JOCC 20 03-04 06-Oliveira

Journal of Cognition and Culture 20 (2020) 283–304
brill.com/jocc
Moral and Conventional Violations in Childhood:

Brazilians Tolerate Less but Expect More
Punishment than U.S. Americans
Susana K. de M. Oliveira
Department of Psychology, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brazil
susanakmo@gmail.com
Deise M. L. F. Mendes
Department of Psychology, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
deisefmendes@gmail.com
Ebenézer A. de Oliveira
Department of Psychology, Malone University, Canton, OH, US
edeoliveira@malone.edu
Luciana F. Pessôa
Department of Psychology, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil
pessoalf@gmail.com
Abstract
Brazilian and US American children were compared for differences in tolerance

and punishment expectancy. We hypothesized that participants would be less toler-
ant and more punishing of moral than conventional violations; tolerance and pun-
ishment expectancy would relate with age; Brazilians would tolerate less and expect
more punishment than US Americans; and social domain would moderate effects of
age and nationality. The sample had 129 matched children from Brazil and the USA.
Moral/conventional-violation vignettes were used. Mixed-model GLMs suggested that
children were less tolerant and more punishing of moral than social-conventional
violations. Age effects were significant for tolerance. Brazilians scored lower on tol-
erance and higher on punishment expectancy than US Americans; they also dif-
ferentiated less between violation domains than US Americans. These and other
results suggest that Brazilians tolerate less but expect more punishment for violations
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/15685373-12340085
JOCC_20_03-04_06-Oliveira.indd 283 25 Jun 2020 14:50:06

284 de M. Oliveira et al.
than US Americans. Discussion is based on cultural and socio-historical differences

between the two nations.
Keywords
moral judgment – social convention – tolerance – punishment – cultural comparison
Social domain theory (Nucci & Nucci, 1982; Smetana, Jambon, & Ball, 2014;
Turiel, 2008) postulates that from about age 3 through elementary-school age
and beyond, children differentiate between moral and social conventional
concepts. Specifically, from early childhood morality is said to be conceptual-
ized as intrinsically prescriptive and universally applicable, involving avoidance
of physical harm and the promotion of the welfare of others (Smetana, 2013;
Turiel, 1983). By middle childhood morality is said to broaden further to more
clearly include psychological harm avoidance to other people (Smetana et al.,
2014) and practical applications of the principle of fairness, which is presum-
ably the groundwork for equality of treatment in social interactions (Smetana,
2013). From an evolutionary perspective, it is assumed that humans and other
socially advanced species are hardwired to “inequity aversion” so that their de-
cision to collaborate or help others depends, to a good extent, on perceptions
of how equitable the outcomes are to all parties (Brosnan & de Waal, 2003;
Vale & Brosnan, 2017). Yet, this presumably universal sense of fairness has been
challenged by cross-cultural research showing that the Machiguenga of the
Peruvian Amazon do not make decisions about giving or receiving monetary
help on the same equity basis as UCLA students, for example (Henrich, 2000).
Therefore, cultural transmission may play a key role in the developmental shift
from sheer self-gain to more altruistic moral choices based on equity reported
in middle childhood.
From an early age, children also conceptualize conventionality as descrip-
tive of how certain social systems function; they understand that social con-
ventions are alterable and subject to people’s agreement in the interest of their
efficient, harmonious and orderly interactions in specific contexts (Smetana,
2013; Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 2008). For example, they may gradually re-
alize that some table manners, forms of speech, or ways of dressing that are
acceptable at home may not be directly transferrable to the school setting, de-
pending on factors such as routine/rituals, social functions and negotiation on
rule compliance between adults and children in these different social contexts.

MORALITY AND CONVENTIONALITY IN CHILDHOOD 285
Although not all social situations easily fit into a strict moral vs. conven-
tional category (Turiel, 1983; Turiel, Killen, & Helwig, 1987), some data suggest
that as they age, children do tend to be more tolerant and expect less punish-
ment (if any) to social-conventional violations, relative to moral violations
(e.g., Smetana, 1981, Smetana et al., 2014). This may reflect children’s observa-
tion of caregivers’ differential reactions to moral transgressions as more seri-
ous than conventional transgressions (e.g., Smetana, 1985). The literature also
suggests that patterns of morality/conventionality differentiation are not only
limited to US American children; they have also been replicated with some
samples from traditional societies such as the Virgin Islands (Nucci, Turiel, &
Encarnacion-Gawrych, 1983), Hong Kong (Yau & Smetana, 2003), and South
Korea (Midgette, Noh, Lee, & Nucci, 2016). To be sure, in these societies, an in-
dividual’s choices are often limited by social prescriptions rooted in traditions
from the past, such as hierarchy of roles (e.g., Asian filial piety, Park & Kim,
2008) and tightness – the degree to which a large number of social norms are
expected to be followed and how violation is perceived as punishable (Gelfand
et al., 2011; Triandis, 1996). However, the assimilation of US culture and fast
industrialization rate in the last two nations listed are undeniable (see The
Economist Special Report, 2019), which may help explain the replicated data.
Kagan (2018) noted that the influence of socio-cultural contexts in how
some behaviors get judged as either violations worthy of punishment or events
worthy of acceptance (or appreciation) remains one of the most intriguing,
yet unresolved issues in human morality. This study takes two complementary
approaches to this issue. First, from a cultural psychological perspective, one
cannot assume that acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, as well as moral-
ity-conventionality distinctions are universal across cultural worldviews and
ideologies. For example, Hindus in Bhubaneswar seem to consider clothing,
terms of address, and gender roles as matters of morality deemed punishable if
violated, and not as mere conventionality that may go unpunished, depending
on context or situation, like in the US (Shweder, Mahapatra, & Miller, 1987).
Likewise, previous data with Brazilian (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993), as well as
Israeli-Jewish and Arab children (Nisan, 1987) suggest that less westernized
samples (e.g., children from Recife, Brazil, or from traditional Arab villages)
may rely on a community moral code based on personal ties and social commu-
nication, which constrains an individual’s discretion in behavioral choices and
make violation less tolerable. Second, from a cultural evolutionary perspec-
tive, Henrich et al. (2010) analyzed 15 diverse populations and concluded that
as a society transitions from being fully subsistence-based and becomes more
market-integrated (e.g., buying goods from outside kinship), and as it moves

