Summary: Preschool children aged 3 to 5 can distinguish between acceptable and poor excuses when someone breaks a promise.
Source: Duke University
We’ve all broken a promise at some point—whether because circumstances changed or we simply didn’t follow through.
New research from Duke University shows that young children are attentive to the explanations adults give when promises are broken. By preschool age, children already evaluate not only that a promise was broken, but also whether the justification for breaking it is reasonable.
In a study published in the journal Cognitive Development, researchers tested 64 children, ages 3 and 5, using short puppet videos. In each scenario, a puppet promised to show the child an exciting toy, left to fetch it, and returned without the toy. The puppets then either offered a prosocial excuse (for example, “I had to help my friend with his homework”), a selfish excuse (“I wanted to watch TV”), or no explanation at all.
After watching each clip, the children were asked whether the puppet’s behavior was wrong and to explain why. Across ages, children generally agreed that breaking a promise is wrong. However, they judged defections differently depending on the type of justification: when the puppet gave a prosocial reason, children viewed the broken promise less negatively than when the puppet gave a selfish reason or no explanation.
The findings indicate that preschoolers understand that obligations to help others can legitimately outweigh a prior commitment, whereas self-centered motives do not justify breaking a promise. In other words, children this age are sensitive to the moral ranking of values—recognizing that prosocial actions can be stronger reasons for changing plans than personal desires.
Interestingly, children treated a lame excuse (such as wanting to watch TV) about the same as offering no excuse at all; both were judged more negatively than a good, prosocial justification. This contradicts earlier suggestions that young children might accept any reason as better than none. Instead, even 3- to 5-year-olds appear to attend to the content and quality of explanations.
When researchers probed the children’s explanations for their judgments, age differences emerged. Five-year-olds were more likely than three-year-olds to use normative language—referring to what someone “should” or “is supposed to” do—when criticizing a broken promise, especially in response to prosocial justifications. This suggests that by age five children’s understanding of social obligations and moral norms is more developed and articulated.
Surprisingly, the type of excuse did not affect whether children said they liked a puppet or whether they would invite it to play. In other words, even when preschoolers judged a broken promise negatively, they did not necessarily translate that judgment into lower social preferences toward the puppet. The researchers note that linking broken promises to personal trustworthiness or friendship may develop later.
This study is part of broader research into how children learn moral norms, how they coordinate social expectations, and how they develop a sense of common ground about what counts as acceptable behavior. The ability to assess justifications—distinguishing prosocial motives from selfish ones—is a key component of moral development and human cooperation.
Lead author Leon Li, working with developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello as part of his Ph.D. in psychology and neuroscience at Duke, emphasizes that children pay attention to the quality of reasons adults offer. Phrases like “Because I said so” do not pass muster with young listeners; children recognize such responses as weak explanations.
Funding: This research was supported by the Duke Department of Psychology and Neuroscience.
About this neurodevelopment research news
Author: Robin Smith ([email protected])
Source: Duke University
Contact: Robin Smith – Duke University
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Closed access. “Young Children Judge Defection Less Negatively When There’s a Good Justification” by Michael Tomasello et al., published in Cognitive Development (DOI cited in the original publication).
Abstract
Young Children Judge Defection Less Negatively When There’s a Good Justification
Morality involves a shared ranking of values, where helping others is generally more justifiable than pursuing selfish aims. Learning to distinguish between strong and weak justifications for one’s actions is an important element of moral development. This study evaluated whether young children use such a common-ground ranking to assess broken promises.
In a within-participants design (N = 64), preschool children watched puppet scenarios in which a puppet promised to show a toy, failed to keep the promise, and then provided a prosocial justification, a selfish justification, or no justification. Children judged defections following prosocial justifications less negatively than defections after selfish or no justifications; the latter two conditions did not differ significantly.
When asked to explain their judgments, five-year-olds—unlike three-year-olds—tended to offer normative or promise-referencing reasons more often for prosocial justifications than for selfish or absent justifications. Rates of tattling, liking, and inviting puppets to play did not change with justification type. Overall, the findings indicate that young children can reference a shared moral ranking of values, an ability foundational to cooperation and moral reasoning.