Lecture 8 - Moral development Flashcards
What is morality
Right and wrong
Cognitive
Behavioural
Emotional
Moral dilemmas
3 – 5 year olds give similar answers
Social learning
What rules are -> context -> different ways they opperate
Social conditioning -> told not to do something/ punished
Observation -> learn what happens if do something wrong
Moral rules transferred from adults to children and internalised
Social learning theories (e.g. Bandura, 1977)
3 types of discipline
Inductive = point out effect on others
Most effective, internalise right and wrong in behaviour
Power-assertive = physical force, threats etc.
Develops fear, are not really learning morality but instead to fear the educator
Love-withdrawal = non-physical, disapproval
Ignoring etc., not related to moral internalisations, just make them fear punishment or loss of parents love
Moral education
Moral rules relate to the social relations or “contracts” that exist between individuals in society
Moral development involves learning the rules that maintain social relations
Children learn about morality through education
Strengths and weaknesses of durkheim’s approach
Strengths
Moral rules are recognized as social (collective) rules
“Society” as the source of morality
Weaknesses
All morality imposed on children from adults
To act morally is to follow “Society’s” rules – but sometimes we have to break the rules…
Doesn’t account for learning from peers (school, friends - same and difference ages) -> those who spend most time with
Morality is subjective -> sometimes the right thing to do is to break the rules
Piaget -> rules of the game
Studied children playing games:
Noticed that children first practice the rules, then rules become meaningful
Also learn “consciousness” of rules: first they are flexible, then sacred, then can be changed if everyone agrees
Young (opperate as solotary participant - doing what their told) -> older (playing to win)
Though understand rules their are personal preferences as to what applies to them
Don’t understand how makes game meaningful to everyone -> without they wouldn’t really be competing
Moral realism
Think more of consequences than understanding the right and wrong
Dont get flexibility -> subjectivity to situation
Can’t skip a stage but after 11 have decided on morality
Premoral
Birth to age 5: unconcerned/unaware
Moral realism
Age 6 to 10: develop concern for the rules, simple judgements of good or bad
Morality of reciprocity
From age 11: understand subjective morality, appreciate equality/fairness
Piaget’s theory on moral development
Two moral worlds view
Around 11 years old shift from adult dominance to society of equals
Problems with Piaget’s vignette’s experiment?
Both incidents are accidental
Young children (age 6) can understand concept of intention
But seem to show a preference for consequences
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
Key features
Thinking and understanding focused
No discrete age categories of develop -> can even occur in adult
Cognitive-developmental theory
Development continues into adulthood
Three levels and six stages
Logic drives development
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
Fixed order, may take until adult and some may never reach the final
Level 1: Pre-Conventional
1. Obedience and punishment orientation -> “I don’t want to get in trouble!”
2. Self-interest orientation -> What’s in it for me?”
Level 2: Conventional
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity -> Good boy/girl
4. Authority and maintaining social-order -> “Everyone must follow the rules”
Level 3: Post-Conventional
5. Social contract orientation -> Internalised, but flexible, ethical code
6. Universal ethical principles -> abstract concepts (justice, compassion, equality) + human rights 19 19
Evaluating Kohlberg’s model
Large (all-male) longitudinal study from 10-36 years
Patterns of development are consistent with Kohlberg’s model
Few participants skip a stage or backslide (regress)
50% show reasoning across two stages at the same testing point
9% show reasoning across more than two stages at the same testing point
Western cultures have a far higher proportion of stage 4, 5, and 6 reasoners
Theory is ethnocentric
Political bias -> even when imagine as different political
Left-wing = higher scores, even when right wing pretended to be left wing
Not as rational and logical -> bias to left wing liberal western, possibly male
Gender bias?
Women score at conventional stage
Rational? (Emler et al., 1983)
Ask left-wing students to imagine they have the opposite political orientation (right-wing), and complete moral questionnaire from that perspective
Biased towards left-wing, liberal, Western, “male” values
Moral rules vs. social rules
Moral rules = intrinsically bad
Instrinsically -> always bad/ unnacceptable (lying, cheating, stealing), harm a victim in some way (injustice, rights violated) -> quite serious
Social convention rules = only conventionally bad
Conventionally -> not the end of world/ every day conduct = no one harmed by breaking these (eticet, table manners, queue), may differ between cultures, seem random
Children learn about rules and context of opporation of social rules
Learn moral rule breaking is wrong -> young children understand this easier
2 to 5 year olds asked about moral and social rules -> Moral = worse, Social = context-dependent
Parents -> tell them what not to do, help them understand
Cultural differences?
Korean children have a greater understanding of social status and social rule differences than American children
Moral emotions
Children play with toys -> some rigged to break as soon as touched -> tell them thats their favourite toy so they pick it up and then it falls apart -> recorded -> guilt seen - body language, facial expressions
22 month old
33 month old
45 month old
All showed signed of guilt (hunch over, scern, freezing)
Age -> learn to manage behaviour and emotion control
Moral behaviour
Most said would never do that
Better control of behaviour as older
Moral thinking and reasoning doesnt always translate to actions
Children asked if they would cheat in the same situation
Then given the game to play themselves
40% of younger children cheated and lied (25% of older)
The development of lying
Hide toy -> makes a noise clear what it is -> asked what it is
Another toy -> less obvious noise -> experimenter leaves -> do they peek and then do they admit they know what it is
2 years -> Most didnt realise they could then say they dont know in order to cover they looked
2 to 3 year olds told not to peek at a toy.. Experimenter leaves room 80% peek Most 2 year olds confessed Most liars failed to hide lie
After 4 years old – understand what others know and do not know…
After 7- 8 years old – conceal lies more consistently
Self-regulation
Self-control -> in line with parents expectations without being reminded
Marshmallow task -> can they wait and not have the one marshmallow to get another
Phases of self-regulation (Kopp, 2002)
Control – depend on adults
Self-regulation – use strategies to resist temptation and delay gratification
Development of prosocial behaviour
Prosocial = behavoiur intended to benefit others
Difficult to tell motive
Experimenter drops something and wait to see if the child comes over to pick it up for them
Eisenberg = metaanalysis
Older= understand why should help and when
12 – 18 month old children share (Hay, 1994)
Helping and cooperation at 14 months (Warneken & Tomasello, 2007)
As children get older, get more prosocial (Eisenberg et al., 2006)
What affects prosocial development
Basis of antisocial behaviour -> stress in womb, exposure to alcohol etc., difficult tempremant
Genetics?
Twin studies -> Identical twins are more alike than non-identical
Child’s temperament -> Difficult” babies tend to be more aggressive
Risk factors from pregnancy -> Antisocial children more likely to have been exposed to alcohol, stress, smoking
Exposure?
Exposed to more prosocial behaviours = become more prosocial
Prosocial children play more together -> segregated
Antisocial -> more segregated and excluded => limit oportunity to develop prosocial
Environment? Parenting Warm, supportive and clear moral boundaries -> more prosocial Social learning Exposure to prosocial peers 34
Cross-cultural differences in prosocial behaviour
More prosocial behaviour in:
Societies where you care for siblings (Whiting & Whiting, 1975)
Communal setting -> collective raising of children within community -> tend to more prosocial
Cultures with values focused on the group (Singh et al., 2002) -> group harmony and promoting group => more prosocial behaviour -> act more fairly and equally in games
Cultures which focus more on cooperation vs. competition (Knight & Kagan, 1977) 35 35
Demands of Kohhlberg’s model
- An individual must follow the same order
- Individuals cannot “skip” stages
- Thought cannot “undevelop”
- Can only reason at one stage at a time
- Sequence is universal
