Cross-Cultural Differences in Children’s Preferences for Moral Tales

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to examine children’s story preferences as a function of age and cultural orientation. Using Hofstede’s (1984) distinction between individualism and collectivism, we examined the extent to which younger (6–8 years old, n = 47, M = 6.94, SD = 0.94) and older (9–12 years old, n = 57, M = 10.35, SD = 1.14) children preferred stories that reflected their cultural orientation. Participants were children (N = 104) of various nationalities enrolled in a summer camp on the island of Mallorca, Spain. Children were classified as either individualist or collectivist using the Children’s Self-Construal Scale. Each child was read six stories, three of which reflected individualist values and three of which reflected collectivist values. Older children preferred stories that were consistent with their cultural orientation while younger children did not. The results suggest that the outcomes of culturally relevant socialization are not readily apparent until the later stages of middle childhood.

Keywords

Socialization individualism collectivism storytelling moral judgments

An important tool in the socialization of children is storytelling. Fables, fairy tales, parables, myths, and cultural narratives help children understand themselves and their place in the world (Vitz, 1990). Stories can stimulate the imagination, promote values and ethics, and assist children in developing critical/creative thinking (Sanchez, 2006). Stories are used to instruct, illustrate and guide children in developing the values endorsed by their culture (Zabel, 1991). Stories can give purpose to life. They tell us where we came from. They tell us why we are the way we are, and why we do the things we do, while connecting us to everyone else who knows the story. We develop our sense of right and wrong from the culture in which we live (Shweder, Mahapatra & Miller, 1987) and storytelling plays an important role in the transmission of morals and values from generation to generation in all societies (Tappan & Brown, 1989).

Using analogical mapping, Dehghanki and associates have shown how having access to different moral stories results in different cultural preferences (Dehghani et al., 2009). Cultural narratives provide a means for transferring meaning within a culture so that different cultural groups will, by Dehghani’s assessment, embrace different cultural values as reflected in their moral stories. For example, Herskovit’s (1958) analysis of the Dahomean Narrative, an oral tradition of the people of the west African country of Dahomey now the Republic of Benin, demonstrates that while stories can change over time, the cultural values they are intended to illustrate tend to stay intact. This held true even for the descendants of Dahomeans that resided in the Americas.

Callahan (1980) describes several goals for teaching morality. One of those goals is the ability to recognize moral issues. Many types of stories have moral statements built into them, which directly address that goal. For example, fables such as Aesop’s are classic narratives that provide the listener with the opportunity to articulate questions of right and wrong. In one of the most popular of Aesop’s fables the moral behavior of mercy is taught through the metaphor of a lion who shows mercy on a mouse, and is subsequently saved by the same mouse when the lion becomes trapped in a hunters net. Similarly, the Victorians told their children fairy tales in order to stimulate and instruct the moral imagination (Bettelheim, 2010).

Discussions of the affects of narratives has additionally been formative in the identity and decision-making literature (Sarbin, 1986; Spence, 1984; Tulving & Murray, 1985; Tulving & Markowitsch, 1998; Beach, 2009). The theory of narrative thought that was adapted from image theory posits that our past and ongoing conscious experiences inform our story driven estimates about the future to promote narrative consistent decision making (Pentland, 1999; Bruner, 2009). Vitz (1990) proposed that past research on moral development focused on verbal discussion and propositional thinking, furthermore he proposed that these processes are guided by narrative thinking. For example, if you were asked to answer the trolley question where you can save five people by pulling a lever, but one person will surely die if you do, narrative thinking would link your past experiences and the ways in which you form the narrative of yourself to your eventual behavior. From this perspective Vitz (1990) argues that narrative stories are vital in the development and maintenance of our identity as well as our future decision making and actions. Recent research has shown that using prosocial stories in classroom settings can promote prosocial behavior as well as changes in prosocial identities of children with autism as well as general samples (Kuttler, Myles, & Carlson, 1998; Sansosti & Powell-Smith, 2006; Teglasi & Rothman, 2001). Furthermore, cognitive-behavior therapists have long utilized the use of narratives to promote healthy psychological functioning. Otto (2000) expanded on this by describing strategies for the use of stories and metaphors in cognitive-behavior therapy. It is important to consider how narratives affect our daily lives. However, the current study seeks to address underlying mechanisms for children’s affinities for particular stories.