from a local faith to a world religion, it grows in the pursuit of more equita-
ble behavior. Additionally, the larger the community size, the authors noted,
the readier it will be to punish inequity. This is consistent with Gelfand et al.’s
(2011) report that societal norms are stronger and norm deviance is more pun-
ishable in high-density communities. Less tolerance to norm deviation may
also be found in more traditional contexts that value embeddedness (obedi-
ence, politeness, reciprocal favors) as opposed to autonomy (free individual
choice, self-expression), harmony (resignation, peace) as opposed to mastery
(pursuit of individual goals and ambitions), and social hierarchy as opposed to
egalitarianism (Schwartz, 2006).
Brazil is the largest country in Latin America with many populous cities; it
is also the country with the largest concentration of Roman Catholics in the
world (Pew Research Center, 2013). Schwartz (2006) reported that Brazilians
(and other Latin Americans) value embeddedness, harmony, and hierarchy
more than English-speaking nations, including the US. However, Brazil expe-
rienced significant social, industrial and economic growth between 2003 and
2014 (World Bank data, n.d.) and has adopted a free market in partnership with
the US (Montanari, 2019). It remains to be determined whether such socio-
economic changes have pushed the younger Brazilian generation away from
a communal moral code (with its emphasis on conformity, low tolerance to
violation) towards a more autonomous one. For one thing, despite multiple
signs of modernization, Brazilians still show fervent familism (strong identi-
fication with, and loyalty to, one’s family) and familial interdependence (keep-
ing close physical and psychological family ties through adolescence and even
adulthood; cf. Carlo, Koller, Raffaelli, & Guzman, 2007). History, opinion, and
cooperation within the family can still shape one’s important life decisions
such as career and family planning, education, and childcare in Brazil (Carlo,
et al., 2007). If so, children’s choice between what is right or wrong, as well as
between what is socially acceptable or unacceptable, punishable or unpunish-
able, may also be influenced by what significant adults in the family or other
contexts expect of them.
As Milnitsky-Sapiro (2005) proposes, traditional patterns in morality and
conventionality may reflect socio-historical factors in Brazil’s history, which
is marked by long periods of military dictatorship, along with a strong Roman
Catholic, hierarchical faith. Brazilians often struggle with moral dilemmas as
they try to “adapt” and follow rules in a land where law enforcement has for
very long been reserved only to those without government offices (Gabeira,
2017). By contrast, despite reports of persistent racial and gender inequalities
(Pariona, 2019), the United States prides itself of a history built on the “rule of
law” with its principles of equality among all citizens in the protection of their

fundamental rights, and of a timely, even-handed delivery of justice by com-

petent, impartial, and independent agents (American Bar Association, n.d.). A
recent controversial and divided presidential impeachment may well put into
question how much longer efforts to uphold the rule of law will continue in the
US soil. Yet, US children of the civil rights recognize how fragile and hard-won
democracy is, and continue “believing and building on the conviction that the
moral arc of the universe bends toward justice” (Barber, II, 2020).
According to Shweder et al. (2003), community morality hinges around a
few factors, including social duty (e.g., social obligations in groups), interde-
pendent relationships (as opposed to independence, autonomy), and high re-
spect for hierarchical differences in the status of individuals within the family
or other social groups (e.g., terms of address and gender roles). If community
morality is still strong in Brazil and social-norm conformity remains strong, vi-
olations within the social-conventional domain, such as regard for social roles
or for others’ place in social hierarchy, may be as intolerable and/or punishable
as those behaviors more narrowly regarded as moral violations (e.g., acts of
injustice, harmful behavior) in individualistic-autonomous contexts.
This stands in contrast with US American samples, which may approach mo-
rality with a more autonomous code based on each individual’s right to make
choices independently from others (e.g., Haidt et al., 1993; Shweder, Much,
Mahapatra, & Park, 2003). Unrestrained individual choice across domains,
from politics to religion and food, dress, entertainment or many other goods
and services, has been regarded as a matter of individual taste, self-expression,
or identity in the US, as a result of both industrialization and consumerism
(Schwartz, 2006). As Choi (2014) puts it, “In the U.S., the overriding perception
is that anything you do out of allegiance to tradition and social expectation
is inauthentic and not you.” In sharp contrast with tight, traditional societies
(Triandis, 1996), standing out as unique brings prestige in the US; conformity
to social norms may be viewed as a sign of weakness. Yet, rather than mutu-
ally exclusive, both individual self-assertion and enterprise (via creativity and
superior cognitive capacity) and social learning through networking and in-
teractions are required for human adaptation and the promotion of cumula-
tive cultural evolution across a variety of habitats, as elegantly demonstrated
by Boyd, Richerson, and Henrich (2011). Likewise, Sober and Wilson’s (2000)
multilevel selection theory on the evolution of altruism backs this premise.
Therefore, groups (as well as individual human beings) may vary in degrees of
communal and autonomous morality, rather than adopting only one of these
to the total exclusion of the other.
Shweder et al.’s (1987) cultural psychological approach to moral-
ity has been scrutinized and deemed too relativistic and ambiguous, if not

