Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYC21021/ Topics in Developmental Psychology > Lecture 8 > Flashcards

Lecture 8 Flashcards

Morality

1
Q

what are social norms

A

norms are a form of ‘social reality’
- the rule that people act in certain ways in certain contexts

e.g. One must or must not do X in Y context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Domain Theory

A

2 general categories for social norms
- moral norms
- conventional norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Moral norms

A

concerning the welfare of others evolved from two natural tendencies:
- people have a natural tendency to help one another
- people avoid harm to one another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Conventional norms

A

do not directly concern the welfare of others and have the following 3 properties:
- idiosyncratic
- agent-neutral
- context-specific

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

examples of moral norms

A
  • one must help others
  • one should not steal
  • one should not hurt others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

examples of conventional norms

A
  • idiosyncratic: you can’t wear pjs to work (nothing wrong with it but you follow it)
  • agent-neutral: they are rules for all people and they should be respected (e.g. children should put yellow block in yellow bin not blue)
  • context-specific: rule may only be valid in a specific context (e.g. in a specific nursery you would follow these rules, maybe not at home)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

classical view of moral development

A

young children are
- egocentric
- selfish
- amoral

children are only following rules to avoid punishment or get rewards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Domain theory: In Piagetian tradition

A
  • Piaget interviewed children with hypothetical scenarios in which people commit norm violations: moral (hitting someone) vs conventional (eating while standing)
  • by age 4 children are able to distinguish different ‘domains’ of social norms
  • moral norms: unchangeable, serious, punishable, context-independent, authority-independent
  • conventional norms:
    changeable, less serious, less punishable context-dependent, authority-dependent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

the standard view (Piaget/Kohlberg)

A
  • children begin was amoral agents, eventually bound by rules
  • only gradually begin to reason morally
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

evidence against Piaget

A
  • young children show important precursors to morality: early prosociality
  • young children show sophisticated understanding of social norms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

two-step model (Tomasello & Vanish 2012)

A
  • twos teps in the ontogeny (development) of human morality
  • step 1: second-person morality
  • step 2: preschoolers’ norm-based morality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

step 1 in the two-step model

A

SECOND-PERSON morality
before age 3
(PREFERENCE to individuals e.g. friends)

  • helping, sympathy
  • collaboration, sharing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

step 2 in the two-step model

A

preschoolers’ NORM-BASED morality
age 3+
AGENT NEUTRAL (anyone they know)

  • enforcement of social norms (should/must help each other)
  • (guilt and shame)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Step one: second-person morality

A

infancy: 0-12 mo
- empathy
- social preferences

ages 1-3: more ‘active’ prosociality
- helping, sympathy
- sharing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

empathy: step one: evidence

A

infancy 0-12 mo
- Dondi et al 1999
- new born distress was significantly greater for hearing other babies cries than for their own recorded crying

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

social preferences: step one: evidence

A
  • ‘good’ over ‘bad’
  • Hamlin et al. 2007
  • 6-10 mo old infants prefer ‘good guys’ (helpers) over ‘bad guys’ (hinderers)
  • neutral objects over hinderers

(shown video of object trying to push something up a hill, children touched object they preferred first)

shows innate morality to help distinguish helpful and unhelpful people

17
Q

limitations for social preferences study

A
  • indirect measures are used with younger children: touching one object over another:preferential looking
  • not strong evidence that children actually understand moral differences, but best for the age group
18
Q

methodological differences

A

younger children we can only use indirect measures

but children older than 1 we can look at active behaviour paradigms

19
Q

active prosociality study - step one -evidence for age 1-2

A
  • Tomasello et al. 2006
  • children actively participate in helping adults at 1 & 2: want to help others achieve goals
  • they read intentions/goals of individuals and determine whether they need help or not
  • (control: when adults are in the same situation but make it clear they don’t want to open the cabinet, children do not help)
20
Q

intrinsic motivation

A

one does things because it feels nice and right

21
Q

extrinsic motivation

A

one does things because of external reward (or to avoid punishment)

