chapter 12: moral understanding & behaviour Flashcards
developing self control
- the ability to control ones thoughts, behaviours and emotions
- during infancy, requires assistance from caregivers
- effortful control: inhibition of an action already under way
- parental intervention
walter mischel and colleagues marshmallow experiment
has marshmallows then leaves the room and tells them not to eat it, sees if they do
- childrens ability to delay gratification based on the use of transcendence strategies
(distracting themselves, verbalizing benefits of holding out for larger reward)
high self control is associated with
- better interpersonal skills
- more stable relationships
- higher grades
- stable relationships
- fewer problems with alcohol
prosocial behaviour
voluntary actions intended to benefit others, such as sharing, helping and showing compassion
hamlin and wynn (2011) study
infants show preference for helpful puppet over one who hinders others
- infants see the puppets as more representative of themselves
warneken and tomasello (2006) study
most 18 month olds realized experimenter needed help and spontaneously helped him
- experimenter never asked for help
dunfield and kuhlmeier (2010)
toddlers more likely to help someone who displayed positive feelings toward them and has made an effort to help them
prosocial behaviours (2 reasons)
- altruistic (selfless) motives
- comforting another person who is crying
- 18 mo - 2 years - selfish motives
- sharing to get something in return
“ill share my doll if you share yours”
empathy and 2 results
empathy: the sharing of another persons emotions and feelings
result in:
- personal distress
- a self focused emotional reaction to another persons distress - sympathy
- feelings of sorrow or concern for another
- more likely to lead to pro social behaviour
parental influence on prosocial behaviours
- strong influence of parents
- when parents are warm, encourage emotional expressiveness, aware of feelings = empathy
- personal distress from parental hostility, being highly punitive
community activities such as: donations, charity lead to empathy
piaget cognitive developmental view - heteronomous morality
heteronomous morality (5-7 yrs)
- being under the authority of another
- view rules as handed down by authorities
- permanent existence
- being unchangeable
- leads children to have unquestioning respect for rules and those who enforce them
piaget cognitive developmental view - autonomous morality
autonomous morality (8-10)
- aka moral relativism
- less dependent on external rewards and punishments as they developed a personal sense of right and wrong
- rules are flexible
- moral judgements are freely chosen
piaget believed that children display both:
heteronomous and autonomous reasoning
- alternate bw 2 modes of reasoning
kohlbergs theory
- presented boys (10,13,16) with moral dilemmas, then gave them a moral judgment interview
“heinz dilemma” - moral reasoning of stealing a drug to cure wifes cancer due to not being able to afford
- less interested in respondents decision than in their underlying rationale; “`thought structure”
kohlbergs theory - level 1
- preconventional level
- moral reasoning is based on external forces (reward and punishment)
stage 1: obedience to authority
- believing that authority figures know what is right and wrong
- should not steal the drug bc police will catch him or jail, should steal drug bc only small theft and unlikley to get caught
stage 2: instrumental orientation:
- consists of looking out for ones own needs
- should steal drug bc druggist tried to rip him off and if he saves wife life she will do smth nice in return
kohlbergs theory - level 2
conventional level
- look to society norms for moral guidance
stage 3: “good boy, good girl” orientation
- people guided by aim of winning approval of others/expectations
- should not steal drug bc make him look dishonest in eyes of others
stage 4: social order morality
- people believe that societal laws are for the good of all people
- should not steal drug bc its illegal and no one is above the law
kohlbergs theory - level 3
postconventional level
- morals based on personal moral code
- laws are seen as invalid if they compromise human rights or dignity
stage 5: social contract
- laws are good only as long as they benefit all group members
stage 6: universal ethical principles
- highest level of moral reasoning
- right and wrong defined by self chosen ethical principles (e.g. justice, compassion and equality)
- should steal drug bc doesnt make sense to put respect for property over respect for life itself
support for kohlbergs theory
- studies show that people rarely skip stages or regress
- research demonstrates links between levels of moral reasoning and moral action
- 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
higher level: fighting for causes and following beliefs
lower levels: associated with deliquency
cultural differences in kohlberg
- reflects western values that emphasize individual rights and justice
- ex. china and india would use more sophisticated moral reasoning according to cultural standards
- use more direct questions, found that children responses in numerous cultures reflect increasingly sophisticated moral judgements
gender differences in kohlberg
- gilligan argues that the emphasis on justice is more applicable to men than women
- reflected masculine concern with individuation, and ignored feminine concern with interpersonal relations and ethics of compassion, care, and responsibility to others
women: oriented to mroality of care
eisenbergs levels of prosocial reasoning
- said that the heinz situation was unrealistic
- children’s dilemmas usually involve self-interest versus helping others
dilemas did not reflect issues that children think about in their daily lives
Eisenberg’s Levels of Prosocial Reasoning
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
social domain view - 3 types of rules
Moral rules mostly apply to actions that involve physical or psychological harm
- children consistently judge moral violations as more wrong than violations of social conventions
- moral rules
“you should not hit others” - social conventions
- you should give up your seat on the bus to a frail person - personal sphere rules
- norms that apply to a specifc group within a larger society
- matters of personal preference
- ex. what to wear to school
Pattern of reasoning within each social domain shifts from
concrete to abstract
- 8-10 year olds taken into account context and persons intentions when making moral judgements
influences on moral reasoning
- parenting styles
- authoritative leads to a higher level reasoning
- create supportive atmosphere, encourage prosocial behaviour - schooling
- moral reasoning advances as long as a person stays in school
- higher education is better - peer interaction
- fosters awareness of others perspectives
