Lecture 11 Flashcards
What was Kolhberg’s theory of moral development? Be able to describe the six stages, as well as provide typical examples of responses to the Heinz dilemma. What are criticisms of the theory? Can you use the concept of the microgenetic approach from Lecture 1 to make a criticism?
Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is based on the idea that individuals progress through distinct stages of moral reasoning as they age and mature. Kohlberg’s theory is an extension of Jean Piaget’s work on cognitive development, and it posits six stages of moral development, grouped into three levels.
Pre-conventional Level:
Stage 1 - Obedience and Punishment Orientation: At this stage, individuals are focused on avoiding punishment. Moral decisions are based on fear of authority and the consequences of disobedience.
Stage 2 - Individualism and Exchange: Moral decisions are driven by self-interest. Individuals seek to satisfy their own needs and may make choices to gain personal benefits.
Conventional Level:
Stage 3 - Interpersonal Relationships: Moral decisions are influenced by the desire to conform to societal expectations and please others. Conforming to social norms and maintaining positive relationships are prioritized.
Stage 4 - Maintaining Social Order: Individuals at this stage are concerned with upholding laws, rules, and social order. Moral decisions are guided by a sense of duty and responsibility to society.
Post-conventional Level:
Stage 5 - Social Contract and Individual Rights: Moral decisions are based on an understanding of social contracts and the idea that rules are flexible and should be changed for the greater good. Emphasis is placed on individual rights and democratic processes.
Stage 6 - Universal Principles: At this final stage, individuals adhere to universal ethical principles. Moral decisions are guided by a sense of justice, equality, and respect for human dignity.
Heinz Dilemma:
One of Kohlberg’s methods for assessing moral reasoning involves presenting individuals with moral dilemmas, such as the Heinz Dilemma. In this scenario, Heinz’s wife is dying, and he cannot afford the medication she needs. Participants are asked whether Heinz should steal the medicine to save his wife. The focus is on the reasoning behind the decision rather than the decision itself.
Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory:
Cultural Bias: Kohlberg’s stages were developed based on research primarily conducted in Western cultures, raising concerns about cultural bias. Moral values can vary across cultures, and this theory may not adequately capture moral development in diverse cultural contexts.
Gender Bias: Kohlberg’s research primarily involved male participants, and some argue that the stages may not be as applicable to females. Carol Gilligan criticized Kohlberg, suggesting that his theory emphasized justice (a more masculine perspective) over care (a more feminine perspective).
Limited Emphasis on Behavior: Kohlberg’s theory focuses heavily on moral reasoning and less on actual moral behavior. Some argue that individuals may not always act in accordance with their moral reasoning.
Stagnant Stage Model: The theory implies a fixed sequence of stages, but research suggests that individuals may not consistently progress through all stages or may revert to earlier stages in certain situations.
Microgenetic Approach Critique:
The microgenetic approach, which involves studying the process of cognitive development over short periods, suggests that development is not always linear. If we apply this to Kohlberg’s theory, it raises questions about whether individuals may exhibit different moral reasoning in specific situations, challenging the idea of fixed and sequential stages.
In essence, the microgenetic approach highlights the dynamic nature of cognitive processes and suggests that individuals may not uniformly progress through Kohlberg’s stages in all moral decision-making contexts. This perspective contributes to the broader criticism that development is more fluid and context-dependent than the stage model implies
Be able to describe the evolutionary perspective on moral development. If morality is evolved, what else would this imply? What kind of experimental findings should we be able to produce?
The evolutionary perspective on moral development suggests that morality, like many other psychological traits, has evolved as an adaptive mechanism to enhance the survival and reproduction of individuals and groups. This perspective draws on principles of natural selection and evolution by positing that certain moral tendencies have been favored over time due to their contribution to the fitness of individuals and, consequently, the success of social groups.
Implications of the Evolutionary Perspective on Morality:
Adaptation to Social Living: The evolutionary perspective posits that humans are inherently social beings, and morality has evolved as a set of mechanisms to facilitate cooperative living within social groups. Moral behaviors and norms are seen as adaptive strategies for navigating social relationships.
Group Cooperation and Survival: Moral principles are considered to be advantageous for group cooperation. Cooperative groups would have had a survival advantage over less cooperative ones, leading to the evolution of moral tendencies that promote cooperation, reciprocity, and altruism.
Innate Moral Intuitions: Evolutionary psychologists propose that humans possess innate moral intuitions or predispositions. These intuitions serve as a foundation for moral judgments and decision-making. For example, the aversion to harm, the sense of fairness, and the inclination toward reciprocity are considered to be evolved moral intuitions.
