Abstract
Abstract
Across 4 experimental studies (N = 526), we investigated whether children judge victims along 2 fundamental dimensions of social cognition, morality and agency/competence, and whether attributions of blame moderate these evaluations. Young children (4–6 years; White, mixed socioeconomic backgrounds; mid-sized European city; data collected 2023–2025) observed puppet-based scenarios depicting moral transgressions, accidents, or control situations. Results consistently showed that children judged victims as more moral than non-victims, replicating the “virtuous victim” effect. However, victims were consistently rated as less competent and systematically avoided as social partners, revealing an early-emerging dissociation between moral regard and affiliative preference. Critically, we found that the relationship between blame attribution and character evaluation is context-dependent: blame functions as a cognitive heuristic when behavioral information is ambiguous (Study 2) but is overridden by objective behavioral cues when available (Study 3). Manipulating victim responsibility (Study 4) confirmed that perceived negligence increases blame while decreasing moral evaluations, yet preserves competence ratings. These findings provide the first developmental test of moral typecasting theory and introduce the Contingent Moral Typecasting Model, which posits that victim perception follows a responsibility-driven continuum from “ideal victim” (high morality, low agency) to “culpable victim” (diminished morality, elevated agency).