Citation

Elbedour S, Baker AM, Charlesworth WR. Child Abuse Negl. 1997; 21(11): 1053-1066.

Affiliation

Department of Education, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

9422826

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The moral development of three groups of children, who had been subjected to varying degrees of political violence and economic advantage, was examined in an attempt to determine if group membership or gender influenced the level of moral reasoning or orientation. METHOD: Ninety-three 8- to 13-year-old Israeli Jewish and Bedouin school children, and Palestinian West Bank school children were asked various moral reasoning questions based on an animal fable involving a moral dilemma under three (hypothetical, role-taking, political) conditions. RESULTS: Results indicate that mutuality solutions to moral dilemmas were given more frequently by Israeli Jewish children than Israeli Bedouin or Palestinian children as the questions shifted from abstract to real-life situations. No significant gender differences were found between Jewish children and Bedouin children in hypothetical issues; however, violence and limited resources were found to affect moral judgment in real-life situations for boys, but not for girls. CONCLUSIONS: These findings supported the hypothesis that moral reasoning in children is significantly linked to real-life situations and resources. The results were discussed in terms of their relevance to future researchers and the manner in which children interpret moral questions.

Language: en