Moral Flashcards
Piaget what he studied
Rules of games: studied children playing marbles and studied how they dealt with rules and fairness.
Moral rules: asked children why is it wrong to lie or steal and presented vignettes with someone causing damange with good or bad intent.
Inkblot test Piaget
One boy helping father fill well and makes large stain.
One boy forbidden to play with well but does anyway and makes small stain.
Moral Realist
Below age 7
Boy who made large stain is naughtier
Intentions are immaterial
Judgement based on extent of damage caused.
Moral Subjectivist
Above age 7
Boy who made large stain isn’t naughty.
His intention was good.
Subjective factors including intentions are considered.
Morality of constraint/heteronomous (Piaget)
Less than 7yo
Start being aware of rules
Rules specified by authority figure and are absolute
Intentions don’t matter as rules are fixed
Cognitive immaturity - rules exist outside the mind
Reward outcome rather than effort/intention
Transition period (Piaget)
7/8 - 10/11yo
More peer interaction
Learn rules can be constructed by the group
Take on other’s perspectives
More autonomous in thinking about moral issues
Might still believe rules are fixed with authority figure
Autonomous morality (Piaget)
11/12yo
Rules not fixed
Rules product of social agreement
Rules can be negotiated by collective agreement
Start evaluating fairness of punishment by adults
Motives and intentions are crucial
Strength of Piaget
Worldwide - children take motives and intentions into consideration with age.
Weaknesses of Piaget
Stories place large demand on memory of children
Intentions said first and damage said last
Strichartz & Burton (1990) - 6yo take intentions into account.
Wimmer, Wachter & Perner (1982) - reward allocation
Two boys painting fence:
Lazy but big (high ability) so paints lots (high outcome)
Lots of effort but small (low ability) paints little (low outcome).
No age difference on effort, character with highest effort received reward.
Even 4yo understand relationship between effort, ability and outcome.
Kanngiesser & Warneken (2012) - puppet
Decide whether to share stickers with puppet partner.
By 3yo they rewarded based on merit
Never gave more stickers than they kept (selfishness)
Kohlberg methods
Stages are discontinuous and hierarchical.
Used vignettes (Heinz dilemma).
Not interested in whether it is right or wrong to steal but reasoning behind it.
Kohlberg Theory of Moral Development levels
Preconventional - right and wrong determined by reward/punishment.
Conventional - views of others matters, avoidance of blame and seeking approval.
Postconventional - abstract notion of justice, rights of others override obedience and laws.
Preconventional stages
Stage 1 (young children): Right or wrong are absolute and defined by authority Risk of going to prison makes stealing wrong
Stage 2 (older children):
More awareness of feelings and desires of others
Steal drug if he loves his wife
Conventional stages
Stage 3 (14yo):
Others have different perspectives and judge actions
Behave in ways that conform to good behaviour
Heinz should steal drug or not based on other’s views
Stage 4 (adolescents): Aware of wider society as a whole Obedience to authority but also "one must do his duty"
Post-conventional stages
Stage 5 (adults): Difference between moral and legal right Steal as right to life is more important (fairness/justice)
Stage 6 (not achieved by all): Individual principles of conscience Takes into account views of everyone affected
Strengths for Kohlberg
Evidence for first 5 stages.
Spans across different countries (not all).
Explains how cognition links to moral behaviour.
Demonstrates systematic, age related changes.
Weaknesses of Kohlberg
Methodology:
Story too abstract for children
Method of scoring too subjective
Rest et al. (1999) less abstract story and Likert scale
Gender bias:
Only interviewed males as thought females lagged
Gilligan (1997/2) - differences between genders
Non discrete stages:
People engage in multiple stages
More situational than objective stages
Time means higher ones become more dominant
Unrealistic stories:
Only provides two bad options (steal or die)
Eisenberg Prosocial Behaviour (1986) - method and results
Child on way to party and finds other child has hurt self.
5yo would go to party to not miss cake.
Older children focus on empathy.
Children show more sophisticated forms of reasoning at an earlier age than Kohlberg which shows less abstract stories make a difference.
First 3 Stages of Eisenberg
Stage 1 (Hedonistic, self focused): Preschoolers/young primary school Concerned with own interests rather than morals
Stage 2 (Needs based):
Preschoolers/primary school
Concern for physical, material and psychological needs of others even when they conflict with their own.
Stage 3 (approval,stereotyped) Primary/high school Justifies behaviour based on approval/acceptance of others and stereotyped imges of good/bad behaviour
Last 3 Stages of Eisenberg (4a onwards)
Stage 4a (self-reflective empathic)
Mainly high school
Evidence of self reflective, sympathetic role taking and concern with other’s humanness and guilt/positivity related to consequences of own actions.
Stage 4b (transitional level)
High school+
Justifications for helping or not involve internalised values, norms and responsibilities.
May reflect concern for wider society but ideas are not strongly stated.
Stage 5 (strongly internalised)
Few high school but mainly adults
Justifications for helping or not involve internalised values, norms and responsibilities.
ALSO involves desire to improve condition of society and equality for all.
Positive/negative emotions about whether one lives up to own expected norms/values
Evaluation of Eisenberg
Found in Western countries (other cultures may differ)
Higher levels of moral reasoning associated with sympathy and prosocial behaviour.
Link between emotions and prosocial moral judgements
Children’s judgements about rule breaking decisions
Moral (steal or not)
Social conventional (jump a queue)
Personal (choose friends)
Age of children and moral/social rules
3yo:
See difference between moral and social rules
Believe moral violations are worse
4yo:
Understand social can be negotiated but moral can’t
Moral transgressions are wrong even if authority hasn’t specified so
Types of rules for children
Safety (don’t run in street)
Property (don’t touch another’s things)
Household (no snacking)
Health (wash your hands)
Lagattuta (2005) - football in road
Examined relationship between desires, rules and emotions.
4yo, 5/6yo, 7/8yo and adults.
Football goes into road and they’ve been told not to get it.
Condition 1: no parent present
Condition 2: parent present
RESULTS:
4 and 5/6yo:
Positive emotions to breaking rule (got desired object)
Negative emotions to compliance (no desired object)
Older:
Positive emotions towards rule compliant characters
Negative emotions towards rule breakers
Conclusions: younger children break rules because they are more affected by desires and emotions and unable to control them (older children can so feel happy about it)
