How children and adults judge retaliation in socio-moral contexts

Our study examined how children and adults evaluate retaliatory transgressions, with particular attention to whether a retaliatory act matched or mismatched the domain of the initial provoking act. Children ages 4-9 and adults (n = 153) judged the seriousness and punish-worthiness of moral and conventional transgressions that were either unprovoked or retaliatory. Across ages, moral transgressions were judged as more serious and more deserving of punishment than conventional transgressions, and unprovoked acts were often judged more harshly than retaliatory ones. Adults were generally more lenient than children, although over-retaliations did not receive much leniency from any age group. Developmental differences emerged primarily in judgments of conventional transgressions, with younger children judging retaliatory acts more leniently than unprovoked acts, whereas older children and adults did not. These findings suggest that the role of provocation in moral judgment changes across development and depends on the relationship between the provoking and retaliatory acts. Participants also judged victims as feeling better after retaliating, with this pattern strongest among adults. Together, these findings suggest that judgments of retaliation are shaped by developmental and contextual considerations, while perceptions of retaliation as emotionally beneficial increase with age.