Lifespan A: Children's Understanding of Right & Wrong, WEEK 7 Flashcards
1
Q
What does understanding right + wrong mean?
A
- Social development of children
- Question of whether something is right + wrong can change over time + varies across cultures > e.g: attitudes to premarital sex
- Psychologists care about how we reason about what is right/wrong not what is actually right/wrong
2
Q
Morality & Moral Reasoning
A
- Morality = framework for decisions about how to treat one another, how to co-exist + co-operate
- Moral reasoning = Conscious process of judgement about whether actions/individuals are right, good + deserving of punishment
- Distinct concepts ^ psychologists care about moral reasoning
3
Q
Piaget on moral judgement in children
A
- Before Piaget, it was assumed children’s establishment of morals were passive
- Piaget argues if learning morals is something we internalise from around us, how do moral values change? > focuses on moral reasoning not moral behaviour
- Piaget gathered data from extensive observational studies of kids playing games > looked at kids from different SES in Switzerland > wanted to see how rules were established, negotiated or challenged
- Found young children stuck to rules rigidly + couldn’t be challenge (Moral realists) > they focus on conforming + consequence of rule breaking
- ^Causes Piaget believes children may have a rigid view of what’s right + wrong but as they grow older, they use their own judgement to question things + decide
4
Q
Moral judgement: Piaget’s stories study description
A
- Piaget constructed 2 stories where they contrasted the motive w/ the outcome > John’s story is that he is called to dinner + when he opens the door 15 cups break as they were left there but John did not know this > Henry’s story is that he tried to get jam out of the cupboard and broke one cup accidentally
- Then we would ask who do you think is naughty?
- Most common answer is Henry as he had selfish intentions while John was completely unaware even though he broke more cups
5
Q
Moral judgement: Piaget’s stories study results
A
- Children up to age 7 would say John was more naughty as he broke more cups > Piaget calls this objective responsibility (evaluation in terms of material consequence rather than the motive)
- From age 9, children would say Henry was more naughty due to his intention > subjective responsibility (evaluation on motive rather than material consequence)
- Moral realism around 7yrs (objective res) gets replaced by Moral subjectivism (focus on intention) around 9 yrs and this gets replace by Autonomous morality by age 12+ > (9-12+ is formal operations)
- Autonomous morality = understanding rules can be changed by negotiation + challenge > not fixed
- These stages aren’t separable they happen around this time but can vary
6
Q
Piaget’s view explained
A
- Didn’t see development of moral judgement as special > part of broader domain general cognitive development
- Argues children focus on objective responsibility when they are up to 7 as they still have egocentrism > cant see child’s motive from their own perspective
- Children are realists in pre-operations + rules are fixed which cant be challenged > develops in next stage
- Development occurs through social interaction + equilibration
7
Q
Evaluating Piaget’s evidence: Weiner & Peter (1973)
A
- Studies replicated Piaget study but modified story so less verbal ability is needed > asked children to give a gold star to the child who was good + red to who was bad > younger children are better at doing this
- Large scale study of ethnically diverse groups of children aged 4-18 (n=300)
- Found an increase in rewarding people for good intent + punishing for bad intent > supports there is a change in view of children + situation
8
Q
Evaluating Piaget’s evidence: Parsons et Al (1976)
A
- Parsons argued the intention info always came before the consequence info > Parsons reversed this as children may struggle to identify the intention as the last thing they want to hear is the consequence > recency effect
- Did a series of exp + reversed the order in half of children > found this made task easier for some children
- Order effects may influence young children’s decision to reward or punish a character
9
Q
Kolhberg’s Theory of Moral Development
A
- Conducted several large scale studies + developed prominent theory on dev of moral reasoning > built on Piaget’s idea
- Constructivist theory + argues we aren’t born w/ any moral sense > children build understanding of moral codes + update schemes after learning through interaction
- Features of Kohlberg’s theory include stage theory (invariant sequence) + universal constructivist approach
- ^Piagetian style > invariant stages mean the stage cannot be skipped + universal = everyone goes through it
10
Q
Kohlberg’s method: Moral dilemmas
A
- Did several kinds of studies by developing ‘moral dilemma situations’ > Situation w/ no right/wrong answer
- Initially, scenario presents conflict between a legal or social rule and happiness or welfare
- Story includes Heinz whose wife has a special cancer which there is a drug to cure it but had to be paid for > Heinz only had half the money but the druggist said no I made the drug + I will make money from it > Heinz steals it later
- Question asked was Heinz right to steal? why?
