The Moral Life of Babies

Morality is a broad question in psychology. The conversation around how human beings develop their sense of right or wrong and good or bad behavior has always been a point of interest. As expected, researchers have varying theories on this matter but they all agree that it is a process that begins from infancy. For this reason, children have been a point of study for psychology for many years. In this research, psychologists have designed tests to answer the questions ‘can babies tell right from wrong?’ ‘Do they develop a veil of fairness at an early age?’ and ‘what is their preference between prosocial and antisocial’. This paper looks into this questions by combining the results of various researches addressing the mentioned questions in an attempt to understand and explain the moral life of babies in the world today. 

Can babies tell right from wrong (Introduction)23411 

It is believed that children are born with moral sense or the ability to evaluate right or wrong and these indicators are visible in the first year after birth. Generally, infants strongly prefer individuals who have helped others and dislike those who have prevented others from fulfilling a goal (Burns, & Sommerville, 2014). The findings of various researches further state that infants are more drawn to helpers who are more conscious about their actions as opposed to helper who does not know that they are helping. The complexity of infant morality deepens in that there are instances where children prefer a non-helper. This outcome is common when the individual whose efforts are hindered was previously antisocial. Such observations and indicators are impressive because infants have not adopted language. Thus, adults have not taught them what is right or wrong and even if they tried to infants do not have the capacity to understand. However, science and experiments allow constant evidence that babies are conscious about morality. 

By their fourth birthday, it is noted that infants show judgements based on moral concerns with other’s welfare, rights and fairness by spontaneous actions and reasoning when they witness a violation. Evidently, most researchers have focused their research on older children because they patterns are easily observed. However, with infants it requires further analysis and definition of the word morality. Notably, this term is used differently but it boils down to prescriptive norms concerning others’ welfare, rights, fairness, and justice (Dahl, & Killen, 2018). For infants, judgement is mainly influenced by morality but as they grow older other factors play a role in their judgement such as their beliefs, religion, relationships and personal safety concerns. The initial and developed sense of morality in infants is not innate or learned. This analysis is mainly so because morality disputes the characteristics of both innate and learned traits. Infants develop morals based on reciprocal interactions. 

Generally, infants in the first few months attach morality to the aspect of being helpful. However, there is a difference between being helpful to someone who deserves assistance such as the sick and being helpful to someone committing a vice such as stealing or cheating. Regularly, children express their morality through helping around by their first birthday. It is common to see a child picking up a pen that an adult has dropped or doing house chores such as putting away their toys. While many may consider this as a sign of morality, this is not true because infants use an interpersonal effort to feel like a part of society with no reason as to their actions. For this reason, helping is not an indicator of morality but it is an important precursor that all children go through in a healthy upbringing. 

Therefore, in the question of whether children can tell right from wrong, it is true that the definition of morality and the motivation behind their decisions are key factors. Children can tell right from wrong if the definition of morality is in terms of helping from the perspective of a parent watching a baby. However, if the definition of morality is when a child helps. This is only true in the older ages when children are motivated by intrapersonal forces. Also, it is crucial for researchers to investigate where new ‘moral’ behaviors in infants were developed or what informed the moral behavior as well (Surian, Ueno, Itakura, & Meristo, 2018). When defining morality, there are a number of researches associating help to the development of a moral sense which is true at the infant stage. In further psychological studies, it is crucial to explore the concept that children can challenge the unfair treatment in group settings as proof of further development in the infant mortality. 

Children Develop a veil of fairness (Coin Experiment) 

It is often proven in research that children develop an increasing sense of fairness. Evidently, in an adult capacity there are two components in the discussion of fairness. They include the desire to be fair and the desire to be viewed as fair. Therefore, the greater question is whether children have the same veil of fairness. Notably, younger ones indicate that they want to be fairly treated and some psychologist explain that this is a sign of fairness which develops into the two components of being fair. To prove this point and discuss its relevance, the coin experiment is referenced to understand the veil of fairness in children and how it develops. 