Stories are particularly effective in influencing the way our children think and behave. This is evident because there are some stories that they like to hear over and over again (Holdaway, 1982). How stories affect children can be subtle. Fischer and Torney (1976) found that reading stories about dependent or independent role models could affect the way young men and women sought out help. More recently, Zak (2015) conducted a myriad of experiments assessing a neurochemical relationship between the feel good chemical oxytocin released when listening to compelling narratives and subsequent attitudes and behaviors. But, what determines if any one story is more compelling to a child than another? In a review of the literature on children’s story preferences, Zimet (1966) identified several factors that play a role in children’s story preferences. Included were individual difference variables of age, sex and maturity; topical differences such as humor, fantasy, and science; generational differences; and presentational differences, e.g., type of illustrations. Missing from Zimet’s analysis is the role that culture can play in children’s story preferences. This is significant since stories are a prime way of transmitting culture and cultural values from one generation to another.

Different cultures embody different values, thoughts and ideas that they view as important (Haste & Abrahams, 2008). Values play a defining role in determining if a culture is individualistic or collectivistic (Hofstede, 1984). In an individualist society, a person’s cultural orientation will include independence, autonomy, self-reliance, and freedom as important values. In a collectivist society, one’s cultural orientation will include interdependence, group harmony, consensus, and loyalty to the group as important values. Individualism promotes belief in one’s unique identity and as a result individualists are more likely to claim the right to express themselves, make personal choices, and strive for self-actualization than are collectivists. Collectivists are more likely to see themselves as an inseparable part of a cohesive in-group and therefore expect and are expected to accord priority to the views, needs, and goals of the group rather than “stand out” as individuals (Yu & Yang, 1994).

Cultural narratives reflect these basic value differences. For example, in India, a collectivist culture, a popular Jataka folk tale describes the story of a lion and tiger that were friends from birth. The two entered into a heated argument about which phase of the moon creates cold. Becoming ill-contented towards each other, they decided to ask a wise monk for the answer. The monk explained that the wind was the actual culprit that was dictated by all phases of the moon. Both being correct, the two friends learned that that their argument was meaningless, and are told by the monk that they should strive for unity and avoid conflict within their relationship. Both of them lived happily ever-after as good friends.

A good example of a story that promotes the individualist values of independence and autonomy is the popular children’s book: “The Quite Contrary Man: A True American Tale” by Patricia Hyatt (2011). It tells the true-life story of Joseph Palmer who went against the early-nineteenth-century, New England norm of being clean-shaven, and grew a belly-flowing beard and refused to cut his hair. This made his neighbors so angry that they tried forcibly to shave him, whereupon he fought back and ended up in prison for a year.

Cognitive developmental theories such as the one by Piaget focus on various universal stages for development. Such stages have inspired moral developmental theorist such as Lawrence Kohlberg in an effort to explain how morality adapts throughout ones life. However, these theories neglect to account for cultural differences in cognitive development as well as the overarching differences in what is considered moral in different cultures (An & Shin, 2017). Vygotsky’s (1980) social development theory provides a more flexible understanding of cognitive developmental process that acknowledges the interrelated nature of cognitive development and socio-cultural experience. From this perspective universal patterns might be found for age related cognitive development but are expressed in distinctly different ways. For example, Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, and Maynard (2003) found that three universal tasks for development, relationship formation, knowledge acquisition, and the balance between autonomy and relatedness at adolescence, could be addressed through different cultural pathways. Therefore, the process of enculturation allows for individuals to interact with the sociocultural standards that they share. This includes language, norms, and indirectly stories. Moral stories in particular provide a proper medium for exploring these concepts. Sociocultural experience is an important aspect of cognitive development, and any universal pattern should be expressed differently based on a persons cultural value system.

The purpose of this research was to explore children’s story preferences as a function of their cultural orientation. We hypothesized that children who are collectivists would prefer stories that illustrate collectivist values while children who are individualists would prefer stories that illustrate individualist values. We also expected that age would make a difference as to when this preference is likely to occur. Previous research has found that as children grow older, the basis for their moral judgments changes (Nucci & Gingo, 2011; Smetana, Jambon, Conry-Murray, & Storge-Apple, 2012). Socialization is a process that extends over time. It is not likely that young children well be sufficiently well versed in their culture’s values to show a clear preference for culturally consistent stories. Therefore, we expect that our hypothesized differences in story preferences will be most evident in the later stages of middle childhood than in the earlier stages.