22
Q

childrens’ motivation for helping; intrinsic or extrinsic

A
  • Tomasello 2012 evidence
  • pupil dilation: indicating stress
  • 3 conditions: child helps adult, no one helps adult, someone else helps adult
  • when children could help the adult, distress reduced (reduced dilation)
  • same response for someone else helping the adult
  • in no help distress remained (pupils dilated)
  • regardless of by whom, children’s distress reduced when adult received help: intrinsic ?
23
Q

selective helping

A
  • Tomasello 2010
  • young children (3 yr olds) selectively avoid helping people with harmful intentions

-pay attention to intentions but not necessarily the harm

24
Q

selective helping and what it shows

A
  • helping comes naturally to children; its an early emergence
  • intrinsically motivated to help others (rewards don’t change this)
  • cross-culturally observed
  • could be rooted in sympathetic emotions (babies in distress)
  • this is cognitively flexible; selectively help individuals e.g. if adult doesn’t need help they won’t help
25
Q

‘natural’ help

A
  • as opposed to culturally
  • doesn’t mean that social interaction has no impact, but not taught intentionally
  • once kids are helping, socialization can then ‘shape’ it
26
Q

collaboration

A

towards step 2
- children might work with a peer and earn something together: will children notice if one child gets more reward and notice the unfairness ?

27
Q

collaborating and sharing: towards step 2

A

Hamann et al. 2011
- 2-3 yr olds
- unequal distribution of resources (1 vs. 3 marbles)
- children when working collaboratively -> children shared marbles equally
- children with parallel work (independent work)-> children did not share marbles

  • see partner as equal
  • sense for fairness emerging
28
Q

summary of of step-1

A
  • early prosocial morality is based on second-personal interactions and relationships 0-3 yrs
  • helping and concern about others individuals emerges early and comes naturally
  • children are motivated to collaborate and consider partners as equal (if equal effort)
  • natural morality becomes increasingly flexible
  • morality begins in dyadic interactions without group norms: second-personal (dealing with other people)
29
Q

step two: norm-based morality fundamentals

A

agent neutral
enforcement of social norms
guilt and shame

30
Q

limitations of moral judgment studies

A
  • interview method relies on verbal ability, reasoning and thinking: cannot observe young children as reliably as they may not understand
  • is making moral judgment enough: they might know but may not act on it
31
Q

moral judgment in action evidence - Rakoczy et al. 2008 - step 2

A
  • experimental study
  • 2-3 yr olds taught a novel game called ‘daxing’: children witness puppets playing the game wrong
  • 3 yr olds intervened using ‘normative’ language: ‘shouldn’t do that’ or ‘not how it goes’
32
Q

norm enforcement in peer interactions - Koymen et al 2014 - step 2

A
  • 3-5 yr olds
    2 conditions:
    incompatible: given different rules
    compatible: same rules
  • normative conflict: 3 & 5 yr olds protested and corrected peers’ actions
  • took longer for 3 year olds to resolve conflict and agree on rules
  • 3 year olds did not realize experimenter was the reason for disagreement
  • normative understanding gets more flexible in later years (5 year olds could agree on the alternative rules)
33
Q

is normative enforcement universal - Kanngiesser at al 2021 - step 2

A
  • 5-8 year olds from 8 diverse societies enforced conventional norms (game rules) when observing a peer broke them
  • norm enforcement of conventional norms is universal but style of enforcement varied across societies (imperative vs normative protest)
34
Q

intervention against moral norm violations - step 2

A
  • focused on property rights/norms
  • 2 & 3 year olds protested when it was their picture involved
  • only 3yr olds stood up for property rights for absent third party picture being broken
  • 2 year olds might not know its wrong/ fail to consider it would hurt someone else (failure of empathy/knowledge) or eve knew it was wrong but did it anyway (failure of inhibition/ didn’t act on it)
35
Q

do other species have normative understandings

A
  • social group of chimpanzees when there is food in the middle, dominant chimp eats everything
  • its about dominance, out of fear they don’t eat anything else
  • chimps don’t have collective understanding
36
Q

summary

A
  • contrary to traditional views, young children are nor amoral agents
  • by age 3 children display sophisticated understanding of morality:
    1) intervene to third-party norm violations
    2) in interventions they use ‘normative’ protests highlighting obligation and gent-neutrality
  • agent-neutral understanding paves the way for larger social constructs and social institutions e.g. marriage, laws etc.

PSYC21021/ Topics in Developmental Psychology (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions