12 Flashcards
Beginnings of Self-Control
Self-control emerges in infancy and gradually improves during the preschool years (Kopp, 1997; Li- Grining, 2007).
A rough chronology looks like this:
Atapproximately the first birthday, infants become aware that people impose demands on them and they must re- act accordingly. Infants learn that they are not entirely free to behave as they wish; instead, others set limits on what they can do. These limits reflect both concern for their safety (“Don’t touch! It’s hot”) as well as early socializa- tion efforts (“Don’t grab Ravisha’s toy”).
At about 2 years, toddlers have internalized some of the controls imposed by others and are capable of some self- control in parents’ absence. For example, although the boy
on the left in the photo certainly looks as if he wants to play with the toy that the other toddler has, so far he has inhibited his desire to grab the toy, perhaps because he remembers that his parents have told him not to take things from others.
At about 3 years, children become capable of self-regulation; they can devise ways to control their own behavior. To return to the example of a playmate’s in- teresting toy, children might tell themselves that they really don’t want to play with it, or they might turn to another activity that removes the temptation to grab it.
Self-control improves con- siderably between 2 and 3 years (but is still far from perfect). And the ability to control one’s behavior in the face of temptation is related to the ability to control one’s emotions.
In one study (Lemmon & Moore, 2007), 3-year-olds preferred to earn one sticker immediately instead of receiving five stickers later, at the end of the game. Ba- sically, these youngsters were not willing to delay gratification at all! In contrast, 4-year-olds were willing to wait for four or five stickers but not for two or three stick- ers. In another study (Rotenberg & Mayer, 1990), children and adolescents were of- fered the choice of a small piece of candy immediately or an entire bag of chips if they waited 1 day. About one-third of the 6- to 8-year-olds opted to wait for the chips. In contrast, half of the 9- to ll-year-olds and nearly all of the 12- to IS-year-olds waited a day for the chips. Thus, although self-control may be evident in toddlers, mastery occurs gradually throughout childhood.
Children who are less likely to touch prohibited toys are, according to their mothers’ reports, more likely to spontaneously confess to misdeeds at home and more likely to do as asked at home, without parental supervision
preschoolers’ self-control predicts outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood. For example, preschoolers who show the greatest self-control are, as adolescents, more attentive, have higher SAT scores, and are less likely to experiment with drugs and alcohol (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). What’s more, as young adults, they are better educated and have higher self-esteem
Preschool children who are better able to resist temptation often become adolescents who have better self-control, are more planful, and have higher SAT scores.
Influences on Self-Control
Research consistently links
greater self-control with a disciplinary style in which parents are
warm and loving but establish well-defined limits on what behavior is
acceptable
Self-control is enhanced when parents discuss disciplinary issues with their children instead of simply asserting their power as par- ents (e.g., “You’ll do it because I say so”).
Research also shows that children’s self-control is usually lower when parents are very strict with them (Donovan, Leavitt, & Walsh, 2000; Feldman & Wentzel, 1990).
- By constantly directing them to do one thing but not another, parents do not give their children either the opportunity or the incentive to internalize control
But parents aren’t the only important influence on children’s self-control; re- member, from Module 10.2, that temperament also matters. Emotional toddlers and preschoolers are less able to control themselves (Stifter, Spinrad, & Braungart-Rieker, 1999). That is, youngsters who have difficulty regulating their emotions usually have difficulty regulating their behavior.
Temperament also influences how children respond to parents’ efforts to teach self-control. In children, the aspect of temperament that’s most important for self- control is anxiety and fearfulness (Kochanska, 1991, 1993). Some anxious and fear- ful children become nervous at the prospect of potential wrongdoing. When told not to eat a cookie until after dinner, fearful children may leave the room because they’re afraid that otherwise they might give in to temptation. With these children, a simple parental reminder usually guarantees compliance because they are so anxious about not following instructions, getting caught, or having to confess to a misdeed
For children who are not naturally fearful at the thought of misdeeds, other ap- proaches are necessary. More effective with these children are positive appeals to the child to cooperate, appeals that build on the strong attachment relationship between parent and child. Fearless children comply with parental requests out of positive feel- ings for a loved one, not out of distress caused by fear of misdeeds
Improving Children’s Self-Control
effective ways to resist temptation include (a) reminding yourself of the importance of long-term goals over short-term temptations and (b) reducing the attraction of the tempting event.
During the preschool years, some youngsters begin to use both of these methods spontaneously. In an experiment by Mischel and Ebbesen (1970),3- to S-year-olds were asked to sit alone in a room for 15 minutes. If they waited the entire time, they would receive a desirable reward. Children could call the experimenter back to the room at any time by a prearranged signal; in this case they get a less desirable award
Some children talked to them- selves: “I’ve gotta wait to get the best prize!” As Vygotsky described (Module 6.2), these youngsters were using private speech to control their own behavior. Others, like the child in the photograph, sang. Still others invented games. All were effective tech-
niques for enduring 15 boring minutes to receive a desired prize.
Later studies show that children who have a concrete way of handling such a situation are far better able to resist temptation (Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman, 1996; Peake, Hebl, & Mischel, 2002). Effective plans include (a) reminders to avoid look- ing at the tempting object, (b) reminders of rules against touching a tempting object, and (c) activities designed to divert attention from the tempting object, such as play- ing with other objects. For example, in the vignette, Shirley could have helped Ryan make a plan to resist temptation. She might have told him, “When you feel like you want to eat some cake, tell yourself, ‘No cake until Mom gets home’ and go play in
your bedroom:’
Developing Self-Control
The ability to control one’s thoughts, behaviors, and emotions.
During infancy, requires assistance from caregivers
Effortful control: the inhibition of an action already under way
Mischel et al.’s marshmallow experiment (1 now vs. 2 later)
Children’s ability to delay gratification based on use of transcendence strategies
E.g., distracting self, verbalizing benefits of holding out for larger reward
Delayed gratification
High self-control associated with:
a) better interpersonal skills
b) more stable relationships
c) higher grades
A one-year-old can’t stop himself from making a fuss because he’s bored or tired; regulation requires parental intervention. As children become more independent, they gradually become capable of exerting effortful control to stop themselves from doing something. For example, suppose a four-year-old sees a desired treat on the counter! She really wants to eat a cookie, but she knows that her daddy told her not to take any cookies without asking, so she stops herself before opening the jar. As we saw in a previous slideshow on cognitive development, children will often verbalize these thoughts out loud to themselves, a process which Vygotsky called “private speech”.
Walter Mischel and colleagues have been testing people’s ability to delay gratification since the late 1960s. In the typical paradigm, children have a marshmallow or a small pile of M & Ms placed in front of them by the experimenter. The experimenter tells them she’s going to leave and come back in a while, and that the child can eat the marshmallow anytime while she’s gone, but if they wait until she comes back, she’ll give them a second marshmallow. If they eat the marshmallow while she’s gone, however, they won’t get the second one. The experimenter then leaves the room for a set period of time, in some cases as long as thirty minutes, and the behaviour of the child is monitored on camera. Watch a replication of this experiment at the link above.
I think if I did this test with Junior Mints, I would totally fail! Mischel found that the children who were able to successfully “pass” the marshmallow test tended to use “transcendence strategies,” such as distracting themselves by closing their eyes, and turning their bodies away from the marshmallow. In contrast, children who focus on the immediate sensory properties of the present marshmallow (e.g., picking it up and smelling or licking it), have more difficulty resisting it.
Mischel followed up with a sample of 4-year-olds who took the marshmallow test, in some cases until they were in their 30s. Interestingly, children who had demonstrated better self-control at age 4 were found to be more socially well-adjusted as adolescents and as young adults compared to their age-mates who had failed the marshmallow test. The researchers speculated that being able to exercise self-control helps children and adolescents stay focused on their schoolwork and get along well with their peers, perhaps being more readily able to restrain themselves from lashing out at others. We should note that this research is correlational, so it’s not clear that being able to delay gratification is the direct cause of these positive outcomes. Nonetheless, research using other measures of self-control has also shown that college students who have a good deal of self-control handle frustration better, have fewer problems with alcohol, are less likely to have emotional problems, earn higher grades, and have happier and more stable relationships.
