Children consider “who” and “what” when reasoning about rule changes: A comparative study of children from two cultures

Abstract

Children’s normative knowledge develops early. While prior studies focus on rule compliance and violation, only limited research explores children’s views on rule changes, especially in non-Western cultures. This study investigates how Chinese children aged 4–7 (N = 154) reason about rule changes, and compares their responses with US counterparts in the work of Zhao and Kushnir. Chinese children considered both “who” created the rules and “what” consequences the rule changes may bring about when judging changeability. For game rules, like US children, Chinese children considered both individual authority (including adult and peer authority) and collective agreement when judging who can change game rules. Compared to US children, Chinese children more often believe that the adult rule-maker’s child could also change the rule. Furthermore, although both Chinese and US children thought one could not change moral rules, Chinese children were less likely than US children to think one could change conventional rules. Exploratory analyses of children’s justifications suggest that Chinese children emphasize consequences more than US children when judging whether rules can be changed. This study offers valuable insights into the development of normative reasoning and cultural influences on children’s views on rule malleability.