Lecture 11: Moral Development and Wrap-Up Flashcards
moral judgment
How people should interact with each other
what is moral judgment based on?
principles concerning the distinction between right/wrong
examples of principles concerning the distinction between right/wrong
justice, welfare, and fairness
Piaget’s theory of moral reasoning
- The development of moral judgment relies on cognitive development
- Children pass through 3 qualitatively different stages of moral development
- Assessed moral judgment with short stories
how does moral judgment change with cognitive development?
children are increasingly able to take intentions into account
properties of Piaget’s stages of moral development
- All thinking about right and wrong is determined by the stage
- Order is fixed
assessing moral judgment with short stories
Interested in explanations for why an action is viewed as right or wrong
Piaget’s 3 stages of moral reasoning
- premoral stage
- heteronomous stage
- autonomous stage
premoral stage
- 0-5 years old
- Little understanding of rules, so they can’t make judgments about right and wrong
- Their behaviour is regulated by their caregivers
heteronomous stage
- 5-10 years old
- Rules are fixed and can never be broken
- Morality: obeying the rules of authority figures, like parents
- The outcomes of an action are more important than the intentions
autonomous stage
- 10+ years old
- Rules are not absolute and can be changed
- Consider moral principles, like fairness, when deciding what is right and wrong
- Intentions matter
Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning
- A cognitive theory of moral development
- Divided moral development into three stages
Kohlberg’s 3 stages of moral reasoning
- preconventional stage
- conventional stage
- postconventional stage
preconventional stage
- 3-7 years old
- Focus on avoiding punishment and getting rewards from authority figures
- Intentions don’t matter
- No personal sense of right and wrong
- Rules are fixed and absolutely
which of Piaget’s stages is the preconventional stage most similar to?
the heteronomous stage
how do children in the preconventional stage react to the Heinz dilemma?
- Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is illegal and he could get caught
- Heinz should steal the drug because if his wife dies, Heinz will be blamed and will go to jail
conventional stage
- 8-13 years old
- Focus on compliance with social expectations, conventions, and duties
- Good behaviour is doing what is approved of by the social group and maintaining good social relationships
- Capable of considering intentions
- Good behaviour is upholding one’s duty to follow the rules and laws of society
which of Piaget’s stages is the conventional stage most similar to?
the autonomous stage
how do children in the conventional stage respond to the Heinz dilemma?
- It’s right to steal because Heinz means well by trying to help his dying wife
- It’s wrong for kids to steal because it’s against the law. If everyone was stealing, society would fall apart
postconventional stage
- 13 years old +
- The morality of an action is judged based on what’s in the best interest of society or based on maintaining universal ethical principles
- Rules are viewed as social contracts that can be changed to meet the needs of society
- People may disobey rules that are inconsistent with their moral principles
- Rules are viewed as useful but not absolute
does everyone reach the postconventional stage?
no
what are the basic universal ethical principles?
Life, liberty, basic human rights
how do children in the postconventional stage respond to the Heinz dilemma?
It’s not wrong for Heinz to steal because human life must be preserved and life is worth more than money or personal property.
Piaget and Kohlberg’s contributions
- First to acknowledge that moral reasoning changes systematically as children grow older due to cognitive development
- Recognizing that children are increasingly able to take intentions into account as they age
- Cross-cultural universality of changes in moral reasoning
weaknesses of of Piaget and Kohlberg’s theories
- Assumed that infants and very young children are incapable of judgment about right and wrong
- Underestimated children’s ability to appreciate intentions
- Children and adults show inconsistencies in their moral reasoning
- People often reason at different levels on different occasions
- More likely to reason at lower levels if they can personally benefit
moral judgment study question
is moral judgment innate?