self-contradictory – i.e., a not-so-relativistic argument is made toward toler-

ance and validation of diverse cultural values and systems (see Turiel et al.,
1987). More importantly, some scholars (Turiel et al., 1987; Wainryb & Recchia,
2014) claim that enough heterogeneity and conflict on moral issues can be
found within any given cultural group, which raises qualms on cultural psy-
chologists’ contention that morality can be studied best as culture-specific
coherent patterns of social norm reconstruction. Finally, Shweder et al.’s meth-
odology has been criticized because some aspects of their target social events/
stimuli in India (e.g., variation in terms of address and differential treatment
based on gender as reflecting social hierarchies, etc.) may have served different
nonmoral institutional or sociological purposes in their context, rather than
reflecting a culturally distinctive kind of morality (Turiel et al., 1987).
The present study compares morality and conventionality in demographi-
cally-matched samples of preschool- to 4th-grade children from Brazil and the
United States. Contrary to some critiqued studies done outside of the United
States, only moral and conventional violations comparable to those used in
previous US research are examined, thereby facilitating group comparisons.
It is assumed that morality and conventionality scenarios are separable and
elicit different reactions in terms of both tolerance and expected punishment.
However, consistent with Shweder et al.’s report (1987) of cultural-psychological
differentiation between individualistic-autonomous and community-oriented
morality, this study also assumes that US Americans differentiate transgres-
sion domains more strongly than their Brazilian counterparts. Familism and
familial interdependence may bias Brazilian children toward conformity to
adult expectation in social-conventional matters that may be considered more
discretionary and flexible in the US autonomous model. The individualistic
autonomous morality is especially prominent in the increased moral tolerance
of today’s US i-Geners (Twenge, 2017). By comparison, Brazilian children’s
communal morality grounded in hierarchical Catholicism (65% of Brazil are
Catholics, Pew Research Center, 2013) may take a more conservative (i.e., tol-
erates less, expects more punishment) approach to social-norm violation, as
Haidt et al.’s (1993) data on communal morality from Recife, Brazil, suggested.
With such socio-historical considerations as a backdrop, four specific hypoth-
eses were tested in this comparative study:
1. Consistent with social domain theory, participants in general were ex-
pected to be less tolerant and more punishing of moral than convention-
al violations.
2. Older children were predicted to tolerate more and expect less punish-
ment for violations in both moral and social-conventional domains than

their younger counterparts, as a result of longer socialization and dimin-

ished parental monitoring and control with age, as found in earlier stud-
ies (see Turiel, 2008, Smetana et al.’s review, 2014).
3. Brazilian children were hypothesized to be less tolerant of, and expect
more punishment for, violations across domains than US American chil-
dren. This hypothesis follows not only the reviewed cultural psychologi-
cal critique of social domain theory, but also Henrich et al.’s (2010) model
of cultural evolution, Triandis’ (1996) notion of cultural tightness, and
Schwartz’s (2006) traditional values as epitomized in Carlo et al.’s (2007)
report of familism and familial interdependence in Brazil.
4. Social domain effects were expected to be moderated by age and nation-
ality; that is, social domain differentiation on both tolerance and pun-
ishment expectancy were thought to be stronger for older, US American
children, consistent with the reviewed developmental and cultural psy-
chological literature.
1 Method
1.1 Participants
Participants were 129 children in the middle-childhood age range, when do-
main differentiation is expected to emerge (65 boys; Mean age = 6.99 years,
SD = 1.47 years) from three urban schools in Canton, Ohio, United States (N = 67)
and four urban schools in the Brazilian cities of Rio de Janeiro and Fortaleza
(N = 62). To ensure that results between countries would not be obfuscated
by key socio-demographic differences (e.g., Haidt et al.’s data), Brazilian and
US American sub-samples were matched for maternal level of education (%
with college degree = 72.3 in the US; 75.8 in Brazil) and marital status (% mar-
ried or in stable relationship in the US = 73.1; in Brazil = 77.4), χ2 tests with
p’s>.60. Additionally, sampled children from the two countries matched for
gender (N for girls = 32 in the US; 31 in Brazil, χ2 with p>.19) and age (Mean
for the US = 6.92 years, range = 5 to 10.25 years; Mean for Brazil = 7.07 years,
range = 5.42 to 10.08 years), t test with p>.55.
1.2 Procedure
The present study is part of a larger ongoing cross-cultural research project on
emotion situation knowledge as related to children’s moral development and
parental discipline. Informed consent forms were collected from mothers who
volunteered to participate in the study with their children; the institutional

review boards of the higher learning institutions to which the authors are affil-
iated approved the research project. Directors/principals and teachers of three
urban schools in the Midwest United States and four urban schools in Brazil
spread the word through fliers sent to all families of students for recruitment of
participants. Only children whose mothers reported no known psychological
diagnosis were included, though. Children’s data were collected individually,
in a quiet room at their respective schools; mothers completed a brief demo-
graphic information form, which was collected separately with other forms not
used in the present empirical report.
Trained female research assistants read to each child a series of vignettes
involving a matched-sex protagonist’s violation of some social norm. The vi-
gnettes were created by one of the authors based on previous research in the
US (e.g., Smetana, Toth, Cicchetti, Bruce, Kane, & Daddis, 1999; Turiel et al.,
1987); vignettes and related questions were then independently translated and
back-translated by the said author and a research assistant, who are both bilin-
gual. Small discrepancies in translation were negotiated and agreed upon prior
to data collection in Brazil. The authors also analyzed the various situations in
the US-produced vignettes and agreed that they were also suitable for use with
Brazilian children attending school, as shown in Table 1. Each vignette was
introduced by one short sentence stating the theme of the social-behavioral
violation with questions about how tolerable it was, and how much trouble
(if any) the participating child anticipated as a consequence for it. These are
the main data in the present empirical report. Following the entire interview
(about 20–25 mins), each child was given a small token of appreciation (e.g.,
sticker, pencil, etc.) for his or her participation. Consistent with local practice,
US American participants were also entered in a draw for a gift card from a
local toy store.
A quasi-experimental full-factorial design was adopted in this study. A gen-
eral linear model approach to analysis of variance was used to test the hypoth-
eses, with Social Domain (Moral, Conventional) as a within-subject variable,
and Nationality (US American, Brazilian) and Child Age (quartiles) as be-
tween-subject variables. Although no a-priori hypothesis had been made with
gender based on the extant literature (e.g., Miller & Bersoff, 1992), the models
also included binary Child Gender (Male, Female).
1.3 Measures
Mothers provided basic demographic information (e.g., their age, educa-
tion, and marital status; children’s age, gender, known diagnosis, presence of
biological father) by filling out a short questionnaire. The criterion variables
(Violation Tolerance and Punishment Expectancy) were measured through a