Prosocial Behaviors
Voluntary actions intended to benefit others, such as sharing, helping, and showing compassion.
-Reasons may vary
All children are capable of performing prosocial behaviours; they vary in how often they engage in these behaviours, and in their reasons for doing so.
Is Prosociality Rooted in Human Nature?
Recent studies:
Children show understanding of fairness / unfairness, ability to empathize at very young age
E.g., Hamlin & Wynn (2011): infants show preference for helpful puppet over one who hinders others
Warneken & Tomasello (2006)
In several contexts, most 18-month-olds realized experimenter needed help and spontaneously helped him
Dunfield & Kuhlmeier (2010)
Toddlers more likely to help someone who has made effort to help them
Several recent experiments suggest that a child’s sense of morality and fairness is apparent at a very young age. Canadian developmental psychologist Kylie Hamlin designed a clever paradigm which measures infants’ preferences for dolls who act in either a helpful or harmful fashion toward another doll. Hamlin has found that the majority of infants, even those as young as four months old show a clear preference for the helpful puppets! At the link above, watch a demonstration of Hamlin’s research.
The use of puppets also serves to control for a variety of variables such as facial expressions and attractiveness, which are tough to control with humans. Infants may also see puppets as more representative of themselves.
Warneken and Tomasello placed 18-month-olds in a room with their parent and an adult experimenter. At various points in time, the experimenter appeared to have trouble reaching a goal. For example, at one point, he accidentally dropped a marker on the floor and tried unsuccessfully to reach it, and later he couldn’t put some magazines into a cabinet because the doors were closed. In their original study, 22 out of 24 infants helped the experimenter on at least one of the tasks, and many helped on several tasks. In doing so, the infants apparently understood that the experimenter needed help. (Watch a short feature on this research at the link above.)
Two additional details about the study are worth noting here. First, the experimenter never requested help from the infants, nor did he praise or reward the infants after they had helped. Second, for every task he needed help with, the experimenter created a similar situation in which he didn’t seem to have a problem. For example, rather than accidentally drop the marker on the floor and try to reach for it, he would sometimes intentionally throw the marker on the floor and not try to pick it up. In these situations, the infants rarely tried to pick up the marker and give it back to the experimenter.
Dunfield and Kuhlmeier also found that toddlers were just as likely to help someone who had tried to give them a toy and failed as someone who was successful in giving them the toy. In another test, two experimenters were successful in providing the toy to the toddler; however, one of the experimenters ignored the child while doing so. Seventy-five percent of the toddlers subsequently helped the experimenter who displayed positive feelings towards them rather than the one who acted indifferent towards them.
Prosocial Behaviours
Reasons may vary:
a) Altruistic (selfless) motives
-e.g., comforting another person who’s crying
(18 months – 2 years)
b) Selfish motives
E.g., sharing to get something in return
Empathy: The sharing of another person’s emotions and feelings.
Empathy can result in:
A) Personal Distress:
A self-focused emotional reaction to another person’s distress.
B) Sympathy:
Feelings of sorrow or concern for another.
More likely to lead to prosocial behavior
Strong influence of parents
Concern for child’s feelings —> empathy
Can model prosocial behaviour (e.g., charity)
Other studies with toddlers show that by 18-24 months old, when an adult in the lab displays sadness after appearing to hurt herself, or breaking a toy, most toddlers will come over and try to comfort her. This suggests that toddlers are able to recognize others’ emotions and experience empathy by this time. But other times pre-school children will only perform a helpful act if there’s something in it for themselves; for example, ”I’ll share my doll if you share yours,” or “I’ll let you play with my Lego if you’ll be my friend.”
In order to experience empathy, one first has to detect another person’s emotions, take that person’s perspective, then respond emotionally in a similar way. Very young children (aged 1.5 and under) are too egocentric to experience true empathy. But as self-awareness develops, children begin to empathize. As language develops, children rely more on words to console others, indicating a more reflective level of empathy.
Young children often experience personal distress upon witnessing the distress or misfortunes of another person. When a child focuses on trying to relieve his or her own distress or anxiety, rather than focusing on the person in need, he or she tends not to display acts of kindness or helpfulness. When empathy results in sympathy, however, a child is likely to console or provide help for the distressed individual. This happens more frequently as a child gets older, and his or her prefrontal cortex further develops.