Selective Pressures: The development of moral emotions, such as guilt, shame, and empathy, is seen as a result of natural selection. These emotions may have emerged because individuals who experienced and responded to these emotions were more likely to behave in ways that benefited the group.
Experimental Findings Implications:
Universal Moral Principles: From an evolutionary perspective, one would expect to find certain moral principles that are universal across cultures. While cultural variations exist, there should be a core set of moral principles that are shared among humans due to their adaptive value.
Cross-Cultural Consistency: Experimental findings should demonstrate some degree of cross-cultural consistency in moral judgments and behaviors. Evolutionary psychologists predict that certain moral dilemmas or situations should elicit similar responses across different societies.
Developmental Patterns: The evolutionary perspective also suggests that certain moral intuitions may emerge early in development. Experimental research should reveal evidence of innate moral predispositions in infants and young children, supporting the idea that these tendencies have evolutionary roots.
Responses to Moral Violations: The perspective predicts that individuals should exhibit strong emotional responses to moral violations, especially those that involve harm or betrayal. These emotional responses, such as guilt or anger, serve as mechanisms to discourage behaviors that could harm the social fabric.
Cultural Variation in Moral Norms: While there are universal moral principles, the evolutionary perspective acknowledges that specific moral norms and rules can vary across cultures. Experimental findings should reflect both the shared moral foundations and the cultural variations in moral judgments.
In summary, the evolutionary perspective on moral development emphasizes the adaptive nature of moral behaviors and intuitions in the context of human evolution. Experimental research guided by this perspective aims to uncover universal moral principles, examine cross-cultural consistencies, and explore the developmental origins of moral intuitions
At what age do children first begin to demonstrate expectations of fair distributions? In what ways do these experiments control for other interpretations? What provides converging evidence to suggest that infants’ looking time during fairness distributions correlates to moral judgements?
Research indicates that children as young as 15 months old demonstrate expectations of fair distributions. In experiments assessing fairness expectations, infants typically exhibit longer looking times in response to scenarios that involve unfair resource distributions compared to fair ones. Here are some key findings related to the age at which children demonstrate fairness expectations and the experimental controls:
Age of Fairness Expectations:
15 Months Old: Experiments have shown that infants as young as 15 months old display sensitivity to fairness in resource distributions. In these studies, researchers use non-verbal methods, such as preferential looking or reaching tasks, to assess infants’ reactions to fair and unfair scenarios.
Experimental Controls:
Violation of Expectation Paradigm: Researchers often use the violation of expectation paradigm, where infants are presented with events that either violate or conform to their expectations. Longer looking times at the violation suggest that infants find the scenario surprising or unexpected.
Baseline Attraction/Aversion: To control for baseline preferences or aversions, researchers include neutral conditions with events that do not involve fairness violations. This helps ensure that infants’ responses are specific to fairness considerations rather than general preferences.
Converging Evidence:
Correlation with Moral Judgments: Infants’ looking times during fairness distributions have been found to correlate with later moral judgments. For example, infants who exhibit longer looking times at unfair resource distributions may also display preferences for helpers over hinderers in subsequent experiments.
Preference for Helpers: Studies have shown that infants as young as 6 months old exhibit a preference for individuals who help others rather than hinder them. This preference for helpers over hinderers serves as converging evidence that infants have early expectations regarding prosocial and fair behavior.
Connection to Altruistic Behavior: The development of fairness expectations in infancy is often linked to later altruistic behavior. Infants who show a preference for fair resource distributions may engage in spontaneous helping actions, such as picking up objects for others or opening cabinets for them.
Overall, these experiments, using a combination of violation of expectation paradigms, baseline controls, and assessments of subsequent moral judgments and behaviors, provide converging evidence that infants as young as 15 months old possess expectations of fair distributions. The correlation between infants’ looking times, moral judgments, and altruistic behaviors supports the idea that fairness considerations emerge early in development
For the ages 12 months old, 24 months old, 3 years old, 6 years old, and 8 years old, be able to describe: what kinds of inequity are children okay with and what kinds are they more likely to reject? What is the role of social cooperation in shaping these results? How does this change as children mature?
- 12 Months Old:
Responses to Inequity: At 12 months old, infants may show sensitivity to inequity in a basic form. For example, they may exhibit preferences for scenarios where resources are distributed equally rather than unevenly.
2. 24 Months Old:
Responses to Inequity: By 24 months old, toddlers begin to display a more nuanced understanding of inequity. They may show preferences for fair resource distributions and may express dissatisfaction or surprise when faced with unequal allocations.