Table 1 Vignettes containing moral and social-conventional violations
1. One day Joe/Mary really wanted to go to school with clothes inside out, and so s/he did it
on purpose. While pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Joe/Mary felt
happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
2. One day Joe/Mary wasn’t paying attention when s/he was dressing to go to school, and
so s/he put on his/her clothes inside out. Joe/Mary didn’t mean to wear his/her clothes in-
side out and didn’t even notice it. Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think
Joe/Mary felt happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
3. Luke/Lucy really wanted to have another kid’s jacket, so s/he just stole it and put it on.
Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Luke/Lucy felt happy, sad, angry,
scared, or didn’t feel anything?
4. Luke/Lucy was getting ready to leave school when s/he put on another kid’s jacket and
took it with him/her by mistake because the other kid’s jacket looked a lot like his/her own.
Luke/Lucy didn’t mean to take the other kid’s jacket and didn’t even notice that s/he had
it. Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Luke/Lucy felt happy, sad, angry,
5. One day when students were lining up to go to gym, Joe/Mary decided to step out of the
line, and so s/he did it on purpose. Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think
Joe/Mary felt happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
6. One day Joe/Mary wasn’t paying attention when students were lining up to go to gym,
and so s/he stepped out of the line. Joe/Mary really didn’t mean to step out of the line and
didn’t even notice that s/he did. Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Joe/
Mary felt happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
7. Luke/Lucy really wanted to hurt another kid when s/he was playing ball in the play-
ground, and so s/he threw a ball at the other kid on purpose. The kid walked away crying.
Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Luke/Lucy felt happy, sad, angry,
8. Luke/Lucy was playing with a ball one day in the playground, when the ball hit another
kid by accident. The kid walked away crying. Luke/Lucy really didn’t mean to hurt the other
kid and didn’t even notice that the other kid got hurt. Pointing to each face (in display), E
asks, Do you think Luke/Lucy felt happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
9. One day Joe/Mary really wanted to make noises while the teacher was telling a story to
the class. So s/he made noises because s/he wanted to. Pointing to each face (in display), E
asks, Do you think Joe/Mary felt happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
10. One day Joe/Mary wasn’t paying attention when the teacher was telling a story at
school, and so without really meaning any trouble Joe/Mary started making noises. Joe/
Mary didn’t even notice the noises that s/he was making. Pointing to each face (in dis-
play), E asks, Do you think Joe/Mary felt happy, sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?

Table 1 Vignettes containing moral and social-conventional violations (cont.)
11. One day Luke/Lucy really wanted to break his/her mom’s favorite vase, and so s/he did
it on purpose. Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Luke/Lucy felt happy,
sad, angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
12. Luke/Lucy was playing one day and broke his/her mom’s favorite vase by accident.
Luke/Lucy really didn’t mean to break the vase, and didn’t even notice when the vase got
broken. Pointing to each face (in display), E asks, Do you think Luke/Lucy felt happy, sad,
angry, scared, or didn’t feel anything?
Note. E = Experimenter. Moral violations = Items 3–4, 7–8, 11–12; social-conventional violations =
Items 1–2, 5–6, 9–10; odd items are intentional, even items are unintentional. Intentionality was
combined in the analyses of this study. Each violation is followed by one parental discipline
modality (not used in this report).
series of 12 vignettes (half with moral violations, half with conventional viola-
tions) read to the children individually in the same order (although the order
of instruments used in the larger study was counterbalanced). As shown in
Table 1, only scenarios similar to those previously used in US studies were in-
cluded in the measures. Specifically, behaviors that clearly interfere with fair-
ness or the rights of others or that inflict physical harm to others were used for
moral transgressions. Behaviors that violate forms of clothing and appearance
or school rules were used for conventional violations (see Table 1).
A two-step measure was used for Violation Tolerance and Violation
Punishment Expectancy. When introduced to a social-behavioral violation,
each child was first asked whether it was OK or not OK for him/her to act like
that; next, the child rated the behavior as a “little bit OK/bad” or “very much
OK/bad” (1 = very bad; 4 = very much OK). The same two-step procedure was
repeated for Violation Punishment Expectancy with each vignette. Each child
first indicated whether or not he or she would “get in trouble” as a consequence
for behaving that way; if the child indicated that trouble would follow, she or
he was also asked how much (0 = will not get in trouble; 2 = will get in much trou-
ble). Cronbach’s Alphas on both the Tolerance and Punishment Expectancy
measures were very good – .85 and .89, respectively.
2 Results
Overall, sampled children on average displayed somewhat low tolerance but

moderate punishment expectancy for social-behavioral violations. Specifically,

their Violation Tolerance mean score was 18.93, SD = 5.78 (possible scores
ranged from 12 to 48; actual scores were from 12 to 32, with higher scores de-
noting higher tolerance), and their Violation Punishment Expectancy mean
score was 14.95, SD = 6.29 (possible and actual scores ranged from 0 to 24, with
higher scores signifying higher punishment expectancy). Results for GLMs on
both Violation Tolerance and Violation Punishment Expectancy are presented
for main and interaction effects based on the hypotheses.
2.1 Main Effects

