Why do children comply with parental restrictions in the personal domain?

Abstract

Numerous studies have shown that children judge some issues as personal and up to them to decide, yet they often comply with parental restrictions regarding these choices. The current study investigated children’s judgments and justifications in response to stories where hypothetical mothers prohibited children’s personal choices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 123 U.S. children (56 male) ranging from 5 to 9 years of age (M = 6.80 years). Responses were examined as a function of age, type of domain explanation, and whether punishment was specified or not. Across ages, and when presented initially without a prohibition, children judged personal activities as acceptable and wrong for the hypothetical mother to prohibit, based mainly on personal reasons. However, when mothers were described as giving prudential or social–conventional explanations for restricting children’s choices, most children reported that the actor should comply regardless of domain condition. Children rated prudential explanations as more acceptable than conventional explanations, provided mostly domain-consistent justifications for their judgments, and attributed more negative emotions to being unable to pursue personal choices in the conventional condition than in the prudential condition. In addition, justifications but not judgments varied by punishment condition in interaction with maternal explanation domain. Children also believed that they themselves should comply with maternal prohibitions more than the hypothetical story actor should. Thus, although prototypical issues were viewed as personal, children across middle childhood thought that children should and would comply when mothers provide explanations for maternal prohibitions and more so for prudential explanations than for conventional explanations.