Contemporary study: Lee et al. (1997), Cultural differences in children's moral evaluations of lying and truth-telling. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the developmental area and Kohlberg.

A description item testing method and results (AO1).

Method: a cross-cultural study comparing 120 Chinese and 108 Canadian children, in three age groups (about 7, 9 and 11 years). Children heard four short stories: two pro-social, in which a child did a good deed (such as a good action) and then either lied or told the truth about it, and two anti-social, in which a child did a bad deed and then either lied or told the truth about it. After each story, children rated the central character's deed and their statement (whether lying or telling the truth) as good or naughty using a seven-point chart.

Results: both groups rated truth-telling in anti-social situations positively and lying about a misdeed negatively, showing a shared baseline morality. The key difference was in pro-social situations: Chinese children increasingly rated lying about a good deed (modesty) positively with age, while Canadian children continued to rate such lies negatively, valuing honesty. The cultural difference grew with age.

Markers reward the cross-cultural design, the four pro-social and anti-social stories with the rating chart, the shared evaluation of anti-social lies, and the growing cultural difference over modest lies.

Tests interpretation plus evaluation (AO1 and AO3).

What it tells us: while some moral evaluations are shared (lying about a misdeed is judged negatively in both cultures), others are shaped by culture. Chinese children, raised in a collectivist culture that values modesty and self-effacement, increasingly approved of lying to downplay a good deed, whereas Canadian children, in a more individualist culture valuing honesty, did not. The widening difference with age suggests moral evaluation is partly learned through cultural socialisation, challenging the idea of a fully universal moral sequence.

Strengths: a large cross-cultural sample improves generalisability; standardised stories and a child-friendly rating chart give a controlled, replicable measure; and the age comparison reveals developmental change.

Weaknesses: the hypothetical stories may not reflect real moral behaviour; the rating chart simplifies complex moral judgement; and translation or cultural interpretation of the stories could introduce bias.

A strong answer concludes that culture clearly shapes some moral evaluations, qualifying universal stage theories, but the artificial stories limit how far it predicts real conduct. Markers reward the culture and development points plus balanced evaluation.