As predicted by Hypothesis 1, Social Domain had a statistically significant ef-
fect in both the Violation Tolerance [F(1, 111) = 47.59, p<.001, η2 = .30] and the
Violation Punishment Expectancy models [F(1, 110) = 118.28, p<.001, η2 = .52].
Table 2 summarizes the data. Children viewed conventional transgressions as
more tolerable and less punishable than moral transgressions, which is consis-
tent with prior research on the social domain theory (see Smetana et al., 2014
for a review).
The data partially supported Hypothesis 2. A statistically significant effect
was found for Child Age on Tolerance, F(1, 111) = 3.73, p = .01, η2 = .09. However,
the effect for Child Age on Punishment Expectancy was not significant. Post-
hoc Tukey HSD tests showed a significant difference in Tolerance between
quartiles 2 and 4 only, Mean Diff. = -1.76, p<.01 (see Table 2).
The data supported Hypothesis 3, with a significant effect for Nationality
both on Tolerance [F(1, 111) = 75.35, p<.001, η2 = .40] and on Punishment
Expectancy [F(1, 110) = 31.38, p<.001, η2 = .22]. Specifically, in comparison to their
US American peers, Brazilian children scored lower on the Violation Tolerance
measure and higher on the Violation Punishment Expectancy measure, as
hypothesized (see Table 2). Additionally, a marginal main effect for Child
Gender was found on Punishment Expectancy, F(1, 111) = 3.20, p = .08, but not on
Tolerance, with boys tending to expect more trouble for violations than girls.
2.2 Interaction Effects

Because no three-way interaction results were statistically significant, the data
did not fully support Hypothesis 4. However, significant two-way interactions
were found on each model tested. Social Domain interacted significantly with
either Nationality [F(1, 111) = 10.24, p<.01, η2 = .08] or Child Age [F(1, 111) = 4.03,
p<.01, η2 = .10] to explain Violation Tolerance. For Violation Punishment Ex-
pectancy, Social Domain interacted significantly with Nationality, F(1, 111) = 11.52,
p<.01, η2 = . 10, but only marginally with Child Age, F(1, 111) = 2.38, p = .07.
As shown in Figure 1, US American children’s Tolerance scores were on
average higher than those of their Brazilian counterparts if conventional

Table 2 Estimated marginal means (and standard errors)
Model 1: Criterion Variable = Violation Tolerancea
Country Child Age, Quartilesc Social Domain Child Gender
Brazil USA 1 2 3 4 Moral Conv. Male Female
7.53 11.18** 8.68 8.64 10.11 9.99* 8.75 9.96** 9.24 9.47
(.31) (.28) (.46) (.39) (.42) (.41) (.18) (.27) (.31) (.29)
Model 1: Criterion Variable = Violation Punishment Expectancyb
Country Child Age, Quartilesc Social Domain Child Gender
Brazil USA 1 2 3 4 Moral Conv. Male Female
9.19 6.09** 7.98 7.72 7.38 7.28 8.58 6.61** 8.07 7.11+
(.40) (.36) (.59) (.50) (.53) (.52) (.26) (.31) (.39) (.37)
Note. +p = .08, *p < .01, **p < .001

a behavior is OK or not OK; a little bit OK/bad or very much OK/bad (1 = very bad; 2 = a little bad; 3 = a little
OK; 4 = very much OK).
b you will not get in trouble ( = 0); you will get in a little trouble ( = 1) or much trouble ( = 2).
c 1 = 5 ≤ age < 5.8 yrs, 2 = 5.8 ≤ age < 6.7 yrs, 3 = 6.7 ≤age < 7.8, 4 = 7.8 ≤ age.
Figure 1
Interaction effect of country with SD on tolerance
SD = Social Domain

Figure 2
Interaction effect of country with SD on
punishment
SD = Social Domain
Figure 3
Interaction effect of SD with child age (quartiles) on
tolerance
SD = Social Domain
violations were used, relative to moral violations. A reversed pattern was found
for Punishment Expectancy scores, with Brazilians outscoring US Americans
by a larger margin in the context of conventional violations than moral viola-
tions, as shown in Figure 2. Taken together, the data suggest that US American
children differentiate between social-violation domains more strongly than
Brazilian children tend to do, consistent with Hypothesis 4.
Figure 3 suggests that no significant difference exists among age groups on
Tolerance for the moral domain; however, the youngest age group significant-
ly differed from the oldest one in their Violation Tolerance scores when the
violation fit in the conventional domain. This pattern is also consistent with
Hypothesis 4.
3 Discussion
There is an Asian adage which summarizes well the present data: “All indi-
viduals, in many respects, are (a) like no other individuals, (b) like some indi-
viduals, and (c) like all other individuals” (Mio, Barker-Hackett, & Tumambing,

2006). Although this study did not explore individual idiosyncrasies, the data
lend strong support to social domain theory at the universal level of gener-
alization. However, they also support the cultural psychological and cultural
evolutionary critique of theoretical formulations that construe moral and so-
cial conventions as universal, invariable human (and non-human) constructs,
as reviewed in the introduction.
Beginning with the level of universal assumptions on child development,
it can be inferred from the data that older children are significantly more tol-
erant to transgressions than their younger peers, but there is no significant
difference in age for punishment expectancy. This finding may reflect older
children’s longer experience of socialization leading to a more nuanced con-
sideration of intentionality, jurisdiction, and rule negotiation or other sit-
uation-specific factors in social behavior (Smetana, 2013), possibly making
older children more likely than younger ones to give violators the benefit of
the doubt, thereby being more tolerant. Another possibility, however, is that
younger children have a higher level of compliance with social norms, or with
the experimenter’s expectation, which may also explain the age differences
found in this study. New studies are needed to specifically explore these com-
peting hypotheses.
Furthermore, although no a-priori hypothesis was set for gender in this
study, a marginal gender difference in punishment expectancy was found.
Relative to sampled girls, boys marginally expected more trouble than girls as
a result of violations, which may be an attenuated reflection of significantly
higher parental punitive attitude and use of discipline toward boys than girls,
as reported in a number of studies across various cultural contexts (e.g., de
Oliveira, Frizzo, & Marin, 2000; Endendijk, Groeneveld, van der Pol, van Berkel,
Hallers-Haalboom, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Mesman, 2017; Mandara,
Murray, Telesford, Varner, & Richman, 2012).
Also noteworthy is the general support to the social domain theory found in
the tendency of participants from both cultural groups to more strongly rate
moral violations as not OK, and to more strongly anticipate trouble resulting
from moral violations, as compared to conventional violations. As Smetana
et al. (2014) put it, “conventional transgressions are generally seen as less seri-
ous and less deserving of punishment than moral transgressions” (p. 25). This
pattern in morality-conventionality differentiation was found to significantly
intensify with age for tolerance, but to diminish only marginally with age for
punishment expectancy. To an extent, it should not be surprising that this
age-by-domain interaction held true for Brazilians as well as US Americans
because by design key demographic characteristics were matched for the
two countries in this study, and all participants were in school. As education

