Introduction to Lee et al. (1997)

Have you ever been told that "honesty is the best policy"? In many Western cultures, we are taught from a young age that lying is wrong and telling the truth is right. But does everyone around the world think the same way? Lee et al. (1997) wanted to find out if the culture we grow up in changes how we judge lying and truth-telling.

This study is part of the Developmental Area and focuses on the key theme of Moral Development. It is the contemporary study, which builds on the classic research by Kohlberg (1968).

The Background: Why do this study?

Before this study, most research on moral development (like Kohlberg's) was done in Western, "individualist" cultures. These cultures value personal rights and being true to oneself. However, "collectivist" cultures, like China, value the group over the individual and emphasize modesty (not bragging about your good deeds).

Lee et al. wanted to see if Chinese and Canadian children would judge lying differently when the lie was told to cover up a good deed (pro-social behavior) versus a bad deed (anti-social behavior).

The Methodology

The Participants (The Sample)

The researchers compared two different groups of children:

  • Chinese Sample: 120 children from Hangzhou, China.
  • Canadian Sample: 108 children from Fredericton, Canada.

In both groups, the children were aged 7, 9, and 11 years old. This allowed researchers to see how moral thinking changes as children get older (a cross-sectional design).

The Research Method

This was a quasi-experiment because the Independent Variables (IVs)—the children's culture and age—already existed; the researchers didn't manipulate them.

What did the children do? (The Procedure)

Each child was told four types of stories. Imagine a character named "Alex":

  1. Pro-social / Truth-telling: Alex does something good (like picking up litter) and tells the teacher the truth when asked.
  2. Pro-social / Lie-telling: Alex does something good but lies to the teacher, saying they didn't do it (to be modest).
  3. Anti-social / Truth-telling: Alex does something bad (like pushing someone) and tells the truth about it.
  4. Anti-social / Lie-telling: Alex does something bad and lies about it to get out of trouble.

After each story, children rated the character's behavior on a 7-point scale, ranging from "very, very good" to "very, very naughty". These ratings were converted into a numerical score from \(+3\) to \(-3\) for analysis.

Quick Tip: Use the "Modesty vs. Bragging" analogy. In China, saying "I did it!" after a good deed can be seen as "bragging," which is frowned upon. This is called self-effacement.

Key Results: What did they find?

Agreement on "Bad" Things

Children from both cultures were very similar when it came to anti-social behaviors. Both Chinese and Canadian children rated:
- Anti-social lying as negative (naughty).
- Anti-social truth-telling as positive (good).

The Cultural Clash: Pro-social Behavior

This is where the results got interesting!
- Pro-social Truth-telling: Canadian children rated this very positively at all ages. However, as Chinese children got older, they rated telling the truth about a good deed less positively.
- Pro-social Lie-telling (The Modest Lie): Canadian children generally rated lying as negative, even if the character had done something good. Chinese children, however, changed as they got older. By age 11, Chinese children rated lying about a good deed positively.

Key Takeaway: For older Chinese children, lying is "good" if it prevents you from bragging about a good deed!

Conclusions

Lee et al. concluded that moral development is not just about aging; it is heavily influenced by culture.
1. Moral judgments are affected by the social and cultural norms we live in.
2. Chinese children are taught the value of self-effacement (modesty), which changes how they view truth-telling and lying as they grow up.

How it changes our understanding

Previously, Kohlberg suggested that moral development happened in universal stages that were the same for everyone. Lee et al. challenged this by showing that culture (nurture) plays a massive role. It changes our understanding of cultural diversity by showing that "honesty" isn't interpreted the same way in every country.

Comparing Lee to Kohlberg

  • Similarity: Both studies looked at how moral thinking changes over time (Developmental area).
  • Difference (Method): Kohlberg used artificial "moral dilemmas" (like the Heinz dilemma), whereas Lee et al. used stories that were more like everyday life for children (higher ecological validity).
  • Difference (Culture): Kohlberg’s theory was ethnocentric (centered on Western views), while Lee et al. was a cross-cultural study.

Strengths and Weaknesses

  • Strength: Reliability. The procedure was highly standardized. Every child heard the same stories and used the same 7-point scale.
  • Strength: Reduced Ethnocentrism. By comparing two very different cultures, the researchers avoided the "one-size-fits-all" trap of Western psychology.
  • Weakness: Quasi-Experiment. Because the researchers couldn't randomly assign children to be "Chinese" or "Canadian," they couldn't be 100% sure that culture was the only thing causing the difference in scores.

Quick Review Quiz

Q: Which culture rated pro-social lying positively by age 11?
A: The Chinese children.

Q: What is "self-effacement"?
A: The act of being modest and not taking credit for your own good deeds.

Q: How many points were on the rating scale used by the children?
A: 7 points (ranging from very, very good to very, very naughty).

Key Takeaway for Exams: If a question asks about the "Developmental Area," remember that Lee et al. shows how moral development is a mix of getting older (nature/maturation) and cultural environment (nurture/socialization).