Using social domain theory to seek critical consciousness with young children

The question of ‘developmental appropriateness’ in education can be both empowering and inhibiting. When are students ‘ready’ to talk about social injustices and systemic inequalities? How might educators introduce social inequities using developmental findings about reasoning? This article presents social domain theory as a lens through which educators can approach critical consciousness education with young children. An overview of Freire’s critical consciousness construct is presented, including educational interventions, methods, and approaches that support critical consciousness. An overview of social domain theory is also presented. Social domain theory is a developmental theory of sociomoral reasoning that describes three domains of social knowledge that develop independently, and get applied/coordinated/prioritized differently in context by individuals. This theory, and the research stemming from it, has shown that there are developmental transition points during which children come to view their previous logic as inadequate, and are likely to shift their understandings of moral, conventional, and personal issues. A parallel is drawn between these transition points and the process of wrestling with and overturning ‘contradictions’ in critical consciousness education. Contradictions are theorized as dehumanizing power dynamics that show up in students’ everyday circumstances. This article provides tables outlining example contradictions for young children, key domain–related reasoning shifts for young children, and examples for how to create lesson plans that take these two factors into account. Finally, we propose a method of facilitating self-assessment of critical consciousness with young children. Self-reflection questions are provided for teachers and students.

Inconsistent Definitions of Bullying: A Need to Examine People’s Judgments and Reasoning about Bullying and Cyberbullying

Despite decades of research efforts, researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the definition of bullying. There are ambiguities around the conceptualization of bullying relating to the intent, harm, repetitions of an act, and power disparity in episodes of bullying. Practically, the lack of differentiation between bullying and playful teasing as well as between bullying and other types of aggression has made it difficult to accurately measure bullying and derive the prevalence rate. There has been scant attention to how people evaluate an intent, harm, repetitions of an act, and power disparity between bullies and targets. If bullying is a moral issue, it involves people’s moral judgments and cannot be understood solely by empirical descriptions of the behavior. In this paper, I considered how social domain theory can be applied to help understand people’s judgments about bullying behaviors, which, in turn, is helpful in improving our conceptualization of bullying.

Acceptance of Society-Level and Individual-Level Preventive Measures during the COVID-19 Pandemic among College Students in Three Societies

Drawing from social domain theory, this study examined people’s evaluation of society-level disease-prevention regulations (e.g., school closure) and personal precautions (e.g., wearing a facemask) during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, as assessed in Spring, 2020. Participants from three countries (United States [US], China, and Japan; N = 528) rated their acceptance of a range of society-level and individual-level preventive measures and then indicated their main reasons for these ratings, which were categorized as moral, societal, personal, and prudential based on social domain theory. Consistent with this theoretical framework, we found both similarities and differences across the three societies. Specifically, we found that, across the three societies, moral considerations predicted higher acceptance of society-level preventive measures, whereas personal considerations predicted lower acceptance of both society-level and individual-level preventive measures. However, a stronger link between societal considerations and higher acceptance of society-level preventive measures was found for Chinese participants than for US and Japanese participants.

The Influence of Power on U.S. and Chinese Individuals’ Judgments and Reasoning About Intrasocietal Conflicts

This study used a social domain theory framework to investigate Chinese and U.S. individuals’ evaluations of intrasocietal conflicts (defined as situations where some individuals’ rights clash with collective interests), and how those evaluations might be influenced by concepts of high versus low power. Undergraduate students in both the United States ( n = 92) and China ( n = 98) received either a high-power or a low-power prime and then evaluated (a) the acceptability of actions taken by different parties in hypothetical scenarios about intrasocietal conflicts, (b) moral and societal justifications for these actions, and (c) the appropriateness of actions by outside, third parties aimed at affirming individual rights. Results showed that moral justifications for individual actions were positively associated with pro-individual-rights judgments in both societies, regardless of power condition. In addition, U.S. individuals primed with high power and Chinese participants primed with low power showed lower support for third-party actions, based on societal concerns from the collective perspective. Chinese participants primed with high power also accepted collective actions based on moral and societal concerns. These results extend social domain theory by demonstrating how different power concepts affect the relative importance of moral versus societal concerns in individuals’ judgments, especially when evaluating third-party actions.

Moral responsibility, personal regulation, and helping others: A cultural approach to moral reasoning in U.S. evangelical Christian cultures

The way that people think about moral responsibility and personal freedom in their moral judgments is a complex issue that has been extensively theorized and researched from the perspective of Social Domain Theory. In this study, I offer a cultural reinterpretation of the Social Domain Theory of moral reasoning to examine how judgments about helping others are linked to cultural visions of morality and personal freedom within U.S. evangelical Christian religious cultures. Sixteen parent–child dyads from an evangelical Christian church produced conversations in response to hypothetical vignettes about helping others in need. Mixed quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed conceptions of personal freedom that prioritized personal regulation of self in line with standards for helping actions and desires determined by God, rather than personal determination of correct action and desire. Findings are interpreted and discussed in light of local conceptions of morality, self, and helping. I conclude by using these findings to illuminate the role of culture in constituting domains of social knowledge.