L17 - Development of Moral and Prosocial Behvaiour Flashcards
What was Piaget’s Theory of Moral Reasoning?
- Rigid acceptance of rules to recognition that social context can change morality
- Heteronomous morality: rules are unchangeable, outcome more important than intention - 0-7yo
- Autonomous morality: rules created by people and can be changed - intention is important - 11-12yo
- Transition period in between
Why do children have hetrogeonous reasoning?
- Parents use unilateral, coercive rules for young children
- Cognitively, rules = solid things
- Evidence supports these factors: increasing recognition of complexity with age & more punitive parents = less mature moral behaviour in their children
- CRITIQUES: children are underestimated - it can be done more accessibly and children can understand the higher reasoning. EXP: young children consider intentionally in subsequent behaviours - adults who accidentally/deliberately hurt another
What is Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning?
- Used moral dilemmas to understand decisions and reasoning behind them
- Interviewed boys between 10 and 16 and tried to understand the reasoning behind their decisions
- Level 1: Pre-morality: Stage 1 - Punishment and obedience orientation: doing what is right because of fear of punishment. Stage 2 - Hedonistic Orientation: doing what is right for personal gain, perhaps a reward
- Level 2: Conventional Morality: Stage 3 - Interpersonal concordance orientation: doing what is right according to the majority to be a good boy/girl. Stage 4: Law and order orientation: doing what is right because it is your duty and helps society
- Level 3: Post-conventional morality: Stage 5 - Social contract or legalistic orientation: doing what is right even if it is against the law because the law is too restrictive. Stage 6 - Universal ethical principles orientation: doing what is right because of our inner conscious
Are these stages universal?
- Not all individuals reach all stages
- Some indication = higher stages = IQ and education
- Discontinuous development and higher stages
Is Kohlberg’s theory culturally similar?
- Claimed universality as researched in 5 settings
- Adapted dilemmas to be more applicable and found cultural differences in expectations
- In 75 countries, the same stages were seen
Does Kohlbergs theory have gender differences?
- Biased against females? - authority vs caring (change way they react to authority)
- No real evidence of different stages but explanations more about caring
What is Social Domain Theory?
- Moral Domain: welfare/rights, authority independent = universal context e.g teachers allowing hitting in school
- Social Convention Domain Social etiquette/rules, Authority dependent = context specific e.g teachers choosing clothing in hot weather
- Personal Domain: Personal choices = personal jurisdiction
- 5 yo can distinguish different types of morality/authority
What are cultural differences in Social Domain Theory?
- Similar across cultures
- Indian children: moral obligation to help others, US Children - personal obligation to help
- US children consistent in generous/no model = more stingy in parent model
- Indian children followed parent modelling more
What are the three forms of prosocial behaviour seen in childhood?
- Feeling for others: empathy, sympathy, affection
- Working with others: Sharing, cooperating, helping
- Meeting other’s needs: Caregiving
What was a study looking at responses to distress?
- 165 infants followed 3-18mo
- Depictions of distress either parent/experimenter hurting themselves OR video of infant crying
- Reactions were coded:
- Concerned affect = sympathy/sad facial expressions
- Inquiry behaviour = social referencing/visual scanning and vocalisations
- Self-distress = looking distresses & crying
- Prosocial behaviour = comforting e,g hug/ handing toy
- RESULTS: Infants as young as 3 mo show concern for others distress
- Increases in prosocial behaviours with age
- Self-distress low at all ages, not significantly different to neutral event
What was a study on sharing?
- Followed children from birth - 7yo
- At 18 mo, looked at interaction between different children - mock bday party
- Found a lot of children offer a toy to another - prosocial behaviour is a lot more prevalent than the opposite
- Girls more likely to share
What was a study looking at helping and cooperative behaviour?
- 14 mos performed 6 different tasks to help an adult
- Children frequently help adults when something was out of reach, no significant helping where tasks were more complicated
- When ran with 18mo, all behaviours were seen as helpful, and do more prosocial behaviours
- Interpretation of adults intent/harder for 14mo to complete
What was the study of cooperation?
- Trampoline task and elevator task: hold the trampoline to hold toy, or elevator where 2 people needed, one to hold button and another to retrieve toy
- 14, 18 and 24 mo, successful cooperation at 14 mo but dependent on task difficulty
What was a study looking at different types of behaviours with different tasks? (Sharing)
- Some prosocial behaviours are easy for child to interpret
- Comforting someone requires a higher level of development
- Sharing task were both given a bowl and sharing behaviour was not elicited as complicated to interpret
What are developmental patterns of prosocial behaviour?
- Tends to increase from early to middle childhood
- In middle adolescence = drop in prosocial behaviour
- Increases around late adolescence and into adulthood
- Levels of prosocial behaviour does depend on situation and individual differences
Individual differences?
- Variability between individuals
- Continuity of levels of prosocial behaviour over time
- Factors that might account for individual differences
How does prosocial behaviour continue over time?
- Early prosocial behaviour correlates with later prosocial behaviour: 6mo empathetic concern predicted prosocial behaviour at 18mo
- Prosocial behaviour between age 18mo and 3 years
- Followed adolescence from 10-15 years in Canada and Italy
- Measures of prosocial behaviour followed a few trajectories
What are sources of individual differences in children’s prosocial behaviour?
- Biological factors: Genetic influence, prenatal experiences, temperament
- Cognitive Development: social problem solving, understanding of emotions; moral understanding
- Social Learning: reinforcement for prosocial behaviour, modelling of prosocial behaviour and cultural norms and values
What are parental influences on children’s prosocial behaviour?
- Correlations between parent and child prosocial behaviour
- Modelling and teaching prosocial behaviour
- Arranging opportunities for their children to engage in prosocial behaviour
- Disciplining their children and eliciting prosocial behaviour from them
What were twin studies of prosocial behaviour?
1) Toddlers tested longitudinally in lab
- Mothers and examiners pretended to hurt themselves
- Genetic factors influence individual differences at later ages
- Large impact of unique env
2) Self-report prosocial at 15 and 17 yo
- Shared env had minimal impact
- Moderate impact of genetic factors
- Strong relevance of unique env
Studies on parental influences?
1) Toddlers prosocial behaviour encouraged by parents
2) Scaffolding of toddlers’ helping behaviour
3) Sensitive parenting associated with greater helping and sharing
What was a study looking at bidirectional effects between parenting and prosocial behaviour?
- 319 two-parent families aged 12 at Time2, 13 at Time3
- Observed prosocial behaviour
- Child reported authoritative parenting
- Bidirectional effects found. More authoritative = more prosocial and vice versa
What are peer influences on prosocial behaviour?
- Choice of similar friends = correlation in prosocial behaviour
- Level of prosocial behaviour in best friends predicts adolescent’s prosocial behaviour longitudinally
- Peers influence willingness to volunteer
What are peer influences in the classroom?
1) Looked at 428 high school students
- Association between volunteering activities and intention for future volunteering
- Difference by type of volunteering
- Studies suggest associations whether voluntary or required good deeds
2) More prosocial a class was at time 1, the more they were at time 2 = peers influence behaviour esp for those un-pro-social