Parenting profoundly influences empathy and sympathy. When parents are warm, encourage their children’s emotional expressiveness, and show a sensitive concern for their children’s feelings, their children, in turn, are likely to react in a concerned way to the distress of others. When parents are angry and highly punitive, children respond to parental hostility with high levels of personal distress, and this leads children to react to their peers’ unhappiness with fear and anger, rather than empathy or sympathy. Parents can also provide opportunities for children to show sympathetic concern through community service activities, such as donating old clothes or toys to charity. We will look more closely at parenting styles in the next chapter.
Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental View
A. Heteronomous morality (5-7 years)
Aka “Moral realism”
Respect for external authority
Rules absolute and must be strictly followed
B. Autonomous morality (8-10)
Aka “moral relativism”
Rules are flexible
Moral judgments freely chosen
Develop ideal reciprocity
–
Observed children sometimes alternate between two modes of reasoning
Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development had a major influence on the field of developmental psychology. Piaget also theorized about how a child’s reasoning about moral issues develops in conjunction with his or her cognitive development. The term heteronomous refers to being under the authority of another. Children in this stage view rules as handed down by authorities (e.g., parents, teachers, a higher religious being), as having a permanent existence, being unchangeable, and requiring strict obedience. This leads children to have unquestioning respect for rules and those who enforce them. For example, a child might believe that the rules of dodgeball cannot be changed – you couldn’t possibly play any other way than what the current rules state. And because of egocentrism, younger children think that all people view rules in the same way.
As children gradually develop more sophisticated ways of thinking about issues related to morality and justice, they shift from heteronomous to autonomous morality (a.k.a. moral relativism). During this stage, Piaget believed that children became less dependent on external rewards and punishments as they developed a personal sense of right and wrong.
Children come to see rules as flexible, socially-agreed upon principles that can be revised to suit the will of the majority. Intentions, rather than consequences should serve as the basis for judging the behaviour of others. So if at recess, one boy tries to throw a rock at another boy and misses him, he should be held just as responsible for his actions as a boy who actually hits another person.
Ideal reciprocity involves expressing the same concern for others as one would for oneself: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” as the Golden Rule states.
Piaget observed, however, that many children display both heteronomous and autonomous reasoning. For example, one day a nine-year-old girl might show sincere empathy for her friend who has suffered the loss of her beloved family’s pet, but the next day laugh at (rather than empathize with) a classmate who has fallen in the mud and ruined her favourite outfit. Later in the slideshow we’ll see that Lawrence Kohlberg regarded the different moral stages as invariant – a sequence of steps through which people everywhere move in a fixed order.
Kohlberg’s Theory
Presented boys (10, 13, 16) with moral dilemmas, then gave them “Moral Judgment Interview”
E.g., “Heinz dilemma” – see textbook
Less interested in respondent’s decision than in their underlying rationale; “thought structure”
A. Preconventional Level: Moral reasoning is based on external forces (reward & punishment)
Stage 1: Obedience to authority: believing that authority figures know what is right and wrong
Stage 2: Instrumental orientation: consists of looking out for one’s own needs.
B. Conventional Level: look to society’s norms for moral guidance
Stage 3: “good boy-good girl” orientation; people guided by aim of winning the approval of others.
Stage 4: social order morality; people believe that societal laws are for the good of all people.
C. Postconventional Level: morals based on a personal moral code.
- social contract: laws are good only as long as they benefit all group members.
- universal ethical principles: right and wrong defined by self-chosen ethical principles (e.g., justice, compassion, and equality).
Piaget believed that children’s moral development was pretty much complete by the age of ten. Lawrence Kohlberg did not believe this to be the case. Kohlberg ran a longitudinal study with a set of 10-, 13-, and 16-year-old boys, in which he presented them with a series of moral dilemmas. He followed up with the participants over the course of the next 20 years, re-interviewing them every three or four years. Analyzing age-related changes in the boys’ moral judgments, Kohlberg generated his six-stage theory of moral development.
The most well-known dilemma that Kohlberg created, known as the “Heinz dilemma,” involved a man named Heinz whose wife is dying of cancer. There is a drug that could be used to treat her, but Heinz is unable to afford it, and he is faced with the dilemma of whether he should steal the drug from the local chemist. (See your textbook for the full description.) What Kohlberg was most interested in was the rationale that his participants used to justify their beliefs about whether or not Heinz should steal the drug and save his wife’s life. The decisions in and of themselves weren’t that important because people at different levels of moral reasoning might arrive at the same decision, but have very different rationales for it.
Kohlberg’s theory is organized into three levels, with each level comprised of two stages. At the preconventional level, morality is external to the person, defined completely by the law and other authority figures (e.g., parents, teachers). Behaviours that result in punishment are viewed as bad; those that lead to rewards are viewed as good.
At Stage 1, the goodness or badness of an act depends on its consequences. An individual reasoning at Stage 1 might say that Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because stealing is bad, the police will catch him, and he’ll go to jail; or Heinz should steal the drug because it’s only a small theft (the drug is valued at $200) and it’s unlikely he’d get caught. Most young children reason at this level, but Kohlberg found that even some adolescents and adults never progressed beyond Stage 1.
At Stage 2, people view the right action as flowing from self-interest and base actions on the principle of reciprocity: you do this for me, and I’ll do something for you. Someone reasoning at this stage might say that Heinz should steal the drug because the druggist tried to rip him off and if he saves his wife, she’ll probably do something nice for him in return. Alternatively, one might say that Heinz shouldn’t steal because the druggist is just looking out for his own interest; he’s in business to make money, and he doesn’t owe Heinz any favours.
At the conventional level of morality, individuals continue to regard conformity to social rules as important, but not for reasons of self-interest. Rather, they believe that actively maintaining the current social system ensures positive human relationships and social order.
At Stage 3, a person’s actions are largely determined by other people’s expectations (social praise and avoidance of blame have replaced reward and punishment as motivators of ethical conduct). Someone reasoning at this level might argue that Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because it will make him look dishonest in the eyes of others – everyone will think he’s a criminal. Or one might argue that he should steal it because other people would think he’s noble for trying to save his wife’s life.
At Stage 4, an individual takes into account a broader perspective when making moral judgments, also considering societal laws; each member of society has a personal duty to uphold the rules of society. A person reasoning at this stage might say that it’s admirable for Heinz to want to save his wife’s life, but he shouldn’t steal the drug because it’s illegal, and no one is above the law. Alternatively, one might argue that Heinz should steal the drug to live up to his wedding vow of protecting his spouse; however, if he does steal the drug, he should eventually pay back the druggist, and face the consequences of breaking the law.
Kohlberg found that the majority of adults reasoned at one of the stages of the conventional level.
Individuals in a postconventional stage move beyond unquestioning support for the rules and laws of society, coming to define morality in terms of abstract principles and values that transcend the laws of society. Laws are seen as invalid if they compromise human rights or dignity.
A person reasoning at Stage 5 might say that societal laws dictate that it’s illegal to break into a store and steal another’s property, but Heinz should steal the drug because in this case, the law about property rights no longer benefits individuals’ welfare; the law wasn’t meant to violate a person’s right to life. Alternatively, one might argue that Heinz wouldn’t be completely wrong to steal the drug, but the ends don’t justify the means – he has an obligation to follow the agreed upon laws of society.
At the highest level of moral reasoning (Stage 6), an individual defines right and wrong based on a personal code of morality or moral system, which transcends any law or social contract that may conflict with it. Heinz should steal the drug because it doesn’t make sense to put respect for property above respect for life itself; every human being has worth and dignity, and people have a mutual duty to save one another from dying.
Kohlberg later decided that only a few human beings had ever reached Stage 6 (for example, Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and individuals who sacrificed their lives opposing Adolf Hitler). The average Joe or Jane couldn’t live up to these expectations; Stage 6 was only theoretical.
Support for Kohlberg’s Theory
Longitudinal studies show that people rarely skip stages or regress
Research demonstrates links between levels of moral reasoning and moral action.
Higher levels: fighting for causes and following beliefs.