- No developmental trend in who said he was right/wrong > there was a developmental trend in exp > interviewed ppt + categorised their answers
11
Q
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development: Categories
A
- 3 broad categories: Pre-conventional reasoning, Conventional reasoning + Post conventional reasoning
- Those w/ pre-conventional reasoning say he shouldn’t have stole the drug as he will get punished (focus on avoiding punishment + deference to power)
- Conventional reasoning > say he would steal drug as his family + wife family will be happy she is no longer ill but others may say he shouldn’t have stolen as it break’s social order + everyone will steal (Good behaviour is that which pleases others, rules seen as fixed + want to maintain social order)
- Post-conventional reasoning: Say he should steal the drug as his wife will survive + judge isn’t likely to punish him harshly due to circumstance (rules aren’t fixed, principles are abstract not concrete)
12
Q
Kohlberg’s Theory of Development: Stages
A
- Post-conventional thinking is universal + should result in all adults across cultures
- Interactionist view of moral dev > we develop moral sense through interaction
- Pre-conventional stage (4-7yrs) > pre-operational stage
- Conventional stage (7-12yr) > Concrete operation stage
- Post-conventional (12+) > Formal operations stage
- Kohlberg’s stages are sequential (one form or reasoning replaces the other), fixed order (stages cannot be skipped or repeated) and universal (stages occur across cultures)
13
Q
Evaluating Kohlberg’s theory
A
- Longitudinal evidence supports stage sequence > 94% of ppts adhered to stage seq + adult moral reasoning characterised by relative stability
- If characterised as post-conventional, you’re unlikely to fall back into another stage
- Kohlberg says children need things explained to them + have things negotiated to develop advanced moral reasoning
- Early social experiences are linked to moral dev > Internalisation of morality is enhanced if parents use minimal power and explain why some behaviours are good > rather than telling kids what to do, explain why they do it for advanced moral reasoning
- Meta-analysis (15 studies) indicates that corporal punishment is moderately associated with poor moral internalisation > social exp may influence moral dev
14
Q
Challenges to Kohlberg’s Theory
A
- Compared data from 45 countries + looked at example of whether different types of moral reasoning was occurring
- Divided into 4 groups > Urban complex societies are more developed (western + non-western) and folk tribal societies are isolated/rural (western + non-western)
- In urban complex societies, there is evidence of all types of moral reasoning > there is evidence of it occurring so it exists (100%)
- But, in folk tribal societies, there is no evidence of post-conventional reasoning + the other types of reasoning are also less frequent (86%)
- Kohlberg is a white privileged male from a Western country + highly educated > theory may be culturally biased as you can’t say people outside his culture are less developed
15
Q
Do infants make moral evaluations?