3. 3 Years Old:
Responses to Inequity: At 3 years old, children become more explicit in their rejection of inequity. They may engage in second-party punishment, such as rejecting unequal distributions that disadvantage them.
Role of Social Cooperation: Social cooperation plays a crucial role at this stage. Children are more likely to accept cooperation that results in mutual benefits but may reject scenarios where one party is significantly advantaged over the other.
- 6 Years Old:
Responses to Inequity: Around 6 years old, children increasingly engage in third-party punishment, showing a concern for fairness not only in situations that directly involve them but also in scenarios observed between others.
Role of Social Cooperation: Social cooperation remains important, and children are likely to reject scenarios that undermine the principles of cooperation and fairness. They may be more discerning in evaluating whether inequity is a result of selfishness or generosity.
- 8 Years Old:
Responses to Inequity: By 8 years old, children continue to exhibit a heightened sense of fairness. They may reject unequal distributions and demonstrate a more sophisticated understanding of the factors influencing fairness judgments.
Role of Social Cooperation: Social cooperation remains a central aspect of their responses to inequity. Children at this age are more capable of considering the intentions and motivations behind resource allocations, influencing their judgments.
Changes with Maturity:
Increasing Sensitivity: As children mature, there is an increasing sensitivity to various forms of inequity, and their rejection of unfair scenarios becomes more pronounced.
Consideration of Intentions: With maturity, children become better at considering the intentions and motives behind resource allocations. They may distinguish between scenarios where inequity arises from selfishness and those where it results from generosity.
Development of Third-Party Punishment: The development of third-party punishment indicates a growing awareness of fairness not only in self-directed situations but also in observing interactions between others.
In summary, as children progress through different age groups, their responses to inequity become more sophisticated, and they show a heightened concern for fairness. Social cooperation remains a key factor shaping their judgments, and their understanding of fairness evolves with age, encompassing more complex considerations
What are ways that we study punishment in children? Be able to name at least two different paradigms. What is the difference between second-party and third-party punishment? How do children punish unfairness differently for themselves versus others? Are they willing to incur resources to do this? For each of the ages above, what evidence do we have to suggest children engage in punishment?
Ways to Study Punishment in Children:
Ultimatum Game:
Paradigm: In this economic game, there is a proposer who suggests an allocation of resources, and a responder who can either accept or reject the proposed distribution. Rejections often involve a cost for both parties.
Inequity Game:
Paradigm: This game involves the experimenter providing three possible distributions of resources—equal, advantageous, and disadvantageous. Participants, as responders, can either accept or reject the proposed allocation, with rejections incurring a cost.
Difference Between Second-Party and Third-Party Punishment:
Second-Party Punishment: Involves a direct interaction between two individuals where the punisher is one of the parties directly affected by the unfairness.
Third-Party Punishment: Occurs when an individual, who is not directly involved in the unfair interaction, observes the injustice between others and decides to intervene or punish the unfair party.
How Children Punish Unfairness Differently for Themselves Versus Others:
Children may display more leniency or acceptance of unfairness when they are the direct recipients of resources (second-party punishment). However, when observing unfairness between others, they may be more inclined to engage in third-party punishment to rectify the perceived injustice.
Willingness to Incur Resources for Punishment:
Children may demonstrate a willingness to incur personal costs (e.g., sacrificing a reward) to engage in punishment, especially when they perceive a violation of fairness.
Evidence of Punishment Across Ages:
12 Months Old:
Limited direct evidence at this age due to limitations in verbal and motor abilities.
May show preferences for equal resource distributions in non-verbal paradigms.
24 Months Old:
Limited direct evidence but may exhibit surprise or dissatisfaction in the face of unfair resource allocations.
3 Years Old:
Engages in second-party punishment by rejecting unequal distributions that disadvantage them.
May show preferences for cooperative interactions that result in mutual benefits.
6 Years Old:
Begins to exhibit third-party punishment by rejecting unfair scenarios observed between others.
Consideration of intentions behind unfairness becomes more pronounced.
8 Years Old:
Further development of third-party punishment, demonstrating a heightened sensitivity to fairness.
Ability to differentiate between scenarios involving selfishness and generosity in resource allocations.
In summary, as children progress through different ages, their engagement in punishment becomes more sophisticated. While second-party punishment is evident from a young age, third-party punishment emerges as children develop a greater awareness of fairness in interactions between others. The willingness to incur personal costs for punishment also becomes more pronounced with age
At what age do children show a preference for helpers over hinders? In what ways were Kiley Hamlin’s experiments designed to assess not just preferences between the two, but also baseline tendencies? At a minimum, what do these results provide us license to conclude about infants’ moral development, and what is a richer interpretation of these findings that is less supported?