Method

Participants

Participants were 104 children (55 girls, 49 boys) enrolled at the Baleares International Summer Camp in Mallorca, Spain. The participants were from Spain, Germany, United States, Norway, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Great Britain, Mallorca, and Russia. Participants ranged in age from 6–12 years old (M = 8.81).

Materials

The children were classified as either individualists or collectivists based on their score on the Children’s Self Construal Scale (Lewis, Maras, & Simonds, 2000). This scale was developed specifically for use with young children and has been shown to be reasonably reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.65). We used the scale to determine whether a child’s self-construal was independent (individualist) or interdependent (collectivist). Children rated five statements as to the extent to which they liked each statement on a five point Likert scale, ranging from a very happy face = 5 to a very sad face = 1. Statements reflected cultural orientation and included items such as “I like doing things by myself” and “I like working with other students.” Children completed the scale and after reverse scoring the collectivist items, their scores were totaled. Using the scoring instructions for the scale we divided the children into one of two groups: individualist orientation or collectivist orientation. Thirty of the participants were determined to be individualists and 38 of the participants were classified as collectivists. Data from five of the participants were excluded from this study since their scores fell into a range not indicative of a clear cultural orientation.

A total of twelve stories were used in this study. There were six story types that illustrated six different cultural values. The values were identity, achievement, harmony, autonomy, pride, and self-determination. The stories were written in a way that reflected individualism or collectivism. For example, the individualist version of identity was “Little Miss Different” and read as follows: “What kind of ice cream do you want?” said the teacher. “Chocolate,” said one boy. “Chocolate,” said all the other children except Mary. “What about you, Mary?” said the teacher. “Read me what kinds there are,” said Mary. The teacher read all the kinds on the chart in the ice-cream store. Mary chose “walnut blackberry ripple.” Mary’s mom called her “Little Miss Different” because she liked to do things differently than other people. When the other little girls wore pants to school, Mary liked to wear a dress. When everyone got to draw a snowman in school, Mary made hers with three squares instead of three circles like all the other children. The collectivist version of this story was called “Little Miss Alike” and extolled connectedness, so that for each of Mary’s choices, she behaves in a way that was similar to the other children. Each story set differed in a similar fashion. Where key points in one story reflected an individualist’s perspective, its counterpart reflected a collectivist one. The individualist story about achievement, “Big Goal,” concerned individual achievement while the collectivist story, “Big Win,” emphasized group achievement. In the autonomy story, “Suzy’s Choice,” the child in the individualist story chooses what she wants whereas in the collectivist story, “Mother’s Choice,” she chooses what her mother suggests. The story on pride has the child in the individualist story, “Bragging,” brag about their personal accomplishment whereas in the collectivist story, “Humble,” the child brags about the success of her group. The stories on harmony had the child in the individualist story, “Contentious Brothers,” argue a lot, while the collectivist version of the story “Cooperative Brothers” described a less contentious sibling relationship. In the individualist version of the self-determination story, “Clever Rabbit, the protagonist solves the problem on his own while in the collectivist version of the story, “Good Friends,” he solves the problem with assistance from others. For a full compilation of all 12 individualist and collectivist stories, see Appendix A and B respectively.

Procedure

Participants were given the Children’s Self Construal Scale along with the Likert Scale for Children in order to determine the children’s self-construal. In addition, the children provided demographic information: age, sex, and nationality, which was confirmed using the summer camp application records. Before administration of the measures, researchers first obtained verbal assent to ensure participants knew that their participation was voluntary, and that they did not have to answer any questions they did not want to. Once assent was verified, researchers used simple examples to explain how the Likert-type scale was used. Researchers explained that a 1 would indicate something you didn’t really like, whereas a 5 is something you like very much. A couple of practice questions were given to ensure participants understanding of the scale. For example, researchers asked children about their affinity for chocolate. In most cases this was rated a 5. Contrarily, researchers asked how much children enjoyed celery, this varied a bit more. Six stories were read to each student, three that illustrated an individualist value and three that illustrated collectivist value. The actual story within the two story types that illustrated an individualist value or a collectivist value were randomly selected. This way each child did not receive the same story read from both cultural perspectives. We read each story, one by one, in the participant’s native language for those whose first language was English or Spanish. For participants whose primary language was not English or Spanish, they chose the language that they best understood. After each story was read the children would indicate on the Likert scale how much they did or did not like the story.

The individualistic or collectivistic nature of the stories was initially conceived by theoretically supported definitions of the concepts. However, it was important to empirically test whether or not these stories encompassed the characteristics we intended. Stories were first rated by 4 grad students from the University of Texas at San Antonio on a Likert Scale that ranged from “Completely Collectivist” to “Completely Individualist”. A high degree of inter-rater reliability was found between the 4 graduate students on all items. The average measure ICC was 0.995 with a 95% confidence interval that ranged from 0.980 to 0.998, F(11,33) = 197.78, p < 0.001. When items were analyzed by separating them by story type (individualist or collectivist), a slightly higher ICC was found between ratings of collectivist stories as compared to individualist stories, 0.851 to 0.823 respectively. In addition, 20 children ages 6–12 recruited from a summer camp in Bulverde, Texas rated the stories in a similar fashion. A high inter-rater reliability was also found between children. The average measure ICC was 0.977 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.954 to 0.992, F(11,209) = 43.86, p < 0.001. With high inter-rater reliability found between fellow academics as well as children within the age range of our sample, researchers felt confident that the stories reflected the values in which they had intended.

Results

Two independent variables were used in the analysis: cultural orientation and age. For purposes of analysis, participants were classified as either individualists or collectivists based on their score on the Children’s Self Construal Scale. Two age groups were used in the analysis. Younger participants were those whose age ranged from six to eight, and older participants were those whose age ranged from nine to twelve. The Benjamin–Hochberg procedure was employed to asses bias and determine false discovery rates (FDR). Alpha level are expressed based on such correction.

Individualist Stories

The first analysis was on the participants’ preferences for individualist stories as a whole. Mean scores for each story were combined to give a total score for all of the individualist stories. Individualist stories (M = 10.00) were preferred by children who were individualists compared to collectivists (M = 7.94), F(1,102) = 8.25, p < 0.01, and by older participants (M = 9.72) compared to younger participants (M = 8.23), F(1,102) = 4.32, p < 0.05. Analysis of variance also indicated a significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction. Older individualists (M = 11.4) preferred individualist stories more than younger individualists (M = 8.60), older collectivists (M = 8.03), or younger collectivists (M = 7.86), F(1,102) = 3.63, p = 0.07. The next set of analyses is for each individualist story. See Table 1.

Little Miss Different (M = 3.15) was preferred by individualists compared to collectivists (M = 2.42), F(1,62) = 3.89, p < 0.05 and by older participants (M = 3.21) compared to younger participants (M = 2.36), F(1,62) = 5.27, p < 0.025. Analysis of variance also indicated a significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction. The greatest preference for Little Miss Different was by older individualists. See Table 1.

The Big Goal was preferred by individualists (M = 3.47) compared to collectivists (M = 2.85), F(1,39) = 1.74, p > 0.05, and by older participants (M = 3.42) compared to younger participants (M = 2.89), F(1,39) = 1.27, p > 0.05. Analysis of variance indicated no significant Cultural Orientation×Age effect, although the pattern was similar to that of other individualist stories. See Table 1.

Suzy’s Choice was preferred by individualists (M = 3.52) compared to collectivists (M = 2.47), F(1,39) = 9.08, p < 0.01, and by older participants (M = 3.57) compared to younger participants (M = 2.42), F(1,39) = 10.71, p < 0.01. Analysis of variance also indicated a significant Cultural Orientation×Age effect. The greatest preference for Suzy’s Choice was by older, individualists. See Table 1.

The Clever Rabbit was preferred by individualists (M = 3.25) compared to collectivists (M = 2.97), F(1,62) = 0.363, p > 0.05 and by older participants (M = 2.89) compared to younger participants (M = 3.33), F(1,62) = 0.878, p > 0.05. There was no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction. See Table 1.

Table 1

Younger and Older Individualist and Collectivist Children’s Preferences for Stories Illustrating Individualist Values

Collectivist Stories	Overall Means (SD)	Young Individualist	Old Individualist	Young Collectivist	Old Collectivist	F	p
Little Miss Alike	2.34 (1.26)	1.55	2.13	2.3	3.46	0.72	0.401
The Big Win	3.09 (1.64)	2.07	2.82	2.91	4.10	0.31	0.575
Mothers Choice	3.27 (1.83)	2.21	2.77	3.27	4.38	0.42	0.519
Good Friends	2.56 (1.73)	2.09	1.63	2.20	3.91	4.80	0.035
Humble	2.78 (1.59)	2.73	2.63	2.70	3.18	0.31	0.578
Brothers	3.29 (1.88)	2.50	2.59	3.09	4.48	2.15	0.148

Bragging was preferred by individualists (M = 3.59) compared to collectivists (M = 2.81), F(1,62) = 3.03, p > 0.05, and by older participants M = 3.32) compared to younger participants (M = 3.09), F(1,62) = 0.263, p > 0.05. There was no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction, however, the pattern was similar to that of other individualist stories. See Table 1.