The Coin Experiment 

This experiment had varying conditions. In the first one, children were given the chance to allocate resources in a way that was fair or unfair in an environment where the experimenter was clear on the inequality. In the other conditions, the experimenter had the wrong information about the number of resources that the participants or recipients had with them. The participants could make a fair or unfair choice that benefited them or the recipient. Participants used were 6-8 year olds that were expected to be fair at this age group while member of a younger age bracket was expected to recognize fair and unfair options but could be bothered to put in effort to achieve the fair choice (Nighbor, Kohn, Normand, & Schlinger, 2017). It was note that when children no longer risked looking unfair yet the unfair choices benefited them, they were more unfair. 

Before the experiment, there were certain concepts under discussion. First in these ideas was the aspect of being fair and appearing fear. It was noted that aside from committing actual acts of fairness, there are adults who take on acts so that they can be seen as fair without the consequence of actually being fair. Human beings have a preference of fairness similar to their preference for one food over another. Social models suggest that people share their resources so that others view them as fair people, but their motivation is not actually fairness (Sloane, Baillargeon, & Premack, 2012). Such acts of impression management are a part of social interaction where people work hard to create the image that they are nice. Thus, when people invest in fair actions for fair reasons, it is not always true that their influencing factor is fairness since self-promotion in the eyes of others plays a role. 

With the concept of fairness in mind, transparency plays a role in how fair an individual actual is. Since some feel the need for others to see them as fair, they are likely to act differently when they are not in the presence of peers. As a result, those who seem fair may act unfairly if they cannot be termed as unfair or if they can camouflage a fair act as unfair. These social paradigms may strictly want to conclude that social influence has no bearing on fairness but the coin experiment which will be discussed below proves them otherwise. The reality is that adults and children cannot be tied down to scientific expectation and definitions. If they are in a situation where they need to take unfair measures for self-reservation they will do so without hesitation especially when they are not exposed to others. 

In the second part of this experiment, infants concern with fairness is manipulated when the researchers manipulate transparency and provide an opportunity for the children to deny the outcome of a coin toss that would decide whether the get the advantage. The results showed that 8 month year old children. However, older children actually took the advantage. Consequently, the veil of fairness falls on children as they progress in age. They translate from honestly seeking and giving fairness to the need to be viewed as fair even though they are not necessarily fair (Meristo, & Surian, 2014). Carrying out this experiment with children and infants is eye opening for the field of psychology in terms of understanding how the perception of fairness can ultimately influence how infants make decisions. Thus, the complexity of the infants mind is clear in the decisions they made at the end of the coin experiment. 

Children preference for prosocial vs antisocial (puppet experiment) 

Psychology tries to explain if children are prosocial or antisocial through the puppet experiment. In this test, a toddler is presented with a show with three puppets. On puppet, standing in the middle, is bouncing a ball. After a few bounces, the ball rolls away from this puppet in the direction of the puppet on the right. The first puppet bouncing the ball opens their arms in the direction of the ball to request it back. Sometimes, the second puppet would return the ball to the owner in the same way a giver would. However, if the puppet on the left got the ball, it would run away with it as a taker would. After the show, a new researcher who does not know the giver or the take puppet would hold out both toys to the 5 month old infant (Shaw et al., 2014). The infants would always reach for the giver puppet. This experiment was done by scientist who believed children were motivate by punishment and reward and did not expect children’s choices to be influenced by behavior preference. 

This experiment is furthered in a show where the main puppet tries to open a box while two other puppets seat at opposite corners of the stage. For some children, as the puppet struggles to open the box one of the puppets at the end of the stage assists the struggling puppet to open the box as a helper. For other children, the other puppet jumps on the box and closes it as the hinderer. The 8 month infants chose the assisting puppet over the hindering puppet again (Hamlin, 2015). This is a clear indication that children are influenced by the behavior that is in their eyes is positive such as helpful and giving. In these puppet experiments, scientists revealed that puppets children prefer prosocial behavior over antisocial behavior which is a trait they carry through their adult behavior. 

