Moral Development Flashcards
Final Exam
moral development
all about the question of right and wrong
2 areas of moral development
cognitive: how do children and adolescents come to understand right and wrong?
behavioral: how do children and adolescents act in morally bad and morally good ways?
piaget’s moral development theory: stages
- premoral reasoning - <4 years
- heternomous mortality - 4-7 years
transition period - autonomous morality - >11/12
premoral reasoning stage (piaget)
- Until age 4
- Kids aren’t engaged in thinking about right and wrong; they’re not doing a lot of perspective taking, thinking about other people
- Pre-social: not engaging in true social thinking/interactions
heternomous morality stage (piaget)
- 4-7 years
- rules from authority (parents)
- focus on consequences
- moral realism; imminent justice
What’s right and wrong is shaped by what’s a rule to you
iii. Heavy focus on consequences
1) Idea of what’s wrong is based on who had the worse outcome/consequences
moral realism (piaget’s concept)
kids have a notion of rules and consequences; they believe that rules and the consequences are real; they emanate from doing something wrong
1) The consequence/punishment emanates from doing something wrong
autonomous morality stage (piaget)
ages 11/12 and up
- rules as a social agreement
- sensitive to fairness and equality
- focus on motives and intentions
- moral relativism
ii. Rules are set by society and other people iii. Consequences aren't real, they're relative 1) They're decided by us based on cooperation and society iv. You might start caring about if rules are fair
what drives changes in moral development (piaget)
- Cognitive development: lets us move away from concrete representation and thinking more abstractly
- Time with peers: active experience with good and bad, with right and wrong
strengths/support of piaget’s theory
- moral reasoning correlated w/ performance on tests of cognitive development
- children do increasingly consider intentions and motives
shortcomings of Piaget’s theory
underestimating children
- Using complex verbal scenarios that are challenging for children to keep track of
- If you test children in simpler ways, young children do seem to consider intentions
○ Even at 8 months: seem to perceive intentions
§ Someone who tries to help you is good
- young children do consider intentions in thinking about good vs bad behavior
kohlberg’s theory on moral development
posed moral dilemma –> focus on children’s reasoning, not on specific answers
Stage 1: punishment and obedience orientation (Kohlberg)
right = obeying authority, avoiding punishment
- people answer as if right and wrong is obeying authority and avoiding punishment
- What is right is what doesn’t get me punished, what is wrong is what gets me punished
- Obedience and consequences
Stage 2: Instrumental and Exchange Orientation
right = what will result in reward
- start to consider other people’s wants, but only reciprocal (“tit for tat”/”quid pro quo”)
- concern over what’s good for you
stage 3: mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships, and interpersonal conformity orientation (Kohlberg)
right = what’s expected by people/society, what other people expect as good
- importance of being “good”, social acceptance
- “Good girl-good boy” stage
- Doing what’s seen as right by other people; doing what’s not seen as wrong by other people
stage 4: social system and conscience orientation (kohlberg)
right = doing one’s duty, adhering to authority, upholding social order
- law and order
- Right and wrong is what’s set by the legal system
difference between kohlberg’s stage 1 and 4
○ Stage 4 goes deeper: there’s a reason for the rules
§ Social contract; a reasoning why there’s rules
§ Not just purely following the rules, but the ‘why’ behind it
stage 5: social contract of individual rights orientation
(combined w/ stage 6)
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; gets deeper into the laws are written/agreed upon by a group (society)
- Laws are meant to help society function, but there can be problems with the law
○ The law doesn’t overweight the right to life
- Rights that outweigh others: you can go against the law if you think there’s a deeper moral principle
- Moral principles may not be in alignment with the law
stage 6: universal ethical principles
(combined w/ stage 5)
right = self-chosen ethical principles that reflect universal principles of justice
- civil disobedience
specific universal principles of life, liberty, and justice that are seen to overweigh everything else
- moral exemplars and civil disobedience
moral exemplars
individuals that are seen to adhere to deeper moral principles
civil disobedience
you’re willing to defy laws in order to adhere to moral principles
kohlberg’s stages 5 and 6
eventually became combined
- not expected to know the difference between these laws
age timeline for kohlberg’s development
Early adolescence: stage 1-2 is common
Later adolescence into young adulthood: stage 3
Young adulthood: stage 4 starts to increase
kohlberg’s theory: maturation and individuality
- not maturation: moral development is not directly taught
- based on advances in cognition
–> own thinking
–> discussions with others - individual differences: influences of family, school, peers
similarities between piaget and kohlberg’s theories of moral development
the development is based on cognition/our own thinking/our own active experiences
criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory
ROLE OF CULTURE: kohlberg argued that these stages were universal, but is that true??
- Kohlberg believed that industrialization and advancement led to better moral reasoning (WRONG!)
