Moms know best?: Children's evaluations of mothers' unfair responses to peer conflicts

Research on children's evaluations of parental discipline or parental responses to peer conflicts has focused on parents' responses to hypothetical or actual child behavior. These parent behaviors are typically depicted as fair, reasonable, and appropriate, but what if they are not? In daily life, parents do sometimes act unfairly, or children evaluate parents' responses as such. This study examined 90 4.5- to 10-year-old U.S. middle-class children's (M_age = 7.42 years, SD = 1.70) evaluations of four scenarios describing hypothetical mothers' unfair responses to peer conflicts (unjustified stealing; intentional harm; accidental harm; ambiguous harm). Across ages, children overwhelmingly judged mothers' directives, particularly regarding a straightforwardly immoral demand (unjustified stealing), as wrong and very unfair, based primarily on moral justifications or coordinated justifications involving recognition of different competing moral (or moral and nonmoral) concerns. With age, children increasingly viewed directives to retaliate for intended harm as more fair and those regarding ambiguous harm as more unfair; justifications recognizing different concerns also increased with age, although more for retaliation for accidental and intended harm than for other situations. Children largely endorsed disobedience and attributed negative emotions to actors who were described as complying. Thus, children prioritized moral concerns over obedience to authority when mothers asserted authority unfairly, although their responses showed variability with age and the situational context.