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)
Personal judgements
Decisions that refer to actions in which individual preferences are the main consideration (e.g., deciding whether or not to eat a packet of crisps for lunch)-
Cultural differences in social judgement
Children begin to differentiate between moral and social conventional issues as early as age 3, and see moral transgressions as more serious offences (Smetana & Braeges, 1990)
It is likely that people in all cultures differentiate between moral, social conventional, and personal domains of functioning, but there are some cultural differences as to how a given behaviour is viewed
Children in India are much more likely than children in the United States to say that helping others is a moral, rather than a personal, choice (Miller et al., 1990)
Conscience
An internal regulatory mechanism that increases the individual’s ability to conform with standards of conduct accepted in his or her culture
Conscience develops slowly over time
The conscience of a young child primarily reflects internalised parental standards (Hoffman, 1982, Konchanska, 2002)
- Conscience reins-in antisocial behaviour and improves compliance
Two-year-olds understand some moral standards and rules and begin to show guilt when they do something wrong (Kopp, 2001)
When do children typically adopt their parents moral values
their parents use rational explanations rather than harsh discipline
the children are securely attached (Konchanska et al., 2002)
Prosocial behaviour
Prosocial behaviour is helpful behaviour intended to benefit others
There are many reasons why people might want to engage in prosocial behaviour, e.g., rewards, social approval (eg. more likely to be liked if act in a certain way) , conflict avoidance…
Generally when we speak of prosocial behaviour, we mean behaviour that helps others for altruistic motives
Empathy
Empathy is an emotional reaction to another’s emotional state or condition that is similar to that person’s state or condition-
Sympathy
Sympathy is the feeling of concern for another person (or animal) in reaction to the other’s emotional state or condition; often an outcome of empathising with another’s negative emotion or situation
Development of altruistic prosocial behaviour
Infants respond to others’ distress, but may not differentiate between others’ emotional reactions and their own and seek comfort for themselves (Hoffman, 1990)
At about age 2, children start to more clearly differentiate between another’s emotional distress and their own (RadkeYarrow & Zahn-Waxler, 1984) although their responses may still be egocentric (Hoffman, 1990)-
In the 2nd and 3rd years of life, the frequency and variety of young children’s prosocial behaviours increase, although they do not regularly act in prosocial ways (Lamb & Zakhireh, 1997)
Prosocial behaviours increase into adolescence (Benensen et al., 2003)
Individual differences in prosocial behaviour: genetic factors
have only a modest contribution
Identical twins are more similar in their prosocial behaviour than non-identical twins (Matthews et al., 1981)
may arise indirectly from genetically influenced differences in temperament
Individual differences in prosocial behaviour: Environmental influences
socialisation (in the family) is a strong influence on prosocial development
Children are more likely to imitate the prosocial behaviour of adults with whom they have a positive relationship (Yarrowet al., 1973)
Promoting prosocial behaviour
Parents who are constructive and supportive tend to have children who are high in prosocial behaviour and sympathy
Discipline involving reasoning fosters voluntary prosocial behaviour, especially when the reasoning points out the consequences of the child’s behaviour for others (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998)
Antisocial behaviour
Antisocial behaviour is harmful behaviour intended to bring negative consequences to another
an example is aggression
Hostile aggression
Hostile aggression is motivated by the desire to injure others, either from anger or self-protection
Instrumental Aggression
Instrumental aggression is motivated by the desire to obtain a concrete goal, such as gaining possession of a peer’s toy
Development of aggression
Physically aggressive behaviour emerges around 18 months and increases until about age 2, when it decreases in frequency (Coie & Dodge, 1998)
But, the development of language skills sees an increase in verbal aggression, (e.g., teasing/name-calling Bonica et al., 2003)
Preschoolers (3-5 years) often show instrumental aggression as they learn to share (Fabes & Eisenberg, 1992) Development of aggression
Children of this age sometimes also use relational aggression, which harms others’ peer relationships such as by excluding from the social group (Crick et al., 1997)
Characteristics of antisocial children
Children who exhibit problems with antisocial behaviour tend to differ from non-aggressive children in their social cognition (Crick & Dodge, 1996)
Children prone to reactive aggression (i.e., emotionally driven, antagonistic aggression) are particularly likely to perceive other people’s motives as hostile and to generate and accept aggressive responses to provocation
Children prone to proactive aggression (i.e., unemotional aggression aimed at fulfilling a need or desire) tend to anticipate more positive social consequences for aggression
Problem aggressive behaviour
Aggression declines in most children from age 2-8 (Shaw et al., 2003).
But some children develop frequent and serious problems with aggression
Many children who are aggressive from early in life have neurological deficits that underlie such problems as difficulty in paying attention and hyperactivity (Brennan et al., 2003)
Consistency of aggressive and antisocial behaviour
Early-onset conduct problems are associated with a range of family risk factors (e.g., Aguilar et al., 2000)
Late-onset (adolescent) conduct problems tend to emerge from peer interactions (McCabe et al., 2001)
Children who are identified as aggressive by peers at age 8 have higher self-reported aggression at age 30 and have more criminal convictions for more serious offences (Eron et al., 1987)
