The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) sets out a child’s rights to nurturance and self-determination. Nurturance rights constitute a child’s right to protection and provision, afforded through authority figures (Helwig et al., 2014). Self-determination rights pertain to children’s autonomy and ability to make age-appropriate decisions concerning their lives (Ruck & Horn, 2008). The near universal ratification of the UNCRC suggests global willingness to protect the rights of children. Advocacy for child rights is dependent on how rights are understood by children as rights holders and adults as duty bearers. Children and adults consider multiple factors when evaluating children’s rights. However, little work has explored the factors that predict children’s endorsements of their rights. In addition, no work has investigated reasoning and endorsement of children’s rights in the context of culturally diverse societies not determined by migration. This thesis aims to address these gaps investigating reasoning, endorsements, predictors, and extending rights to others.

Chapter 2 (Studies 1 and 2) investigated endorsements and predictors of endorsements in children from five European countries (Study 1; Bulgaria, Italy, Norway, Romania, and Spain) and one African country (Study 2; Nigeria). European children (7 – 11 years; n = 289) and Nigerian children (7 – 14 years; n = 84), endorsed nurturance rights over self-determination rights. Extending research, democratic competences (valuing cultural diversity, cultural openness, civic mindedness, and empathy) contributed to rights endorsements, with valuing cultural diversity being the most significant predictor in both samples. Chapter 3 (Study 3) explored Nigerian adolescents’ (13 – 17 years; n = 16) reasoning about the rights of Christian and Muslim children. Adolescents demonstrated a multifaceted approach to reasoning about children’s rights. Moral, social-conventional, and psychological domains of reasoning were used to evaluate rights. However, social-conventional reasoning was employed the most when considering self-determination and nurturance rights, religious and secular rights, and the rights of both Christian and Muslim children. Chapter 4 (Studies 4 and 5) investigated Nigerian Christian and Muslim young adults’ (Study 4) and parents’ (Study 5) endorsements and reasoning about the rights of Christian and Muslim children. Among young adults (18 – 25 years; n = 104) and parents (n = 247), rights were not endorsed more for a religious ingroup member than a religious outgroup member. However, adults prioritised children’s nurturance rights over self-determination rights, religious rights over secular rights, and rights for Muslim characters over rights for Christian characters. Adults employed multifaceted reasoning about children’s rights, considering moral, social-conventional (Studies 4 and 5), outcomes and practical solution based (Study 5) reasoning. The type of reasoning employed was influenced by the religious or secular nature of nurturance and self-determination rights, the religious identity of the character being evaluated, and the religious identity of participants. Like Nigerian adolescents in Chapter 3, Nigerian adults employed social-conventional reasoning most when evaluating children’s rights.

In summary, findings from this thesis demonstrate that children, adolescents, young adults, and parents coordinate multiple factors including social identities to bear on the evaluation of children’s rights. These evaluations are also influenced by contextual factors relevant to an individual’s societal context. Thus, the findings may suggest the importance of considering societal context and the nature of cultural diversity in efforts for the global implementation of children’s rights.