pundits universally push for a “critical thinking” curriculum that educates “for
life and citizenship” (Nazaryan, 2015), the significant moderation of social do-
main effects by age found in this study makes perfect sense. With school grade
promotion, teachers and curriculum materials increasingly confront students
with various real-life conflicts that may elicit in older students the kind of dif-
ferential justification and/or application in social behavior decisions, as social
domain theory predicts.
However, the data also point to group-level difference in that participants’
nationality played a very important role in children’s response to violations
and morality-conventionality distinctions. In fact, nationality alone accounted
for 40% of the variance in tolerance and 22% of the variance in punishment
expectancy. If on the one hand the overall sample could be described as con-
servative-moderate in matters of morality and conventionality, on the other
hand Brazilians were significantly less inclined to tolerate, and significantly
more prone to expect punishment for violations than their US American coun-
terparts. These findings corroborate the reviewed cultural psychological and
evolutionary cultural critique of social domain theory. Furthermore, Brazilian
children were significantly less inclined to differentiate between domains of vi-
olations than their US American peers. In contrast with the significant domain
differentiation pattern of US Americans, Brazilians indicated that convention-
al violations were not significantly more tolerable than moral violations, and
they expected about as much punishment for social-conventional violations
as for moral violations. Again, these findings resonate well with Nisan’s (1987)
data from Israel, Shweder et al.’s (1987) data from India, and Haidt et al.’s (1993)
earlier data with a Brazilian sample. However, in the present study the results
cannot be discounted on methodological or conceptual grounds (e.g., Turiel
et al., 1987) because the vignettes used were similar to those of previous US
studies, which allow for inter-group comparisons. A limitation to be noted,
though, is that intra-country potential difference in tolerance or punishment
was not tested. Future studies should examine that as well. The Brazilian cities
from which this study’s sample originated are bigger than the US city sampled
for comparison, but this would run against the hypotheses tested. Put another
way, the cultural psychological and evolutionary perspectives suggest that if
Brazilian children came from smaller, rural towns or villages, the cultural dif-
ferences would likely be even stronger.
All too often psychological science has used western concepts to draw uni-
versal conclusions on Homo Sapiens (Arnett, 2008). Norms from Western, ed-
ucated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (i.e., “w-e-i-r-d” people, Henrich,
Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010) samples are quickly transferred overseas not only
through Western-Eurocentric research in English (which soon gets translated

into other languages), but also through education, the Internet, social media,
or multinational industry. Consequently, many cultures have been pushed to
conform and look “weirder.” Concerning moral development in particular, so-
cial domain scholars have paid but minimal attention to culture-specific influ-
ence, whether reducing it to mere “form” and “content” of societal concepts
(e.g., Smetana, et al., 2014), or simply assuming that culture interacts with indi-
viduals but seldom interferes with their independent, autonomous moral deci-
sions, or with the free exercise of their rights (Turiel et al., 1987, pp. 234–235;
Wainryb & Recchia, 2014).
Despite the present data’s support to social domain generalizations be-
tween Brazil and the US in matters of tolerance and punishment expectancy,
we think that the limited role attributed to culture by social domain theory
falls short of explaining the significant differences between countries in this
study. First, as seen in Wainryb and Recchia (2014), social domain theory fails
to acknowledge that cultural differences do not logically deny within-culture
heterogeneity and dynamic conflicts among individuals in matters of jurisdic-
tion, justification, tolerance or consequences for social actions. Second, the
international differences in tolerance and punishment expectancy, and the
interaction of social domain by nationality found in the present study fit well
with a cultural and socio-historical explanation for group differences.
Culturally speaking, researchers (Carlo, et al., 2007) have noted hierarchi-
cal deference grounded in the Catholic faith, as well as familism and familial
interdependence (including extended family support) as strong qualities in
Brazilians and other Latin American groups. This familistic orientation often
spills over to school, as illustrated in children’s form of address to their teach-
ers as “tio” (uncle) or “tia” (auntie; cf. Saltztein, Dias, & Millery, 2004), suggest-
ing a specially affectionate deference to teachers that is unheard of in other
societies (Freire, 1998). This description fits well with the community morality
discussed by Shweder et al. (2003), according to which Brazilian students may
be perceiving their role as subordinate to, but at the same time affectionately
connected with, that of the teacher, with whom students feel compelled to co-
operate in the promotion of the common good. Such communal goals contrast
with US predominant goals of individual autonomy and choice, and the free
exercise of individual rights (Haidt et al., 1993; Shwartz, 2006). They may have
contributed to the more conservative answers of Brazilian than US American
participants, and also to conventionality scores significantly closer to those of
morality in the former than in the latter. Had qualitative data been collected
through an ethnographic investigation prior to, or in connection with, the
present study, we would have some interesting information about students’