Two Brothers was preferred by individualists (M = 3.17) compared to collectivists (M = 2.46), F(1,39) = 2.38, p > 0.05, and by older participants (M = 3.35) compared to younger participants (M = 2.28), F(1,39) = 5.46, p < 0.025. There was no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction, however, the pattern was similar to that of other individualist stories. See Table 1.

Collectivist Stories

Again, the first analysis was on the participants’ preferences for collectivist stories as a whole. Mean scores for each story were combined to give a total score for all of the collectivist stories. Collectivist stories (M = 10.21) were preferred by children who were collectivists compared to individualists (M = 7.14), F(1,102) = 22.32, p < 0.001, and by older participants (M = 9.90) compared to younger participants (M = 7.44), F(1,102) = 14.37, p < 0.001. Analysis of variance also indicated a significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction. Older collectivists (M = 12.13) preferred collectivist stories more than younger collectivists (M = 8.29), older individualists (M = 7.68), or younger individualists (M = 6.60), F(1,102) = 4.52, p < 0.05. The next set of analyses is for each collectivist story. See Table 2.

Table 2

Younger and Older Individualist and Collectivist Children’s Preferences for Stories Illustrating Collectivist Values

Individualist Stories	Overall Means (SD)	Young Individualists	Old Individualists	Young Collectivists	Old Collectivists	F	p
Little Miss Different	2.83 (1.55)	2.36	3.94	2.36	2.48	3.96	0.05
The Big Goal	3.07 (1.49)	3.18	3.75	2.60	3.09	0.01	0.93
Suzys Choice	2.90 (1.32)	2.55	4.50	2.30	2.64	5.34	0.027
The Clever Rabbit	3.03 (1.85)	3.21	3.29	3.46	2.48	1.22	0.274
Bragging	3.21 (1.73)	3.36	3.82	2.82	2.81	0.28	0.596
Two Brothers	2.85 (1.64)	2.46	3.88	2.10	2.82	0.58	0.448

Little Miss Alike was preferred by collectivists (M = 2.88) compared to individualists (M = 1.84), F(1,39) = 9.51, p < 0.01, and by older participants (M = 2.79) compared to younger participants (M = 1.92), F(1,39) = 6.58, p < 0.025. Analysis of variance indicated no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction.

The Big Win was preferred by collectivists (M = 3.50) compared to individualists (M = 2.45), F(1,62) = 7.51, p < 0.01, and by older participants (M = 3.46) compared to younger participants (M = 2.49), F(1,62) = 6.34, p < 0.025. Analysis of variance indicated no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction.

Mother’s Choice was preferred by collectivists (M = 3.83) compared to individualists (M = 2.49), F(1,62) = 9.66, p < 0.01, and by older participants (M = 3.57) compared to younger participants (M = 2.74), F(1,62) = 3.72, p = 0.059. There was no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction.

Good Friends was preferred by collectivists (M = 3.06) compared to individualists (M = 1.86), F(1,39) = 5.81, p < 0.025, and by older participants (M = 2.77) compared to younger participants (M = 2.15), F(1,39) = 1.57, p > 0.05. Analysis of variance indicated a significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction. The greatest preference for Good Friends was by older, collectivists. See Table 2.

Humble was preferred by collectivists (M = 2.94) compared to individualists (M = 2.68), F(1,39) = 0.259, p > 0.05, and by older participants (M = 2.90) compared to younger participants (M = 2.71), F(1,39) = 0.133, p > 0.05. There was no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction.

Brothers was preferred by collectivists (M = 3.78) compared to individualists (M = 2.55), F(1,62) = 7.85, p < 0.01, and by older participants (M = 3.53) compared to younger participants (M = 2.80), F(1,62) = 2.78, p > 0.05. There was no significant Cultural Orientation×Age interaction.

