Was it you, the other Zazz, or that Flurp? Children's Moral Evaluation of Self-Serving and Prosocial Lies in the Context of Social Groups

The present study examined children’s evaluation of self-serving and prosocial lies and whether these evaluations were altered by the presence of arbitrary social groups. As 3rd party observers, children (3- to 7-year olds) listened to four stories about an agent who told a prosocial or self-serving lie that was used to take the blame for, or wrongfully place blame on, the agent’s in-group or out-group member. Children’s moral and trust evaluations, and their theory of mind were assessed. Although children judged all lies to be immoral, children judged self-serving lies as more immoral than prosocial lies, suggesting children use both veracity and context-specific details when making moral judgments. Regardless of the type of lie told, children judged lies to be more immoral when they involved the agent’s out-group member. However, children did not differentially evaluate prosocial and self-serving lies based on whether these lies were told in reference to an ingroup or outgroup member. Additionally, older children trusted prosocial over self-serving liars, while younger children displayed the opposite pattern. Children’s theory of mind was not related to their moral or trust evaluations in prosocial liars. Overall, these results suggest young children consider pro- and anti-social contexts when evaluating lies, and that there may be an age-related shift in the way children use past behavior to evaluate trustworthiness in others.