reasons for what they deemed more or less tolerable or punishable in each
cultural context. Future studies should add such data.
Finally, socio-historical differences may have also influenced the Brazil-US
gap in social domain differentiation. Gabeira (2017) offers an elegant review
of Brazil’s dream of democracy built on populism after two decades under a
military regime. “Brazil: Love it, or leave it” was the Army generals’ slogan to
the people until the mid 1990’s. The goal was to expel rebels and revive patrio-
tism in young citizens, but as Gabeira suggests, those who (like himself) chose
to stay struggle to love a country that persists in a pattern of “lost illusions”
(p. 95). One disillusionment most relevant to the present discussion was the
Labor Party’s promise to bring ethics to Brazilian politics (after a civilian
President from another party had been impeached for serious corruption).
According to Gabeira, it reminisces George Orwell’s 1984 and its neologism.
From “bookkeeping 2” to “unaccounted resources,” Labor Party leaders invent-
ed a new rhetoric to justify using campaign funds to multiply their personal
wealth on the allegation that they were doing “good to the people” with so-
cial programs that infused millions of Reais into the lower and middle class.
The consequence could be no other than the nation’s economic implosion
and the fall of the Labor Party and impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff
on charges of “fiscal irresponsibility.” As a result of the investigation, several
leaders of powerful corporations were put behind bars, joined by giant poli-
ticians across political parties, including former President Lula da Silva. “For
the first time, the notion that the law is the same for all ceased to be a fiction
and became a real possibility,” Gabeira states (p. 114). Nevertheless, skeptics
(e.g., Singer, 2017) said that the “smell of pizza is in the air,” meaning that the
investigation of money laundering and bribery once again might end up with
a big feast for those in power and just another round of disillusionment for the
people who still dream of true democracy and justice in Brazil. In fact, a new
Supreme Court ruling set Lula da Silva free from prison recently, reducing his
prison time for corruption from 12 years to just 580 days (Phillips, 2019). As
of the writing of this report, a retired military officer, Jair Bolsonaro, has be-
come the new President of the country.
The Brazilian children in this study may be too young to comprehend the
full scope of these recent political, social, and economic events. However, they
no doubt are media consumers and observers of their parents, teachers and
others’ reactions to being lied to, stolen, and mistreated by their government
and corporation leaders. It is reasonable to ponder: As supporting protagonists
in this dream-abuse-disillusionment cycle, could Brazilians have succumbed
into a pattern of learned helplessness, or apathy, as observed in some societies

under corrupt authoritarian regimes (e.g., Nicaragua, Venezuela) or other

young democracies in Latin America (Arias, 2011)? Or alternatively, are they
reacting with a significantly stronger but less domain-differentiated zeal for
what is tolerable or punishable, as the data suggest? This study supports the
latter. The data show US American age mates as more discriminative and toler-
ant of social domains, with an autonomous moral orientation less conforming
to social conventions (Schwartz, 2006), as more typical of English-speaking
societies where, with rare exceptions, the rule of law is more consistently en-
forced, by comparison to Latin nations like Brazil, with an incipient, “tropical”
democracy (Gabeira, 2017).
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the mothers and children who volunteered to participate

in this study, to the school principals and directors who assisted with the re-
cruitment of participants, and to our students who helped with data collec-
tion. This study was in part funded by a grant from the Fundação de Amparo à
Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) to Deise Mendes.
An earlier version of this study was presented in a poster session at the 29th
Convention of the Association for Psychological Science in Boston, MA.
References
American Bar Association (n.d.). What is the rule of law? Retrieved from: https://
www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/features/Part1Dia
logueROL.authcheckdam.pdf.
Arias, O. (2011). Culture matters: The real obstacles to Latin American development.
Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 2–6.
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become
less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602.
Barber, II, W. (2020, January 31). The impeachment trial is a reminder: our democracy
is fragile. Civil rights activists already know that. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/31/impeachment-trial
-our-democracy-is-fragile-black-americans.
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011, June 28). The cultural niche: Why social
learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 108(2), 10918–10925.

Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. (2003, September 18). Monkeys reject unequal pay.
Nature, 425, 297–299. doi:10.1038/nature01963.
Carlo, G., Koller, S., Raffaelli, M., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2007). Culture-related strengths
among Latin American Families: A case study of Brazil. Faculty Publications, Depart-
ment of Child, Youth, and Family Studies, 64, 335–360. doi:10.1300/J002v41n03_06.
Choi, A. S. (2014, October 21). How cultures around the world make decisions. Ideas.
Ted.Com. Retrieved from: https://ideas.ted.com/how-cultures-around-the-world
-make-decisions/.
de Oliveira, E. A., Frizzo, G. B., & Marin, A. H. (2000). Atitudes maternas diferenciais
para com meninos e meninas de quatro e cinco anos. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica,
13, 363–371. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722000000300005.
Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., van der Pol, L. D., van Berkel, S. R., Hallers-Haalboom,
E. T., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Mesman, J. (2017). Gender Differences in Child
Aggression: Relations With Gender‐Differentiated Parenting and Parents’ Gender‐
Role Stereotypes. Child Development, 88, 299–316. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12589.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers. Boulder, CO: Westnew Press.
Gabeira, F. (2017). Democracia tropical: Caderno de um aprendiz [Tropical democracy:
A learner’s notebook]. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: GMT Editores.
Gelfand, M. J., et al. (2011, May 27). Differences between tight and loose cultures:
A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754.
Haidt, J., Koller, S., & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong
to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613.
Henrich, J., et al. (2010, March 19). Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution
of fairness and punishment. Science, 327, 1480–1484. Retrieved from: https://www
.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40544708.pdf.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3), 61–83. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X0999152X.
Kagan, J. (2018). Three unresolved issues in human morality. Perspectives on Psychologi-
cal Science, 13, 346–358.
Mandara, J., Murray, C. B., Telesford, J. M., Varner, F. A., & Richman, S. B. (2012).
Observed gender differences in African American mother – child relationships and
child behavior. Family Relations, 61, 129–141. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00688.x.
Midgette, A., Noh, J. Y., Lee, I. J., & Nucci, L. P. (2016). The development of children’s and
adolescents’ concepts of social convention. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47,
918–928. doi: 0.1177/0022022116655775.
Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1992). Culture and moral judgment: How are conflicts
between justice and interpersonal responsibilities resolved? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62(4), 541–554.