moral judgment study method
- 6-month-olds watched a morality play in which a red puppet is trying to climb up a hill but fails
- Helper: The yellow puppet comes and helps the red puppet
- Hinderer: The blue puppet pushes the red puppet down
moral judgment study results
depending on the study, 75-100% of babies prefer the helper vs. the hinderer
moral judgment follow-up study
used the preferential looking paradigm with 3-month-olds, which found that they prefer the helper over the hinderer
takeaway of moral judgment studies
this suggests that rudimentary moral judgment is innate
infants and intentions study question
can children appreciate intentions around 2 years of age?
infants and intentions study method
- 21-month-olds participated in a lab task with two adults
- Infants stood at a table with both adults
- Both adults offered to give the infant a toy by placing it at the edge of the table but ultimately the child didn’t get the toy
- Negative intention: The adult pulled the toy away
- Positive intention: The adult watched in surprise as the toy rolled away from the infant
- Then, the experimenter presents both adults with a single new toy
- The toy falls to the floor and both adults reach for it
infants and intentions study test
Does the infant help? If so, which adult do they help?
infants and intentions study results
most infants helped the adult with positive intentions (evidence of selective helping)
infants and intentions study takeaway
contrary to Piaget’s theory, suggests that 2-year-olds can appreciate intentions when judging others’ actions
infants and intentions follow-up study
But what if there are different outcomes of action? Will infants still base decisions to help on intentions?
infants and intentions follow-up study method
- the same procedure except:
- Positive intention but negative outcome: The adult clearly offered the toy to the infant and watched in surprise as the toy rolled away
- Positive intention and positive outcome: The adult clearly offered the toy to the infant and the child was able to examine it
- Then, the experimenter presented both adults with a single new toy
- The toy falls to the floor and both adults reach for it
infants and intentions follow-up study findings
2-year-olds helped the adults equally, suggesting that infants care more about intentions than outcomes of actions
appreciating intentions study question
how does theory of mind influence children’s ability to take intentions into account when making moral judgments?
appreciating intentions study method
tested 3-8-year-olds children on a standard false belief task and a moral false belief task
appreciating intentions study findings
- Children’s attribution of positive intentions (wasn’t doing something wrong) increased with age
- Children who failed standard false belief tasks interpreted the character’s intention as negative and were more likely to recommend punishing them
appreciating intentions study takeaway
this suggests that maturing theory of mind enables children to give others the benefit of the doubt when they act out of ignorance
what is the current dominant theory of moral development?
the social domain theory
social domain theory of moral development
- As they age, children are simultaneously developing knowledge about moral, societal, and personal domains
- Implies that what children view as right and wrong depends on the domain
- Challenge to Piaget and Kohlberg who viewed children’s thinking about right and wrong as determined by stage and consistent across situations
what are the social domains?
moral, societal, and personal domain
moral domains
reasoning about issues related to others’ welfare about rights, fairness, and justice
how is the moral domain learned?
through socialization from parents
societal domain
understanding of social conventions that these conventions can be changed and are sometimes arbitrary
personal domain
- actions in which individual preferences are the main consideration
- No right or wrong choices since choices don’t affect other people
implications of social domains
- Children can distinguish between moral, societal, and personal domains from a young age
- View of right and wrong depends on the domain
- Children can make moral-based judgments much younger than Piaget and Kohlberg thought
evidence for distinctions between domains
- 3- and 4-year-olds can distinguish between issues in 3 domains
- They generally believe that violations of moral rules are more wrong than violations of societal conventions
- They believe that they should have control in the personal domain but understand that they don’t decide in moral and societal domains
- But, they struggle to make moral judgments in complex situations, especially those involved in group identity
social domains across cultures
All cultures distinguish between issues of morality, societal conventions, and personal preferences
Similarity in the moral domain across cultures
All cultures view judgments about behaviours related to fairness and others’ welfare as in the moral domain
differences across cultures in what falls within the moral, societal, and personal domain
helping parents in old age is a moral judgment in collectivistic cultures but more of a personal judgment in individualistic cultures
prosocial behaviour
- Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit others
- Includes helping, sharing, and comforting others
how does prosocial behaviour happen?