Lower levels: associated with delinquency.
Kohlberg believed that people progress through the stages in only the order listed, and several longitudinal studies confirm this belief. After a person reaches Stage 3 or 4, it is extremely rare that they would go back to less mature forms of reasoning. Other research suggests that adolescents and adults who reason at higher levels are more likely than those at lower levels to be involved in activism, such as protesting for social reforms. By contrast, youth who engage in delinquent behaviour are more likely to emphasize punishment and reward when assessing the morality of actions, rather than considering social norms or personal moral codes.
Beyond Kohlberg: Cultural Differences?
Kohlberg’s theory emphasizes individual rights and justice, reflecting Western values.
Many non-Western cultures place good of group above individual rights
Gilligan argues that the emphasis on justice is more applicable to men than women
Women: oriented to morality of care
However, research does not support consistent sex differences in moral judgments
Some have criticized Kohlberg’s theory as biased against people who live in non-Western societies who don’t place as high a value on individualism. Many Eastern cultures put caring for others and familial obligations above individual rights. As a result, Kohlberg would classify people from China and India as reasoning at the conventional level when, in fact, they are using more sophisticated moral reasoning according to their cultural standards.
In recent times, instead of using a scenario like the Heinz dilemma, many researchers who study moral development will ask children more direct questions, along the lines of “How important is it for a person (without losing his or her own life) to save the life of a friend?” Gibbs et al. (2007) report that children from countries all over the world (including Bahrain, Canada, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Kenya, just to name a few!) share common basic values and progress through the same stages of moral development, which supports Kohlberg’s claim that moral judgments become increasingly sophisticated over time across diverse cultural groups.
One of the strongest criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory came from Carol Gilligan. Gilligan argued that the theories offered by Piaget and Kohlberg reflected masculine concern with individuation, and ignored feminine concern with interpersonal relations and ethics of compassion, care, and responsibility to others. According to Gilligan, a concern for others is a different, but no less valid basis for moral judgment than a focus on individual rights. Subsequent research has found that women and men view both justice- and caring-related attributes as central issues of morality, rather than predominantly viewing morality through just one of these lenses.
Eisenberg’s Levels of Prosocial Reasoning
Eisenberg: Dilemmas did not reflect issues that children think about in their daily lives
Self-Interest vs. Helping Others.
Stage 1: hedonistic orientation.
Pursue their own pleasure.
Stage 2: approval-focused orientation.
Behave as society expects people to behave.
Stage 3: empathic orientation.
Consider others’ perspective and how actions will make them feel.
Another criticism of Kohlberg’s theory, put forth by Nancy Eisenberg, was that the dilemmas that Kohlberg presented to children (including the Heinz dilemma discussed earlier) were unrealistic – how often do children face scenarios analogous to Heinz’s? Eisenberg pointed out that children’s dilemmas usually involve self-interest versus helping others, and she devised her own stage theory based on children’s responses to more realistic scenarios.
To illustrate Eisenberg’s theory, let’s say there was a scenario in which a child had injured herself on the playground and was in need of help. A child reasoning at Stage 1 might decide to provide help for a purely selfish reason: “I should help her because she might help me in the future.” A child reasoning at State 2 might help because he wishes to adhere to the societal norm that one should help others who are in need of help. Finally, a child reasoning at Stage 3 would provide help for more other-oriented reasons: “She would be in pain, so I’d feel bad if I didn’t help her.”
Like Kohlberg, Eisenberg’s theory proposes a shift from self-centred thinking to reasoning based on social norms and moral principles. And like Gilligan, Eisenberg emphasizes that caring for others is an important element in moral reasoning.
Social Domain View
3 types of rules
A) Moral rules
E.g., you shouldn’t hit others; it’s wrong to steal
B) Social conventions
E.g., you should give up your seat on the bus to a frail person
E.g., “No shirt, no shoes, no service
C) Personal sphere rules
Often arbitrary – open to individual taste
E.g., what to wear to school
E.g., hairstyles; tattoos
Children consistently judge moral violations as more wrong than violations of social conventions
Pattern of reasoning within each domain shifts from concrete to abstract
8-10 yr. olds taken into account context and person’s intentions when making moral judgments
E.g., flag burning
According to the Social Domain view, there are three types of rules, that range from absolute to culture-specific, to more a matter of personal opinion. Moral rules mostly apply to actions that involve physical or psychological harm, such as “It’s wrong to hit other people,” or “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Adherence to these moral imperatives protect people’s rights and welfare.
Social conventions refer to social norms, which are important for ensuring smooth interactions within a society. Examples of social convention include holding the door open for others, saying please and thank you, and leaving a tip for the server at a restaurant. People who make infractions of these conventions aren’t usually breaking any formal laws, but they might be thought of negatively by others if they repeatedly violate social conventions.
Personal sphere rules are norms that apply to specific groups within a larger society. They often involve matters of personal preference. For example, parents and children often have very different tastes in fashion, and different ideas of what’s appropriate to wear. Perhaps when you were younger, your mom or dad said to you at some point “You can’t leave the house dressed like that!” (In the 1960s, my father-in-law once got sent home from school for wearing a pair of colourful psychedelic pants that his teacher deemed too risqué!)
The border between what’s a social convention and what’s a personal sphere rule is often quite blurry, and varies a lot between cultures. For instance, consider dress norms between mainstream North American culture and traditional Amish culture.
As evidence for the Social Domain view, children view moral violations such as stealing money from a parent’s wallet as being more wrong than a violation of a social convention, such as eating ice cream with one’s fingers. Children also indicate that moral transgressions would still be wrong if authority figures (parents or teachers) did not observe them and if no rules existed to prohibit them.
At first, children are unquestioning of rules, even if there isn’t a clear justification for the rule, and think of them in absolute terms. If a teacher says lying is wrong, younger children (aged 5 or 6) would say that it’s always wrong to lie, even when a person might have a morally sound reason for doing so (for example, to avoid hurting another person’s feelings). This type of reasoning is analogous to Piaget’s heteronomous stage and Kohlberg’s preconventional stage.
Older children (aged 8 to 10) are able to realize that people’s intentions and the context of their actions need to be considered when judging a moral transgression, or a violation of social conventions. For example, a person who burns a flag intentionally should be condemned more than a person who accidentally burns a flag, as the first person is intending to inflict emotional harm upon others. And a person who burns a flag in public deserves more condemnation than a person who burns a flag in private. But they would also recognize that burning a flag is a form of freedom of expression, and that it might be acceptable in the context of a demonstration in a country that is treating its citizens unfairly. This type of reasoning corresponds with Piaget’s autonomous stage and Kohlberg’s conventional stage.
Influences on Moral Reasoning
- Parenting styles
Authoritative leads to higher-level reasoning - Schooling
Moral reasoning advances as long as person stays in school - Peer Interaction
Fosters awareness of other’s perspectives
We already saw that culture has an influence on moral reasoning, but there are several other important influences as well. It’s been found that children who gain the most in moral understanding are those whose parents engage in moral discussions, encourage prosocial behaviour, insist that others be treated respectfully, and create a supportive atmosphere by listening sensitively and presenting higher-level reasoning. In contrast, when parents lecture, make threats, or sarcastic comments, children show little or no change in moral reasoning over time.
School is an important influence as well. If a child drops out of high school, their moral reasoning usually doesn’t advance beyond whatever level the child has so far achieved. You are all benefitting in terms of your moral development by attending university! Higher education introduces young people to social issues (many of which we’ve come across and discussed in this class) that extend beyond personal relationships to societal, cultural, and political issues.
Research supports Piaget’s belief that interaction among peers who confront one another with differing viewpoints promotes moral understanding. Interaction with peers contributes to moral development by making young people more aware of other’s perspectives. I can still remember conversations I had with friends when I was in my early 20s that made me more accepting of others’ differences.
Summary
Research supports idea that babies have inborn prosocial tendencies (and antisocial ones as well – read Section 12.4 in your textbook)
Numerous environmental factors interact with predispositions to influence children’s expressions of helpful vs. harmful behaviour
Multiple theories aim to explain children’s moral development, with a common theme that moral reasoning becomes more sophisticated and other-oriented with age