Milnitsky-Sapiro, C. (2005). Construção de valores sócio-morais na cultura e suas for-

mas de discriminação da adolescência. Simpósio Internacional do Adolescente. São
Paulo, 1, Scielo Proceedings online.
Mio, J. S., Barker-Hackett, L., & Tumambing, J. (2006). Multicultural psychology: Under-
standing our diverse communities. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Montanaro, L. (2019, July 26). Will Bolsonaro’s Free-Market Revolution Succeed? Forbes.
Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenzomontanari/2019/07/26/will
-bolsonaros-free-market-revolution-succeed/#49d24dd47f95.
Nazaryan, A. (2015, August 14). You’re 100 percent wrong about critical thinking.
Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/youre-100-percent-wrong
-about-critical-thinking-362334.
Nisan, M. (1987). Moral norms and social conventions: A cross-cultural comparison.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 719–725. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.719.
Nucci, L. P., & Nucci, M. S. (1982). Children’s Responses to Moral and Social Conventional
Transgressions in Free-Play Settings. Child Development, 53, 1337–1342.
Nucci, L., Turiel, E., & Encarnacion-Gawrych, G. E. (1983). Children’s social interactions
and social concepts in the Virgin Islands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14,
469–487.
Pariona, Amber. (2019, July 18). Average Income by Race and Gender – USA. Retrieved
from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/income-inequality-by-race-and-gender
-in-the-u-s.html.
Park, Y. S., & Kim, B. S. K. (2008). Asian and European American cultural values
and communication styles among Asian American and European American
college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 47–56.
doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47.
Pew Research Center (2013). The global Catholic population. Retrieved from: https://
www.pewforum.org/2013/02/13/the-global-catholic-population/.
Phillips, D. (2019, November 8). Brazil’s former president Lula walks free from pris-
on after Supreme Court ruling. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.the
guardian.com/world/2019/nov/08/lula-brazil-released-prison-supreme-court
-ruling.
Saltztein, H., Dias, M. da G., & Millery, M. (2004). Moral suggestibility: The complex
interaction of developmental, cultural and contextual factors. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 18, 1079–1096. doi:10.1002/acp.1077.
Schwartz, B. (2006). Cultural value orientations: Nature and implications of national
differences. Comparative Sociology, 5, 137–182. doi: 10.1163/156913306778667357.
Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. G. (1987). Culture and moral development.
In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 1–83).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shweder, R. A., N. Much, L. Park and M. M. Mahapatra (2003). “The ‘Big Three’ of
Morality (Autonomy, Community, Divinity) and the ‘Big Three’ Explanations of
Suffering.” Originally from “Morality and Health.” Allan Brandt and Paul Rozin
(eds). New York: Routledge, 1997. Reprinted in “Why Do Men Barbecue?: Recipes
for Cultural Psychology.” Shweder, R. A. Cambridge, MA: Havrard University Press.
Singer, A. (2017, July 8). O cheiro de pizza se espalha no ar. Folha de São Paulo.
Smetana, J. (1981). Preschool Children’s Conceptions of Moral and Social Rules. Child
Development, 52, 1333–1336. doi: 10.2307/1129527.
Smetana, J. (1985). Preschool children’s conceptions of transgressions: Effects of vary-
ing moral and conventional domain-related attributes. Developmental Psychology,
21, 18–29. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.21.1.18.
Smetana, J. G. (2013). Moral development: The social domain theory view. In P. D.
Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology. Vol. 1: Body and
mind (pp. 832–863). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Smetana, J. G., Toth, S. L., Cicchetti, D., Bruce, J., Kane, P., & Daddis, C. (1999).
Maltreated and nonmaltreated preschoolers’ conceptions of hypothetical and
actual moral transgressions. Developmental Psychology, 35, 269–281. doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.269.
Smetana, J. G., Jambon, M., & Ball, C. (2014). The social domain approach to children’s
moral and social judgments. In M. Killen and J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of
moral development (pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
Special Report (2019, December 5). Where do the Asian tiger economies go from
here? The Economist. Retrieved from: https://www.economist.com/special-report/
2019/12/05/where-do-the-asian-tiger-economies-go-from-here.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51, 407–415. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Turiel, E. (2008). Thought about actions in social domains: Morality, social-
conventions, and social interactions. Cognitive Development, 23, 136–154. doi: 10.1016/
j.cogdev.2007.04.001.
Turiel, E., Killen, M., & Helwig, C. C. (1987). Morality: Its structure, functions, and va-
garies. In J. Kagan and S. Lamb (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children
(pp. 155-243). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebel-
lious, more tolerant, less happy – and completely unprepared for adulthood. New York,
NY: Atria.
Vale, G. L., & Brosnan, S. F. (2017). Inequity aversion. In J. Vonk and T. K.
Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (pp. 1–12). doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1084-1.

Wainryb, C., & Recchia, H. (2014). Moral lives across cultures: Heteroneneity and
conflict. In M. Killen and J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development
(pp. 259–278). New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
World Bank (n.d.). The World Bank in Brazil. Retrieved from: https://www.worldbank
.org/en/country/brazil/overview.
Yau, J. & Smetana, J. (2003). Conceptions of Moral, Social-Conventional, and Personal
Events Among Chinese Preschoolers in Hong Kong. Child development, 74, 647–58.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00560.

JOCC 20 03-04 06-Oliveira

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOCC 20 03-04 06-Oliveira

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cognition and Culture 20 (2020) 283–304

Moral and Conventional Violations in Childhood:

Brazilian and US American children were compared for differences in tolerance

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/15685373-12340085