Test of Independence

Cultural orientation is closely associated with concepts of self-construal as described by Markus and Kitayama (1991). In previous research, Constantine, Gainor, Ahluwalia, and Berkel, (2003) found that measures of interdependent and independent self-construal correlated significantly to collectivism and individualism respectively. Although cultural orientation has been used as a variable of culture in a myriad of studies (Aaker & Maheswaran, 1997; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeie, 2002; Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008), it was important to determine if other aspects of ones’ culture were associated with the cultural orientation of participants. For example, nationality has been used as a generalizing tool for describing culture. However, Sekhar and Govinda (2012) found that cultural orientation played a more distinctive roll in a person’s attitudes than their nationality alone. A chi square test of independence was conducted to evaluate the relationship between nationality and cultural orientation to ensure that nationality was not a driving factor for our findings. This finding was not significant and did not matched previously identified relationships between cultural orientation and nationality. In addition, analysis of variance found no significant difference between nationalities on children’s preferences.

Discussion

In this study we examined children’s preferences for stories that illustrate cultural values that were either consistent or inconsistent with the child’s cultural orientation. Further, we sought to determine at what age children’s preferences for culturally relevant stories reflect their own cultural values. The data show a clear preference among older children for stories that are consistent with their cultural orientation. Thus, the older (9–12 years old) children with an individualist self-construal preferred stories that illustrated individualist values while those with a collectivist self-construal preferred stories that illustrated collectivist values. This preference for culturally consistent stories was not found among the younger (6–8 years old) children. Differences found due to cultural orientation may be more easily explained than the distinct shift and interaction between cultural orientation and age. It may be a quite reasonable assumption that ones’ value system would lend itself to prefer stories that emulate such values. However, an explanation for the age shift is not nearly as clear, and is a point of contentious debate. It can be explored through processes of socialization, but the debate on the underlying mechanism for development are not settled.

Socialization is the process by which children begin to acquire the skills necessary to perform as a functioning member of their society and to understand the norms and expectations of their society. The process of socialization begins as a one-way street from parent to child but as the child grows, they play a more active part in the socialization process. To explain how a sense of self develops, George Herbert Mead (1962) put forward the idea of the “generalized other” which occurs when children are required to learn the norms and expectations of a given human society. This process takes place when children interact with aspects of their culture beyond the home. In this study, it is apparent that our younger children have not reached the stage where they are actively engaged in the socialization process, whereas our older children are, by showing a clear preference for stories that illustrate those cultural values they have come to recognize as important.

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) suggested three levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional. At the pre-conventional level, individuals focus on the consequences of their actions. Recent research supports the idea that at the pre-conventional level, individuals focus on how an action relates to rewards and punishment (An & Shin, 2017)). However, like much of the recent research in this area, An & Shin (2017) did not find sufficient evidence in support of the conventional or post-conventional level of development among their South Korean sample. According to Kohlberg and Gilligan (1971), the conventional level of moral reasoning becomes evident in preadolescence. At this stage, living up to a person’s cultural expectations is considered valuable in and of itself.At this stage, individuals are not only concerned with conforming to cultural expectations but also to maintaining, supporting and justifying those expectations. This difference provides a reasonable explanation for why our older children preferred the moral tales presented to them as compared to the younger children. The moral tales used in our study did not focus on consequences but rather on behavior. Although the current research was not designed to directly test Kolbergian moral development, it does illuminate a particular transition evident within our sample.

A major criticism for the Kohlberg’s theory of moral development lie in a Westernized codification of the notions of morality driven by justice orientations. In contrast to levels of development, Vygotsky’s social development theory allows for, and is driven by, the idea that culture is intricately involved in cognitive developmental process. Therefore, cognitive advances in development comes from a process of socialization with a member of the culture who is more skilled and knowledgeable about societal norms and practices (Vygotsky, 1980). A child learns to be silent in an elevator by undergoing this social experience with other members of society who understand this social rule. Because morality is a cognitive choice, such processes of socialization are important for understanding how culture affects moral development. In the current study we explored this aspect but did not test the curvilinear aspect of social development theory. Because of this, the current results show a distinctive shift from younger to older children in their preferences for stories that exemplify their cultural value systems. Implications are discussed in our limitations.

