Moral Reasoning in Violent Contexts: Displaced and Non-displaced Colombian Children's Evaluations of Moral Transgressions, Retaliation, and Reconciliation

In order to assess the effects of displacement and exposure to violence on children's moral reasoning, Colombian children exposed to minimal violence (non-displaced or low risk; N = 99) and to extreme violence (displaced or high risk; N = 94), evenly divided by gender at 6, 9, and 12 years of age, were interviewed regarding their evaluation of peer-oriented moral transgressions (hitting and not sharing toys). The vast majority of children evaluated moral transgressions as wrong. Group and age differences were revealed, however, regarding provocation and retaliation. Children who were exposed to violence, in contrast to those with minimum exposure, judged it more legitimate to inflict harm or deny resources when provoked and judged it more reasonable to retaliate for reasons of retribution. Surprisingly, and somewhat hopefully, all children viewed reconciliation as feasible. The results are informative regarding theories of morality, culture, and the effects of violence on children's social development.