Moral development Flashcards
3 stages in Piaget’s theory of morality
- premoral reasoning (< 4 years)
- heteronomous morality (4-7 years)
- autonomous morality (> 11/12 years)
progresses with cognitive development (less egocentric and more abstract) and time with peers
Premoral reasoning
< 4 years
children are focused on their own sensory-motor experiences and have yet to develop an understanding of morality
Heteronomous morality
4-7 years
- thinking of right vs wrong based on rules from authority (e.g. parents)
- focus on consequences and privilege outcome (vs intent)
- based in moral realism, imminent justice (consequences emanate from wrongdoing and universe has rules that govern right/wrong)
Autonomous morality
i.e. morality of cooperation
older than 11/12 years
- rules as social agreements (set by society)
- sensitive to fairness and equality
- focus on motives and privilege intention
- based in moral relativism (right/wrong differs based on context)
Support for piaget’s theory
- moral reasoning is correlated with performance on tests of cognitive development
- children increasingly consider intentions and motives
Criticism on Piaget’s theory
underestimated children (young children consider intentions in thinking about good vs bad behavior)
Kohlberg’s theory of morality
a lifespan theory
- Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas (e.g. Heinz) and focused on children’s reasoning, not on their specific answers
- moral development is not due to maturation or directly taught, rather based on advances in cognition (e.g. own thinking, discussions with others)
individual differences may arise due to influences of family, schools, peers
Stage 1: punishment and obedience orientation
Level 1: preconventional moral reasoning
right = obeying authority and avoiding punishment
common in childhood!
e.g. Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because he will get sent to jail
Stage 2: instrumental and exchange orientation
Level 1: preconventional moral reasoning
- right = what will result in rewards
- start to consider other people’s wants, but only reciprocal (tit for tat/quid pro quo)
common in childhood!
e.g. Heinz should steal the drug because it will save his wife
Stage 3: mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and interpersonal conformity orientation
“good girl, good boy” stage
Level 2: conventional moral reasoning
- right = what is expected by people/society
- emphasizes importance of being good and social acceptance
common in late adolescence/early adulthood!
e.g. Heinz should steal the drug because that’s what a good husband would do
Stage 4: social system and conscience orientation
“law and order” orientation
Level 2: conventional moral reasoning
right = doing one’s duty, adhering to authority, upholding social order
common in late adulthood!
e.g. Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because it’s against the law
Stage 5: social contract of individual rights orientation
Level 3: postconventional moral reasoning
- right = uphold rules in the best interest of the group or those agreed upon by the group
- emphasis on law, but distinction between legal right and moral right
laws are social contracts that can be changed!
e.g. Heinz should steal the drug because the law doesn’t override the right to life
Stage 6: universal ethical principles
Level 3: postconventional moral reasoning
- right = self-chosen ethical principles that reflect universal principles of justice
- involves civil disobedience where moral exemplars or individuals adhere to universal principles, defying laws
e.g. Heinz should steal the drug because he believes life is a human right
Criticism on Kohlberg’s theory
- argues universality, undermining the role of culture and gender
- used only male participants in his original study
Role of culture in moral development
criticism of Kohlberg’s theory
- similar sequence of stages across cultures but different rates and end stages (e.g. US adults typically in stages 4-5)
- cultures may emphasize different moral principles, suggesting bias in how moral reasoning is assessed in Kohlberg’s theory (e.g. focuses on individual rights)
Moral principles that may vary cross-culturally
- ethics of autonomy (rights, equality, freedom)
- ethics of community (duty, status)
- ethics of divinity (purity, sanctity)
Role of gender in moral development
Criticism of Kohlberg’s theory
- Principle of care (Gilligan) more likely emphasized by women
- most studies show similar moral reasoning across gender
- everyone can consider moral principles of justice and care
Why be prosocial?
- empathy and sympathy
- norms and expectations
- desire something in return (reciprocal altruism)
- positive emotions
- situational influences
Influences on prosocial behavior
- age (may increase with ToM development)
- genetics/nature (evidenced by individual continuity in prosociality)
- nurture
nurture includes modeling/social learning, family values, parenting style, life circumstances (e.g. SES, traumatic event)
Impact of traumatic event on prosocial behavior
2008 Szechuan earthquake
- 6-year-olds start sharing less while 9-year-olds start sharing more a month after the earthquake (perhaps because less egocentric)
- return to original state 3 years after the earthquake
Prosocial behavior across cultures
- increase in prosocial behavior with age across cultures
- some evidence of greater increase in collectivistic cultures (e.g. less self-hoarding in Peru, China, Fiji)
- cultural differences in who children are prosocial toward (e.g. Filipino kids share more to relatives; US kids share to strangers)
- cultural differences in response to socialization of prosocial behavior (e.g. Indian kids model both stingy and generous behavior; US kids only model stingy)
5 types of aggression
antisocial behavior
- instrumental
- hostile
- physical
- verbal
- social/relational
Instrumental aggression
motivated by a desire to obtain a goal
e.g. a school bully slams a kid into a locker to try and get their lunch money
Hostile aggression
- no clear goal or motive to harm
- often impulsive and driven in response to others’ behavior