In this study, we measured individualist and collectivist children’s preferences for stories that were either consistent or inconsistent with their cultural values. However, all of our stories were moral tales and we did not examine children’s preferences for culturally consistent stories that involved non-moral attitudes and behaviors. For example, individualism emphasizes personal achievement, creativity, and emotional independence, while collectivism emphasizes working together towards a common goal and loyalty to the group (Leseman, 2002). Future research should examine a variety of types of children’s stories to see if the preferences found in this study generalize to other types of stories, which would provide a greater understanding of the focus of socialization among individualists and collectivists.

Another limitation of the current study was that most of our collectivists were either Spanish or Mallorquin. Collectivism is dominant in many Asian cultures as well as in parts of South America. Whether the same pattern of preferences would be evident among collectivists from those cultures is unknown. Furthermore, dividing age into 3 data points would have more directly tested our hypotheses and a potential linear pattern would have produce stronger support for our interpretation. However, the current analysis was limited to our sample size. Researchers conducted analysis of variance with 3 data points to see if a pattern emerged. As expected for individualist stories, those individualist in the youngest data (M = 8.60) point differed significantly from those in the older 2(M = ll.13; M = 11.89) while collectivist did not differ significantly by age F(2, 97) = 11.07, p > 0.001. In the same respect, young collectivist (M = 8.28) differed significantly from the older 2 data points (M = 10.77; M = 13.05) for collectivist stories where individualist didn’t F(2,97) = 2.907, p > 0.05. These preliminary results should be taken with Type 1 skepticism. Future research will address this aspect through replication with a larger sample. Support for a more curvilinear model for socio-cultural(moral) development would arise should these results be replicated with a larger sample.

The current study examined children’s preferences for culturally relevant stories. It should be noted that middle childhood is a time when children are very accepting of parental and societal values. Adolescence, on the other hand, is a time when individuals commonly rebel against parental and societal values (Elkind, 1998; Marcia, 1980). It would be interesting to expand this research to an adolescent population to see if there is a difference between teenagers who are individualists vs. those who are collectivists in their preferences for stories that either support traditional cultural values or embrace counter-cultural values and ideals. The current study suggests an interesting relationship between the development of the moral self and its interaction with one’s cultural orientation. Furthermore, nationality alone is not a specific enough classification for understanding the effect of cultural values on attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

References

Aaker, J. L., & Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 315–328. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.945457

An, B., & Shin, W. W (2017). The association of cultural dispositions and psychological health with morality among university students in South Korea. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information, 20(8B), 6129–6136.

Beach, L. R. (2009). Decision making: Linking narratives and action. Narrative Inquiry, 19, 393–414. doi: 10.1075/ni.19.2.10bea

Bettelheim, B. (2010). The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales.New York, NY: Vintage.

Bruner, J. S. (2009). Actual minds, possible worlds.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Callahan, D. (1980). Goals in the teaching of ethics. In D.

Callahan

, & S.

Bok

, (Eds.), Ethics teaching in higher education (pp. 6180). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3138-4_2

Constantine, M. G., Gainor, K. A., Ahluwalia, M. K., & Berkel, L. A (2003). Independent and interdependent self-construals, individualism, collectivism, and harmony control in African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 87–101. doi: 10.1177/0095798402239230

Dehghani, M., Sachdeva, S., Ekhtiari, H., Gentner, D., & Forbus, K. D (2009). The role of cultural narratives in moral decision making. In Taatgen

& Rijn

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1912–1917). Austin, TX: University of Texas.

Elkind, D. (1998). All grown up and no place to go: Teenagers in crisis(Revised ed).Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145221

10.

Fischer, P. L., & Torney, J. V (1976). Influence of children’s stories on dependency, a sex-typed behavior. Developmental Psychology, 12, 489–490. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.12.5.489

11.

Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461–490. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.12.5.489

12.

Haste, H., & Abrahams, S. (2008) Morality, culture and the dialogic self: Taking cultural pluralism seriously. Journal of Moral Education, 37, 357–374.

13.

Herskovits, M. J., & Herskovits, F. S (1958). Dahomean narrative: A cross-cultural analysis.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

14.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

Holdaway, D. (1982). Shared book experience: Teaching reading using favourite books. Theory into Practice, 21, 293–300. doi: 10.1080/00405848209543021

16.

Hyatt, P. R. (2011). The quite contrary man: A true American tale.New York, NY: Harry Abrams.

17.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of thinking and choices in years 10 to 16(Doctoral Dissertation), Retrieved fromhttp://0-search.proquest.com.oasis.lib.tamuk.edu/docview/301935075?accountid=7086.

18.

