Lecture 11: Moral development Flashcards
Development of moral judgement
Piaget
Kohlberg
Social Domain Theory
Prosocial Behaviour
Antisocial Behaviour
Piagetian moral development
Who is naughtier…?
1. A child who accidentally drops a whole jar of cookies and breaks them all
2. A child who deliberately steals one cookie?
Using examples like this, Piaget concluded that children went through two stages of moral development:
Heteronomous morality
Autonomous morality
Heteronomous morality
Children not yet in the concrete operational stage (pre-operational stage, or before the age of ~7 years)
Regard the “rules” as fixed, and not seen in the context of the situation
Focussed on the action and the consequences, not the intent of the individual(s) involved- not focused on intention
Often governed by parents’ expectations for behaviour
These children regard the child who accidentally broke the whole cookie jar as the naughtier child- more focused on the outcome and not what the person intended to do
Autonomous morality
Children firmly in the concrete operational stage or beyond- 7yrs +
Children develop the ability to take another person’s perspective, to develop Theory of Mind (see Year 2 Developmental Psychology unit), and to demonstrate empathy
No longer blindly accept “the rules”
Can consider individual’s intentions when they perform a particular behaviour (and so judge theft of one cookie to be more serious than accidentally breaking all of them)- more of the intention, not the outcome
Discussion of Piagets theory
Studies of children across cultures suggest that children do increasingly take motives and intentions into account when judging the morality of actions (Berg & Mussen, 1975; Lickona, 1976)
Moral development being multifactorial and including a cognitive component also seems accurate – children’s performances on tests of perspective-taking, Piagetian logical tasks, and IQ have all been associated with their level of moral judgement-
Discussion of Piaget theory
When moral scenarios (e.g., the cookie example) are presented in ways that make the individuals’ intentions more obvious, preoperational children are more likely to correctly identify which is morally more dubious (Grueneich, 1982; Rakoczy et al., 2015; Yuill & Perner, 1988).
Most 4- and 5-year-olds understand that a person could not cause a negative outcome “on purpose” if the person did not know that outcome was a possible consequence of their action (Pellizzoni, Siegal, & Surian, 2009).
3-year-olds who saw an adult intend (but fail) to hurt another adult were less likely to help that perpetrator than they were if that person’s behaviour toward the other adult was neutral (Vaish, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2010)
Kohlberg theory of moral development
Heavily influenced by Piaget’s work, and using similar moral dilemmas, Kohlberg also put forward several stages of moral development, each with its own sub-stages:
- Pre-conventional moral reasoning
- Conventional level
- Post-conventional/principled level
Pre-conventional moral reasoning
Reasoning is self-centred, with a focus on maximising rewards and minimising punishment - more about ‘what would be the best outcome for me if i was to act a certain way’
Stage 1: Obedience to authority.
A child’s moral actions are motivated by avoidance of punishment. - not a highly moral stand to take
Stage 2: Instrumental and Exchange Orientation.
Focusses on the child’s own best interest or involves equal exchange between people
Conventional moral reasoning
Centred on social reasoning
Stage 3: Mutual Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Interpersonal Conformity Orientation.
What is socially acceptable? Being “a good girl” or a “good boy” is important and entails having good motives, showing concern about others
Stage 4: Social System and Conscience Orientation.
Fulfilling one’s duties, upholding laws, and contributing to society or one’s group.
post-conventional/ principled moral reasoning
Focuses on moral principles
Stage 5: Social Contract or Individual Rights Orientation.
Upholding rules that are in the best interest of the group (“the greater good”).
Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles.
Commitment to self-chosen ethical principles that reflect universal principles (e.g. basic human rights, and the dignity of each human being). Asserts that these principles must be upheld in any society, regardless of majority opinion.
Discussion of kohlbergs theory
Kohlberg’s work has been useful in understanding how cognitive processes contribute to moral behaviour
Criticisms of kohlbergs theory
Kohlberg did not consider cross-cultural differences in moral behaviour. (Snarey, 1985; but see Gibbs et al., 2007 for universality claim)
Moral reasoning is not as discontinuous (stage-like) as Kohlberg suggested. Children (and adults!) often reason at different levels on different occasions—or even on the same occasion (Rest, 1979)
Sometimes individuals may act in the common good, but in different situations they could be more self-centred
Moral development is not nearly as linear as Kohlberg suggested
Social domain theory
This theory proposes that moral development is not stage-like, but rather is a more gradual change based on
the child’s social interactions with peers
the child’s social interaction with adults
direct socialisation from their parents (parents teach children how to behave, both explicitly through instruction (this is the right and this is the wrong), and implicitly by example - modelling behaviour)
Moral judgements
Decisions that pertain to issues of right and wrong, fairness, and justice (e.g., deciding whether or not to steal a packet of crisps from a shop)
Social conventional judgements
Decisions that pertain to customs or regulations intended to secure social coordination and social organisation (e.g., deciding whether or not to open a packet of crisps noisily in a cinema)