Age When Children Show Preference for Helpers Over Hinderers:
Infants as young as 6 months old demonstrate a preference for helpers over hinderers.
Design of Kiley Hamlin’s Experiments:
Experiments to Assess Preferences:
Baseline Tendencies: To assess baseline tendencies, Hamlin included neutral conditions where infants observed scenarios without clear helping or hindering actions. This allowed researchers to observe infants’ spontaneous reactions without specific moral content.
Preference Conditions: In these conditions, infants witnessed scenarios involving helping, hindering, or neutral interactions. By comparing infants’ reactions across different conditions, researchers could determine their preferences.
Controlled Paradigms:
Hamlin utilized controlled paradigms involving puppet shows or animations depicting characters engaging in prosocial (helpful) or antisocial (hindering) behaviors.
Results and Conclusions about Infants’ Moral Development:
License to Conclude:
The experiments provide sufficient evidence to conclude that infants, as early as 6 months old, display a consistent preference for individuals who engage in prosocial (helpful) behaviors over those who engage in antisocial (hindering) behaviors.
Richer Interpretation:
A richer interpretation of these findings suggests that infants’ early moral development includes a rudimentary sense of evaluating others based on their actions. The preference for helpers over hinderers indicates an early sensitivity to cooperative and altruistic behaviors.
Less Supported Interpretation:
While the results strongly support the conclusion that infants exhibit preferences for prosocial individuals, caution is needed when interpreting these preferences as fully developed moral judgments. The experiments capture an early emerging inclination for positive social interactions, but the depth and complexity of moral reasoning likely evolve as children grow older.
In summary, the experiments by Kiley Hamlin provide robust evidence that infants prefer helpers over hinderers from an early age. This preference suggests an early foundation for moral evaluation, although a nuanced and mature moral understanding continues to develop with age
At what age do we have evidence that children not only consider whether someone is helpful, but also how helpful? What are two factors they use to decide this?
Age at Which Children Consider How Helpful Someone Is:
By at least 4 years old, children demonstrate the ability to consider not only whether someone is helpful but also how helpful they are.
Factors Used by Children to Decide How Helpful Someone Is:
Cost of Helping:
Children take into account the cost or effort associated with the helping action. They evaluate whether the person incurs a high or low cost to provide assistance.
Neediness of the Recipient:
Children consider the level of neediness of the person receiving help. They assess whether the individual being helped requires assistance and whether the helping action addresses a genuine need.
Developmental Considerations:
These findings indicate a growing sophistication in children’s social cognition and moral reasoning. As children progress in their development, they become capable of weighing contextual factors, such as the cost of helping and the needs of the recipient, when forming judgments about the helpfulness of others
Understand that findings regarding children’s own helping behaviour are very controversial and interpreted differently! Be able to explain why the wide array of toddlers’ spontaneous helping is used to conclude early-emerging altruism. How do external rewards shape this behaviour? How do chimpanzees perform on the same tasks?
Controversies in Interpreting Toddlers’ Helping Behavior:
Findings related to toddlers’ spontaneous helping behaviour are controversial and subject to different interpretations. Some researchers argue that these behaviours indicate early-emerging altruism, while others may offer alternative explanations.
Why Spontaneous Helping Is Interpreted as Early-Emerging Altruism:
Low-Cost, Spontaneous Helping:
Toddlers engage in a constellation of low-cost, spontaneous helping actions without external prompting. These behaviours include actions such as picking up dropped objects, opening cabinets, or handing items to others.
Demonstration of Altruistic Tendencies:
The fact that toddlers willingly incur low costs to assist others is seen as an indication of altruistic tendencies. Altruism involves a willingness to benefit others even at a personal cost, and toddlers’ spontaneous helping is viewed as a rudimentary form of this prosocial behaviour.
Impact of External Rewards:
External rewards can influence toddlers’ helping behaviour and may alter the interpretation of their actions. If toddlers are provided with external rewards for helping, it introduces an extrinsic motivation that may not align with genuine altruism.
Comparison with Chimpanzees:
In contrast to toddlers, chimpanzees, our closest evolutionary relatives, may exhibit more selective or conditional prosocial behaviour. While chimpanzees may engage in cooperative activities, their prosocial actions may be influenced by factors such as reciprocity or social bonds.
