Chapter 14 Flashcards
Piaget’s Theory of Moral judgement
Believed that children’s moral development and reasoning start out rigid. Kids don’t question whether things are right or wrong. They take rules at face value. Later realize that rules are subjective and can be modified
Kids play with ideas of morality better with peers than parents because everyone is equal
Piaget describes how children’s moral reasoning changes from a rigid acceptance of the dictates and rules of authorities to an appreciation that moral rules are a product of social interaction and are therefore modifiable.
Piaget believed that interactions with peers, more than adult influence, account for advances in children’s moral reasoning.
who’s naughtier
2 stages
Piaget’s theory of moral judgement: 2 stages- heteronomous
Under age of 7, still in preoperational stage
Believe that outcome is the most important factor. Intention doesn’t matter
There is only right or wrong, no grey area, determined by authorities
Accept punishment because authority figure says that the punishment is correct for bad thing. Power imbalance
Won’t question punishment
Think rules are tangible things. Rules are set. This is right. This is wrong. Nothing up for interpretation
Piaget’s theory of moral judgement: 2 stages- autonomous
Start to question authority
Around age 11,12
Intention starts to matter
Start to negotiate punishments
See rules and punishments as flexible. Understand that it is arbitrary to say things are right or wrong
Understand that the society majority determines whether something is a rule or not
Kohlberg’s Heinz Dilema
was interested in the sequences through which children’s moral reasoning develops over time
Would present children with long hypothetical scenarios and ask questions to see children’s thought process
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Three levels of moral reasoning
The higher up the triangle, the more advanced the thinking
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Stage 1- Preconventional Level
Preconventional moral reasoning is self-centered.
A child at this level focuses on getting rewards and avoiding punishment.
Starts at age 3
Very self centred
Do what they want to do
Avoiding punishment
Self serving
Focus on own benefit
Listening to authority figures
Look externally to other people to see what is right or wrong
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Substage 1- Punishment and Obedience Orientation.
obedience to authorities is what is seen as right. A child’s moral actions are motivated by avoidance of punishment. The child does not consider the interests of others or recognize that those interests might differ from their own.
Obedience
Pay attention to authority figures
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Substage 2- Instrumental and Exchange Orientation.
what is right is what is in the child’s own best interest or involves equal exchange between people (e.g., you hurt me, so I hurt you).
Self interest
Do what they think is right to be seen as good child
Avoid punishment
Focus on equal exchange of benefit/punishment
Eye for an eye mentality
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Stage 2- conventional moral reasoning
centered on social relationships. A child at this level focuses on compliance with social duties and laws.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Substage 3- Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Interpersonal Conformity Orientation
good behaviour is doing what is expected by people who are close to the person or what people generally expect of someone in a given role (e.g., “a child”). Being “a good kid” is important and entails having good motives, showing concern about others, and maintaining good relationships with others.
Conformity
Do what others tell them
Thinking about peoples intentions
Showing empathy
Care about maintaining good social relationships and fairness
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Substage 4- Social System and Conscience Orientation
involves fulfilling one’s duties, upholding laws, and contributing to society or one’s group. The individual is motivated to keep the social system going and to avoid a breakdown in its functioning.
Law and order
Interest and focus on what society is saying is right and wrong
Need to do what’s morally right
Thinking on larger scale
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Stage 3- Postconventional moral reasoning
centered on ideals. A child at this level focuses on moral principles.
Some people don’t hit it
Individual has internal ethics
Understands that there is a grey zone
Internal moral compass guiding moral decision
Doesn’t just blindly follow rules
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Substage 5- Social Contract or Individual Rights Orientation
moral behaviour involves upholding rules that are in the best interest of the group (“the greatest good for the greatest number”), are impartial, or were mutually agreed upon by the group. An individual at this stage might reason that if society agrees that a law is not benefiting everyone, that law should be changed.
Social contract
Start pushing back
Whatever majority says is right is justified
Larger scale
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
Substage 6- Universal Ethical Principles
commitment to self-chosen ethical principles that reflect universal principles, such as life, liberty, basic human rights, and the dignity of each human being. Moral reasoning at this stage would assert that these principles must be upheld in any society, regardless of majority opinion. When laws violate these principles, the individual should act in accordance with these universal principles rather than with the law. It is worth noting that so few people ever attained Stage 6 of the postconventional level that Kohlberg eventually stopped scoring it as a separate stage, and many theorists consider it an elaboration of Stage 5
Universal ethics
Even larger scale
Interest in human and freedom rights
Bigger than society
Philosophical right or wrong
Social domain theory of moral development
Gradual and continuous process rather than stages
Interactions with parents
—Important to develop moral compass
—Inflence moral development by teaching
—Also implicit influences like modeling what parent does
—2 way street: parents teach kids and kids give parents new insight
Interactions with peers
—More confident in experimenting and making moral choices
—Kids will see friends in multiple contexts and situations/ settings to practice moral judgement
3 domains
Social domain theory of moral development domains
moral
societal
personal
Social domain theory of moral development
moral
Learn what fairness, justice is and what society says is right or wrong
Larger than what is right or wrong in home.