Kohlberg, L., & Gilligan, C. (1971). The adolescent as a philosopher: The discovery of the self in a post-conventional world. Daedalus, 100, 1051–1086.

19.

Kuttler, S., Myles, B. S., & Carlson, J. K (1998). The use of social stories to reduce precursors to tantrum behavior in a student with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 176–182. doi: 10.1177/108835769801300306

20.

Leseman, P. P. M. (2002), June. Early childhood education and care for children from low-income or minority backgrounds. Paper presented at the OECD Workshop, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oecd.org/education/school/1960663.pdf

21.

Lewis, A., Maras, P., & Simonds, L. (2000). Young children working together: A measure of individualism/collectivism. Child Care, Health and Development, 26, 229–238. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2000.00141.x

22.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J.

Adelson

(Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 109–137). New York, NY: Wiley.

23.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.98.2.224

24.

Mead, G. H. (1962). Mind, self, and society.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Morling, B., & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring culture outside the head: A meta-analysis of individualism—collectivism in cultural products. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 199–221. doi: 10.1177/1088868308318260

26.

Nucci, L. P., & Gingo, M. (2011). The development of moral reasoning. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Wiley-Blackwell handbook of children’s cognitive development (2nd edition, pp. 420–445). New York, NY. Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9781444325485.ch16

27.

Otto, M. W. (2000). Stories and metaphors in cognitive-behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 7, 166–172. doi: 10.1016/s1077-7229(00)80027-9

28.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3

29.

Pentland, B. T. (1999). Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24, 711–724. doi: 10.2307/259350

30.

Piyatissa, K. (1994). Buddha’s tales for young and old, Prince Goodspeaker, Volume 1.New York, NY: Buddhist Literature Society.

31.

Sanchez, T. (2006). The man who could have been king: The storyteller’s guide to character education. Journal of Social Studies Research, 30, 3–9.

32.

Sansosti, F. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2006). Using social stories to improve the social behavior of children with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 43–57. doi: 10.1177/10983007060080010601

33.

Sarbin, T. R. (1986). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology.New York, NY: Praeger/Greenwood.

34.

Sekhar, A. C., & Govinda, P. B (2012). Individualistic and collectivistic orientations of rural and urban professional students and their attitudes towards fairness in appraisals and procedures in HRM. Paripex-Indian Journal of Research, 3, 209–210. doi: 10.15373/22501991/may2014/64

35.

Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. G (1987). Culture and moral development. In J.

Stigler

Schweder

& G.

Herdt

(Eds.). Cultural psychology (pp. 130–204). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139173728.005

36.

Smetana, J. G., Jambon, M., Conry-Murray, C., & Storge-Apple, M. (2012). Reciprocal associations between your children’s moral judgments and their developing theory of mind. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1144–1153. doi: 10.1037/a0025891

37.

Spence, D. P. (1984). Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psychoanalysis.New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

38.

Tappan, M. B., & Brown, L. M (1989). Stories told and lessons learned: Toward a narrative approach to moral development and moral education. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 182–206. doi: 10.17763/haer.59.2.d364up55vx875411

39.

Teglasi, H., & Rothman, L. (2001). Stories a classroom-based program to reduce aggressive behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 71–94. doi: 10.1016/s0022-4405(00)00060-1

40.

Tulving, E., & Murray, D. (1985). Elements of episodic memory. Canadian Psychology, 26, 235–238.

41.

Tulving, E., & Markowitsch, H. J (1998). Episodic and declarative memory: Role of the hippocampus. Hippocampus, 8, 198–204. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1063(1998)8:3<198::AID-HIP02>3.0.C0;2-G

42.

Vitz, P. C. (1990). The use of stories in moral development: New psychological reasons for an old education method. American Psychologist, 45, 709–720. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.45.6.709

43.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-92784-6.

44.

Yu, A. B. & Yang, K. S. (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collectivist societies. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G, Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 239–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Zabel, M. (1991). Storytelling, myths, and folk tales: Strategies for multicultural inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 32, 7–12. doi: 10.1080/1045988x.1991.9944582

46.

Zak, P. J. (2015), February. Why inspiring stories make us react: The neuroscience ofnarrative. Cerebrum,1–13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2015/WhyJnspiring_Stories_Make_Us_React__The_Neuroscience_of_Narrative/

47.

Zimet, S. F. (1966). Children’s interest and story preferences: A critical review of the literature. The Elementary School Journal, 67, 122–130. doi: 10.1086/460347