Abstract

In a sample of 36 dyads, this study investigated mothers’ and their 6-7-year-old children’s blaming strategies when engaged in conversations about the children’s peer conflicts. Each dyad discussed two conflicts in which the child was hurt, one to which they felt they contributed (shared fault) and the other in which they felt they did not contribute to the conflict (no fault). We specifically examined: (1) how conversations about the two events differed in terms of maximizing and mitigating blame attributions across three contexts (the peer’s harm against the child, child’s harm to the peer, and the child’s self-protection from harm) (2) variations between mothers and children’s maximizing and mitigating blame strategies (3) the specific dimensions that mothers and children considered in making blame attributions. Results revealed that families maximized responsibility more in the no fault conversations in the context of harm to the child and self-protection from harm, whereas they maximized blame concerning the child’s harm to his/her peer more in the shared fault conversations. Comparing mothers and children, findings indicated that mothers maximized blame more in self-protection contexts, whereas children maximized blame for the peers’ harm to child and mitigated responsibility across all contexts. Regarding dimensions of blame attribution, avoidability and consequences of harm were used most often by families. Mothers referenced avoidability and act evaluations most frequently whereas children more often discussed presence of harmful acts and subsequent responses to one’s own harm. Findings suggest that maternal socialization of blame is context-sensitive as mother-child dyads are listening to and largely agreeing with each other. Mothers’ emphasis on self-protection raises questions about parental concerns for children’s responsibility and agency in the context of victimization. Implications for children’s moral development are discussed.