Empathy and sympathy are important motivators of prosocial behaviour
trajectory to prosocial behaviour
Perspective-taking -> empathy -> sympathy -> prosocial behaviour
empathy
understanding and sharing the emotional state of another person
sympathy
feeling of concern for another person in response to their emotional state
prosocial behaviour before 18 months
children tend to react to others’ distress with self-focused distress rather than prosocial behaviour
prosocial behaviour from 18-24 months
- prosocial behaviour appears and increases throughout the second year of life
- They readily help others without the need for encouragement
examples of prosocial behaviour in 18-24-month-olds
- Comfort others in distress
- Share belongings
- Help others achieve goals
why do 18-24-month-olds develop prosocial behaviour?
Due to the capacity to feel empathy and sympathy, facilitated by the emergence of the sense of self around 18 months
prosocial behaviour in toddlers study question
how do toddlers react in an empathy-inducing situation?
prosocial behaviour in toddlers study method
- 18-24-month-olds introduced to 2 experimenters
- E1 was wearing a necklace that she visibly likes and takes it off and one point
- Coded infant’s facial expression in reaction to the events
prosocial behaviour in toddlers study conditions
- Harm: E2 aggressively takes the necklace, but E1 shows no emotional reaction
- Neutral: E2 takes another necklace that’s close by (not E1’s necklace) in a neutral way, and E1 shows no emotional reaction
prosocial behaviour in toddlers study results
- infants showed more sympathy in the harm vs. neutral condition
- They were more likely to sympathize with a seemingly victimized adult
prosocial behaviour in toddlers study takeaway
this suggests that infants can feel sympathy even in the absence of adult’s reactions of distress
prosocial behaviour in toddlers second part of the study method
- In the next part of the study, infants had the opportunity to help E1 after her balloon flew away
- E1 pretends to not be able to retrieve it
prosocial behaviour in toddlers second part of the study findings
- there was a positive correlation between sympathy and helping behaviour
- Children who showed more sympathy during the necklace portion of the study were more likely to help her retrieve the balloon
prosocial behaviour in toddlers second part of the study takeaway
this shows that sympathy motivates helping in infants as young as 18-24 months
selective helping in toddlers
Toddlers help selectively depending on:
How trustworthy, friendly, and helpful the other person is
The type of help required
They struggle to engage in helping that requires self-sacrifice
prosocial behaviour beyond toddlerhood
- Prosocial behaviour continues to increase throughout childhood, particularly emotional helping and helping that requires self-sacrifice
- This is due to the more sophisticated moral reasoning and improved perspective-taking
individual differences in prosocial behaviour
- Genetics (nature)
- Socialization by parents (nurture)
twin prosocial behaviour studies
- Identical twins are more similar in their level of prosocial behaviour than fraternal twins
- This suggests that there is a genetic basis for prosocial behaviour
possible genetic basis for prosocial behaviour
Possible involvement of individual differences in the oxytocin gene
Oxytocin
neuro-hormone involved in social bonding and childbirth
how do genetic differences in prosocial behaviour manifest themselves?
as differences in temperament
2 key temperament differences associated with prosocial behaviour
emotional regulation & behavioural inhibition
emotional regulation and prosocial behaviour
- The ability to experience emotion without getting overwhelmed by it is associated with empathy
- Better emotional regulation is positively associated with helping
behavioural inhibition and prosocial behaviour
high levels of shyness are negatively associated with helping
2 ways that parents impact prosocial behaviour
- Modelling of prosocial behaviour and teaching prosocial values
- Providing opportunities for a child to engage in prosocial behaviour
modelling of prosocial behaviour
- Children tend to be similar to their parents in terms of prosocial behaviour because they copy their behaviour
- Sympathy-inducing rationales are most likely to lead to the internalization of prosocial behaviours
- Authoritative parenting is positively associated with kids’ prosocial behaviour
providing opportunities for children to engage in prosocial behaviour
- Ex. performing household chores, community service hours in high schools
- Increases children’s willingness to take on prosocial tasks in the future because they feel competent to do it
- Fosters perspective-taking
