of retaliation, retribution, and disobedience fueled by anger, sadness, and fear while engagement in caring, just relationships engendered feelings of happiness and love and inspired the children to prescribe that which they knew to be right, in spite of the consequences to themselves or imbalances in power.

These results suggest that the assumed bidirectional relationship between experience and the development of moral judgment is not simply direct but may instead be mediated through emotionality. This is an empirical question that can be examined further using more rigorous research designs that allow an exploration of causal effects. The results also seem to drive right at the heart of a far more complex ethical question Aristotle (384−322 BC) explored long ago. What is the good? In Ethics, Aristotle reasoned that our first principle of practice is “to become good men, or to achieve the highest human good (virtue). That good is happiness” (Thomson, 1976, p. 18). Aristotle determined happiness to be the highest of all practical goods “because we always choose it for itself, and never for any other reason” (p. 73). Happiness is perfect and self-sufficient and is the end to which all of our actions are directed. This ancient philosophy seems relevant today for it offers important clues about why the beneficial effects of interventions aimed at anger coping and anger management may be limited over time (Rutherford et al., 2004). Perhaps the aims of intervention need to move beyond anger coping and address resolving it, especially in the case of children who, in their short lives, have already experienced harsh social injustices such as discrimination; marginalization; poverty; and sexual, physical, and/or mental abuse. Anger and happiness cannot coexist in an emotionally healthy child.

Benevolence is the moral context in which children’s conceptions of fairness, human welfare, and rights are naturally stimulated as they acquire a critical moral orientation toward their own conduct, the conduct of others, and the prevailing societal norms (Nucci, 2001). Best practices in the education of children with EBD prescribe the crafting of a benevolent learning community through the use of positive behavioral intervention supports (PBIS). PBIS grew out of the science of applied behavior analysis, but the results of the present study indicate that if PBIS is applied in diverse, inclusive classroom communities, teachers may do more than change observable behavior. They may also transform children’s thinking by crafting a nurturing, safe moral context in which children with EBD and at risk peers can experience happiness and love; build caring relations with peers, authority, and society at large; and gradually come to know a different rule, the rational rule that is self-imposed through mutual consent.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported in part by U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Research in Education of Students With Disabilities Program Student-Initiated Research Projects CFDA 84.324B and an American Education Research Association/Spencer Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship.

References

Astor

R. A.

(1994). Children’s moral reasoning about family and peer violence: The role of provocation and retribution. Child Development, 65, 1054–1067. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00802.x

Astor

R. A.

Behre

W. J.

(1997). Violent and nonviolent children’s and parent’s reasoning about family and peer violence. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 231–245.

Boekaerts

(1993). Anger in relation to school learning. Learning and Instruction, 3, 269–280.

Bornstein

M. H.

Lamb

M. E.

(1992). Development in infancy: An introduction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Brown

L. M.

Tappan

M. B.

Gilligan

(1995). Listening to different voices. In Kurtines

W. M.

Gewirtz

J. L.

(Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 311–335). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Colby

Kohlberg

(2010a). The measurement of moral judgment (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1987)

Colby

Kohlberg

(2010b). The measurement of moral judgment (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press (Original work published 1987)

Colby

Kohlberg

Gibbs

Lieberman

(2010). A longitudinal study of moral judgment in U.S. males. In Colby

Kohlberg

(Eds.), The measurement of moral judgment (Vol. 1., pp. 77–118). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1987)

Dodge

K. A.

Lansford

J. E.

Burks

V. S.

Bastes

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

Fontaine

Price

J. M.

(2003). Peer rejection and social information–processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374–393.

10.

Dodge

K. A.

Rabiner

D. L.

(2004). Returning to roots: On information processing and moral development. Child Development, 75, 1003–1008.

11.

Downey

Lebolt

Rincon

Freitas

(1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69, 1074–1091.

12.

Eisenberg

Valiente

Spinrad

T. L.

Cumberland

Liew

Reiser

Qing

(2009). Longitudinal relations of children’s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing. Developmental Psychology, 45, 988–1008. doi:10.1037/a0016213

13.

Fabes

Eisenberg

(1992). Young children’s coping with interpersonal anger. Child Development, 63, 116–128.

14.

Gall

M. D.

Gall

J. P.

Borg

W. R.

(2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

15.

Gibbs

J. C.

(1995). The cognitive developmental perspective. In Kurtines

W. M.

Gewirtz

J. L.

(Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 27–48). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

16.

Gilligan

Ward

J. V.

Taylor

J. M.

(1988). Mapping the moral domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Hardman

E. L.

(2002). What are they thinking? Moral reasoning in elementary children with emotional/behavioral disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(6), 2197. (UMI No. AAT 3056747)

18.

Hardman

E. L.

(2012). Three children with emotional/behavioral disorders tell why people do right. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 160–176.

19.

Hoffman

M. L.

(2000). Empathy and moral development. Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Kassinove

(1995). Anger disorders. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

21.

Kauffman

J. M.

Landrum

T. J.

(2009). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (9th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

22.

Kauffman

J. M.

Wong

K. L. H.

(1991). Effective teachers of students with behavioral disorders: Are generic teaching skills enough? Behavioral Disorders, 16, 225–237.

23.

Langdon

C. A.

(1997). The fourth Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers’ attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 212–220.

24.

Lehnert

K. L.

Overholser

J. C.

Spirito

(1994). Internalized and externalized anger in adolescent suicide attempters. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9, 105–119. doi:10.1177/074355489491008

25.

Levine

L. J.

(1995). Young children’s understanding of the causes of anger and sadness. Child Development, 66, 697–709.

26.

Murphy

B. C.

Eisenberg

(1996). Provoked by a peer: Children’s anger-related responses and their relations to social functioning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 103–124.

27.

Nucci

L. P.

(2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

28.

Palakow

(1998). Homeless children and their families: The discards of the postmodern 1990’s. In Books

(Ed.), Invisible children in the society and its schools (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

29.

Piaget

(1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: The Free Press. (Original work published 1932)

30.

Reid

J. B.

Patterson

G. R.

Snyder

(2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

31.

Rutherford

R. B.

Quinn

M. M.

Mathur

S. R.

(2004). Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

32.

Siegler

(1998). Children’s thinking. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

33.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Thomson

J. A.

(1976). Aristotle. Ethics. London, England: Penguin Books

35.

Walker

H. M.

Ramsey

Gresham

F. M.

(2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Evidence-based practices. Belmont, CA: Thomson.

36.

Warner

G. C.

(1977). The boxcar children. Niles, IL: Albert Whitman.