Children's Moral Reasoning about Family and Peer Violence: The Role of Provocation and Retribution

Several theories assume that the approval of violence is related to deficits in moral reasoning. However, this assumption has rarely been empirically tested. This inquiry examined violent and nonviolent children's moral reasoning about violence in family and peer situations. 108 subjects (54 violent and 54 nonviolent, aged 8–1, 10–2, 12–2) selected from 2 inner city schools were asked to evaluate unprovoked and provoked violent situations. All the children condemned unprovoked violence using moral reasoning. With provoked situations, the violent group focused more on the immorality of the provocation and perceived "hitting back" as a form of reciprocal justice. The nonviolent group perceived "hitting" worse than the psychological harm of the provocation and condemned the violence. The results suggest that both the approval and disapproval of violence were justified by moral reasoning. It was proposed that the violent children's greater focus on psychological provocations may be due to experiences and self-perceptions of victimization.