Prosocial behavior refers to people who sacrifice themselves for the good of others. In this experiment, the prosocial is represented by the puppet that returns the ball to the neutral puppet that was initially bouncing it. It represents good people and infants from a young age such as 8 months could isolate this behavior as something they want to associate themselves with. In a similar response, the infant were more appealed by the puppet that helped in opening the box. Such an experiment is crucial to understanding how a child’s mind works and the how early the preference for a helper and a giver starts very early. This is especially surprising because this children are too young to learn morality from adults but they understand what they prefer and what they are against. The experiment solidifies the fact that human being are drawn to positive character from a very young age. 

Antisocial behavior is frowned upon by adults. Such an experiment proves that children have the same moral code. The children indicated that they felt angry at the taker puppet that stood in the way of the neutral puppet’s happiness. It is absolutely necessary to note that children are aware of what is right or wrong. Thus, antisocial behavior repels them. For children at such a young age to have proper recognition of their preference indicates that the human mind is very developed. The mind of an infant can understand concepts that well advanced animals struggle with. Also, it informs psychologists that children should be trusted when they react with dislike towards their caregiver because they have a compass of what is right and wrong for them. In fact, it should be a sign of caution if the infant shows signs of anger and distress towards an individual that they have been around. 

The puppet experiment is a very simple experiment that opens the field of psychology to how children decide between what is right or wrong. From this simple analysis, psychologists can confirm that children know what is right or wrong. Even though they are young, there is an established foundation that allows them to make decisions at a very young age. Also, this shows that the moral compass in develops at a very young age. Perhaps this is tainted by external influences as the child grows but it is clear that these young ones are born with an understanding of what is right or wrong and show a preference of the prosocial versus the antisocial. Psychologists are indeed making strides in their definition and understanding of morality which will inform their practice today and in days to come. For this reason the data from such researches should be constantly analyzed and discussed. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, children do have a sense of morality. All psychological conversations present interesting conversations including how they distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Evidently, it is not a matter of innate or externally learnt skills. Infants are aware of their surroundings and respond accordingly as is indicated by the experiments discussed and analysed in this article. Notably, there is room in psychology for further discussion on infants and morality. For instance, the origin of this distinction process is not clear to the researchers. It is challenging to understand where they actually learn the difference yet they are not old enough to learn through language and for it to be a manifestation of innate traits. Hopefully, better understanding and continued conversation will lead to newer discoveries on the matter. This result is highly likely considering the elaborate research from peers within the industry. 

References 

Burns, M. P., & Sommerville, J. A. (2014). "I pick you": the impact of fairness and race on infants' selection of social partners.  Frontiers in psychology ,  5 , 93. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00093 

Dahl, A., & Killen, M. (2018). A Developmental Perspective on the Origins of Morality in Infancy and Early Childhood.  Frontiers in psychology ,  9 , 1736. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01736 

Hamlin J. K. (2015). The case for social evaluation in preverbal infants: gazing toward one's goal drives infants' preferences for Helpers over Hinderers in the hill paradigm.  Frontiers in psychology ,  5 , 1563. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01563 

Meristo, M., & Surian, L. (2014). Infants distinguish antisocial actions directed towards fair and unfair agents.  PloS one ,  9 (10), e110553. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110553 

Nighbor, T., Kohn, C., Normand, M., & Schlinger, H. (2017). Stability of infants' preference for prosocial others: Implications for research based on single-choice paradigms.  PloS one ,  12 (6), e0178818. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178818 

Shaw, A., Montinari, N., Piovesan, M., Olson, K. R., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Children develop a veil of fairness.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (1), 363-375. 

Sloane, S., Baillargeon, R., & Premack, D. (2012). Do infants have a sense of fairness?.  Psychological science ,  23 (2), 196–204. doi:10.1177/0956797611422072 

Surian, L., Ueno, M., Itakura, S., & Meristo, M. (2018). Do Infants Attribute Moral Traits? Fourteen-Month-Olds' Expectations of Fairness Are Affected by Agents' Antisocial Actions.  Frontiers in psychology ,  9 , 1649. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01649