A
- Bloom & Hamlin argue children are born w/ a moral sense at a basic level so they can detect good/bad behaviours > this is because humans rely on cooperation + being around others so evolution must’ve given a basic sense of being drawn to good + avoiding bad
16
Q
Infants & moral evaluations:
Hamlin, Wynn & Bloom (2007)
A
- Looked at 6-10mo infants > non-verbal + limited motor skills
- Child watches 2 puppet scenarios
1. Red circle is trying to climb the mountain + keeps falling down, yellow triangle comes + pushes red up the mountain (helper)
2. Red circle is trying to climb again but blue square comes from the top + pushes red down (hinders) - Infant’s were asked to choose a toy after > majority chose the ‘helper’ toy
- Followed up w/ exp on 10mo using violation of expectations > did same thing as above ^ then did a likely/unlikely scenario > likely: red circle moves toward yellow triangle (KC) > unlikely: red circle moves toward blue square (KV)
- 10 mo infant’s looked longer at knowledge violation sit > infants can judge who they would rather play w/ but also recognise others can make this inference > must be innate as they are so young w/ little skill
17
Q
Infants & moral evaluations: Supporting meta-analysis for Wynn, Hamlin & Bloom
Margoni & Surian (2018)
A
- Meta analysis of 26 studies of 4-32mo infants > used scenarios like red circle one and others
- 68% of children show preference for the ‘good’ agent
18
Q
Challenges to nativist ‘moral sense’ theory
A
- Children may not be having a moral evaluation > perhaps the features of the stimuli themselves are attractive
- When yellow triangle pushed up red circle, red bounced whereas when the blue square pushed down there was no bouncing > Scarf et al believes infants prefer things which bounce as opposed to crashing
- When bouncing was eliminated, infant’s picked neutral character (non-helping, non-crashing) over helpful crashing character > equally likely to choose blue/yellow or sometimes blue over yellow
- Bouncing is positive > infant’s pick character bouncing regardless of being helper or hinderer
- Doesn’t explain why infants have preference in other studies w/ different stimuli
19
Q
Prosocial behaviour in early childhood
A
- If infant’s have moral sense they should be likely to show prosocial behaviour
- Warnaken + Tomaselle argue children are born w/ a moral compass so can detect good behaviour but are driven to engage in prosocial behaviour
- Experimenter tries to do something (e.g: open a drawer w/ hands full) and doesn’t ask for help or give praise, just waits + infant helps spontaneously
- Children as young as 14mo help consistently
20
Q
Evidence for prosocial behaviour:
Genes and Environment
A
- Large scale twin studies using questionnaire ratings of prosocial behaviour (N=9000) shows genetic + environmental influences on prosocial behaviour
- Genetic effect is moderate in early childhood but increase w/ maturation
- Common EV has moderate impact but subsides w/ time while external EV impact increases w/ time
- Drive for prosocial behaviour is due to genes + EV
21
Q
Prosocial behaviour: Natural tendency (nativist) view
A
- Tendency to help evolved due to fitness value.
- Infants do not require encouragement or praise to help.
- Too few experiences of helping others, encouragement, and reinforcement to explain early emergence.
22
Q
Prosocial behaviour: Social interactionist view
A
- Predispositions to help may be present at birth
- Social experiences (involving requests and praise) contribute to emergence of helping.
- Socialization operates from birth but changes in form with age: encouragement/praise replaced with implicit encouragement.
23
Q
Prosocial behaviour in early childhood:
Dahl et Al (2015)
A
- Filmed infants + parents doing things in their natural EV + counted amount of times prosocial behaviour is shown > helping beh is common
- 88.2% of toddlers 13-25mo observed helping others
- 68% of helping episodes included encouragement + 57% reinforced
- Encouragement + praise were more common in younger (<15mo) infants than older (15>) > after 15mo, parents stop using praise as child may have adapted to helping
- Prosocial behaviour emerges in early childhood ubt is socialised at home
24
Q
Prosocial behaviour in early childhood: Training prosocial behaviour
Dahl et Al (2017)
A
- studied 69 infants > half did prosocial tasks but researcher asks for help (training condition) whereas children in control condition weren’t asked for help
- When they were tested later on, children in training c were more likely to help than those in control > specific to those under 15mo while those over 15mo had no effect > likeliness was the same
- Socialisation early on may push children to be prosocial > may not be born w/ moral sense but are socialised to understand what is right/wrong + how to do it
25
Q
Challenges to nativist moral sense theory
A
- Others argue prosocial behaviour doesn’t give any indication of right + wrong or moral reasoning as children may just enjoy being around adults e.g: helping isn’t always good, we can help people do bad things
- prosocial behaviour may not show moral sense