Key Points:
The interpretation of toddlers’ spontaneous helping as early-emerging altruism is based on the notion that they willingly engage in helpful actions without direct external reinforcement. However, researchers remain attentive to the complexities of these behaviours and acknowledge that external rewards can shape and influence prosocial actions in children. Comparisons with other primates, such as chimpanzees, provide additional insights into the evolutionary aspects of prosocial behaviour
Also be able to describe counter-evidence, particularly regarding altruistic helping. Define instrumental helping, empathic helping, and altruistic helping and provide an example of a task measuring each type of helping. Do they follow the same kind of developmental trajectory? Are some types of helping more difficult? What is a key difference in how altruism is defined between these studies and theorists who argue for early-emerging altruism?
Counter-Evidence and Types of Helping:
- Counter-Evidence:
Despite claims of early-emerging altruism, some researchers argue that certain behaviors attributed to altruism may have alternative explanations, challenging the notion of true altruistic tendencies in toddlers.
2. Types of Helping:
Understanding different types of helping behaviors is crucial to evaluating the evidence for early-emerging altruism. Three types of helping include instrumental helping, empathic helping, and altruistic helping.
Instrumental Helping:
Definition: Assisting others to achieve a goal or complete a task.
Example: Handing a tool to someone trying to fix something.
Empathic Helping:
Definition: Helping prompted by the recognition of another person’s distress or need.
Example: Comforting someone who is visibly upset.
Altruistic Helping:
Definition: Helping others without any expectation of personal gain or reward, even when it involves a cost to oneself.
Example: Assisting someone without any immediate benefit or reciprocation.
3. Developmental Trajectory:
The developmental trajectory of these types of helping behaviours may not follow the same pattern. While instrumental and empathic helping may emerge early, true altruistic helping, involving a cost to oneself with no apparent benefit, is often considered more challenging and may develop later.
4. Difficulty in Altruistic Helping:
Altruistic helping, especially in situations where the helper incurs a personal cost without an immediate or obvious benefit, may be more difficult for young children. It requires a higher level of cognitive and emotional processing.
5. Key Difference in Altruism Definition:
Some theorists who argue for early-emerging altruism may define altruism more broadly, encompassing behaviours that involve positive social engagement or cooperative actions. This broader definition may include behaviours that, while prosocial, do not necessarily meet the strict criteria of altruism involving a personal cost without expectation of personal gain.
Key Points:
Counter-evidence challenges the claim of early-emerging altruism in toddlers, prompting a closer examination of the types of helping behaviours observed. Differentiating between instrumental, empathic, and altruistic helping is crucial to understanding the developmental trajectory and challenges associated with each type. The definition of altruism varies among studies, with some theorists adopting a broader perspective that may include a range of prosocial behaviours beyond strictly defined altruistic acts
Be able to explain how Sommerville et al. (2018) demonstrates that both costs and benefits influence helping in toddlers’. How did they operationalize cost, benefit, and subjective cost? When did subjective costs influence children’s helping and when did it not?
Sommerville et al. (2018) and Toddler Helping: Costs and Benefits:
- Operationalization of Cost, Benefit, and Subjective Cost:
In Sommerville et al.’s study, the researchers investigated how both costs and benefits influence toddlers’ helping behavior. They operationalized the concepts of cost, benefit, and subjective cost in the following ways:
Cost:
Definition: The effort or difficulty associated with helping.
Operationalization: The physical effort required to assist someone in need.
Benefit:
Definition: The positive outcome or reward associated with helping.
Operationalization: The positive social engagement or reciprocation received for helping.
Subjective Cost:
Definition: The perceived difficulty or effort from the perspective of the helper.
Operationalization: How toddlers subjectively evaluate the effort or difficulty associated with helping, considering their own skills and abilities.
2. Influence of Subjective Costs on Helping:
Sommerville et al. aimed to determine when subjective costs would influence toddlers’ helping behaviour and when they would not. The subjective costs influenced helping in situations where the following conditions were met:
Low Cost and High Benefit:
Toddlers were more likely to help when the cost of helping was low, and the benefit or positive social engagement was high. In these situations, toddlers considered the effort required as manageable, and the potential positive outcome motivated them to help.
High Cost and Low Benefit:
Toddlers were less likely to help when the cost of helping was high, and the benefit or positive social engagement was low. In these situations, the perceived effort outweighed the expected positive outcome, leading to a decrease in helping behavior.
3. Key Findings:
The study demonstrated that toddlers’ helping decisions are influenced by both the objective costs associated with helping and the subjective evaluation of those costs. When the perceived effort aligned with their own skills and the anticipated positive social engagement was high, toddlers were more inclined to engage in helping behaviours.
4. Implications:
These findings highlight the importance of considering both the objective demands of a helping task and the subjective evaluation made by toddlers based on their own capabilities. The interplay between costs and benefits sheds light on the nuanced factors influencing early prosocial behaviour in toddlers