This encompasses society
children understand that the universal concepts of right and wrong, fairness, justice, and individual rights apply across contexts and supersede rules or authority
Social domain theory of moral development
societal
Rules and social conventions come into play
Moral decisions/ social norms that make sense
The agreement that people should behave in a certain way
Ex: appropriate way to dress, manners, greeting,
encompasses concepts regarding the rules and conventions through which societies maintain order.
Social domain theory of moral development
personal
Internalized
Child self interest
What are right and right decisions for them
Choice of friends, money management
More about social norms and acting appropriately
pertains to actions in which individual preferences are the main consideration; there are no right or wrong choices. This domain covers decisions children might make about their appearance, how they spend time
Development of Conscience
Slow development
—Develops even till adulthood
—Children start to feel guilt as toddlers
—As children grow they grow a greater capacity for empathy
Adoption of parents’ morals
—Modeling what they see parents do if there is logic to them
—If they don’t see logic to parents’ morals, they may not listen to it
—Children will not inherently follow criminal parents’ bad actions and morals because they may not see logic in it
—Healthy attachment makes kids adopt more of parents morals
Nature and Nurture
—Cultural standards, social norms, genetic connections
—Infants as young as 4.5 months old have an internal compass, so nature people say it’s innate
Influence of temperament
—More fearful= more guilty= deeper moral compass
conscience
An inner voice that encourages us to behave in socially appropriate ways and feel guilty if we don’t
Internalize what society says is right or wrong. If you don’t follow these rules, you will feel guilty due to your conscience
prosocial behaviour
Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit others
Being helpful/ altruistic
Some things need to be practiced to master prosocial behaviour
things that need to be practiced to master prosocial behaviour
Perspective taking
Empathy
Sympathy
perspective taking
think behond themselves
empathy
Matching emotional response to the other person
And matching emotions to the situation (not laughing at a funeral)
And putting yourself in other person’s shoes
sympathy
Outcome of empathy
Once you match emotions with empathy, then you feel the care and concern for wellbeing
Prosocial behaviour development order
Cooperation and wanting to help, Start to feel empathy
Start sharing toys, Beginnings of fairness coming into play, Sharing empathy
Start trying to comfort people and make them feel better
More sophisticated prosocial behaviour, See more value in good deeds and volunteering
Development of prosocial behaviour (influences)- Nature
Evolution
—Helpfulness genes passed through generations
Across cultures
—Valued across cultures
Hereditary
—-Parents and kids and identical twins have similar levels of prosocial behaviour compared to fraternal twins
Oxytocin
—Higher levels of oxytocin means higher prosocial behaviour
Temperament
—If a child can’t regulate their emotions, can’t help others
—Good emotional regulation= high porsocial behaviour
—Shy kids don’t engage in prosocial behaviour as much because they don’t want to leave their shell
Development of prosocial behaviour (influences)- Nurture- parents’ influence: The Socialization of Prosocial Behaviour
Modelling and teaching
—Kids observe and imitate what parents do.
—Parents teach explicitly and model
Providing opportunities
—Most important for prosocial behaviour
—Being given opportunities to engage in this behaviour
Encouragement through discipline
Antisocial behaviour
Disruptive, hostile, or aggressive behaviour that violates social norms/rules AND harms or takes advantage of others
aggression definition and types
Intentional acts to physically or emotionally harm someone
Reactive
Proactive
reactive aggression
Driven by emotion
Revenge
Motive
proactive aggression
Goal driven
Ex: bully stealing lunch money from a kid
development of antisocial behaviour order
Creating distance by pushing and pulling objects that they want. Possessiveness. Not hitting
Starting to hit
Mostly around wanting to get or keep toys (intrumental/proactive aggression)
Decline in physical aggression
Increase in verbal aggression
Still fighting over belongings
Increase in sibling conflict (fighting about anything)
Increase in peer/ relationship aggression
—Excluding kids from games
Kinda like mean girls, but not quite
—Start to have vocabulary to revolve conflict with words
Low physical aggression. Usually with boys
Instrumental aggression
When people are mean now, being aggressive is just being mean, not with a purpose/ logic
Development of antisocial behaviour
Nature
Twin studies
—Run in families
—Identical have more antisocial commonality than fraternal
—genes
Psychopathy
—Genes tied to psychopathy
—Antisocial is precursor to psychopathy
—Manipulators
Temperament
—Like morality and prosocial behaviour
—Difficult infant= antisocial behaviour
Development of antisocial behaviour
Nurture
Cold, harsh, uninvolved parenting
—Higher risk of being aggressive and antisocial
—Don’t show what they don’t receive
Chaotic homes
—Less predictable, so it’s a risk factor
Abusive parents
Parental monitoring
—Helicopter parenting makes kids get into less trouble and less antisocial behaviour
Low socioeconomic status
—Risk factor
—Dangerous, noisy, chaotic neighborhoods and areas common
—Less resources in school and after school
Influence of peers and peer pressure
—Mean kids hanging out with mean kids influence each other
—Mean person amplifies mean behaviour for everyone in classroom