- likely a bias in how Kohlberg’s approach assess morality
○ Tend to type into particular types of moral reasoning
○ Often ask people to reason about individual rights and autonomy
OG STUDY: only included male participants
key elements of kohlberg’s theory
- Argued that this development was universal
- You have to pass through stages in order
- You can’t go backwards
○ Not everyone necessarily reaches later stages, but everyone universally passes thru the stages
kohlberg’s theory: cultural findings
Consistent across culture:
○ Sequence of stages is a similar ordering across cultures
○ Stage 1 & 2 are really common in childhood
○ Stage 2 & 3 are common in adolescence
Differences across culture:
○ Rates at which people progress through stages
○ The final, end stage
§ In US: stage 4 or 5 are common end stages for adults
§ In other countries, stage 3 or 4 might be the peak for most adults
moral principles in other cultures (3 ethics)
- ethics of autonomy
- ethics of community
- ethics of divinity
ethics of autonomy
has to do with rights, equality, freedom
ethics of community
duty; status
how you’ve helped to care for the status of your community, family, etc.
○ Might emphasize more stage 3 or 4 reasoning
§ What’s seen as good or bad is doing what’s expected of you, to be a good member of your community, etc.
ethics of divinity
purity; sanctity
what’s right and wrong is what’s pure from a religious/spiritual standpoint
○ Kohlberg’s theory very much lacks this
kohlberg’s stages: end stage across cultures
USA: 4-5 common end stages
Kenya: 2/3 or 3/4 common end stages
Papua New Guinea: 2-3 common end stages
Kohlberg’s theory: role of gender
- OG study was only male participants
- some proposed “principle of care”
principle of care
women and girls MIGHT prioritize care more
- Individual rights, fairness, ethics of care
porcupine dilemma (kohlberg; gender differences)
girls and women might be more likely to respond in ways that are thinking about care for everybody’s needs
○ Ex: Porcupine can stay but you can put a blanket over the quills
- Boys and men are more likely to respond to things in terms of what’s morally right and wrong
○ Ex: Since the porcupine wasn’t there first, it should leave
current findings regarding ‘principle of care’ and ‘porcupine dilemma’
don’t seem to be gender differences in how people respond to moral dilemmas
- People of all genders will reason for justice, care, etc.
critiques for moral research
- The dilemmas being proposed are all hypothetical
- Very deliberate thinking; all in your head
- What does this really tell us about how people are acting out in the world
- Is moral thought actually predicting moral behavior?
pro-social behavior
- Empathy & sympathy
○ Perspective taking and theory of mind - Norms & expectations
- Desire something in return; reciprocal altruism
- Positive emotions
○ We feel better when we’re prosocial - Situational influences
○ May depend on situational relationships and who you’re interacting with
○ May depend on mood (happy, sad, etc.)
influences on pro-social behavior
- age
- nature –> genetics?
- nurture?
age (influences on pro-social behavior)
- Prosocial increases with age
- Many think it’s due to theory of mind and empathy
You need to consider other people’s desires and needs
- Many think it’s due to theory of mind and empathy
nature –> genetics (influences on pro-social behavior)
- We’ve evolved to need sharing and to share
- Individual continuity: young children who are better sharers often grow up into adolescence and older to be better at sharing and helping
nurture (influences on pro-social behavior)
- Modeling and social learning
○ We’re more likely to do it when we see other people sharing- Parenting: more likely to stem from authoritative
○ Explaining why you’re doing certain things; giving insight into getting things to think of other’s mental states and use of prosocial behavior - Life circumstances
- Parenting: more likely to stem from authoritative
nurture: life circumstance (influences on pro-social behavior)
Looking @ pro-social behavior during an earthquake in Sichuan, China
□ Right after earthquake:
- 6 year olds: share less
- 9 year old: share more
◊ Less egocentric; better able to consider perspectives of other people
□ Longer after earthquake: things go back to normal
- Changes may be temporary; we may resort back to our nature
culture: pro-social behavior
- across cultures: common to see pro-social behavior increase with age
- collectivistic cultures??
- cultural differences in response to socialization of pro-social behavior
collectivistic cultures: pro-social behavior
- Less self hoarding in China, Peru, and Fiji (more collectivistic)
- Maybe there’s more prosocial behavior in collectivistic cultures
○ Value of duty/sharing may be emphasized more in collectivistic culture
who benefits from pro-social behavior in collectivistic cultures
- Collectivistic pro-social values may be more directly related to who you’re helping
○ i.e. in Philippines, children are more likely to help those in their own community instead of outsiders
study: comparing pro-social behavior in collectivistic vs individualistic cultures
Condition 1: parents model being stingy
Condition 2: parents model being generous
In US: kids model stingy behavior, but do not model the generous behavior
○ If their parents were being generous, it didn’t increase their sharing
○ Socialization only comes out when it’s stingy behavior
In India: kids model both stingy and generous behavior
○ More likely to model all sorts of behavior
why results were found: comparing pro-social behavior in collectivistic vs individualistic cultures
Potentially: modeling is an option
in US: may be less pressure to model exactly
versus in India: modeling parents may be more expected and strict
antisocial behavior: types of aggression
Important to distinguish types of aggression because types vary across development
- instrumental
- hostile
- physical
- verbal
- social/relational
instrumental aggression
motivated by a desire to obtain a goal
- an set goal; intended to get something
- Ex: a bully trying to get lunch money
hostile aggression
“reactive”
- no clear goal, motive to harm; often impulsive and driven in response to others’ behavior
physical aggression
intent to physically harm
verbal aggression
threats; name calling; yelling
social/relational aggression
directed towards damaging reputation and/or relationships
- Spreading rumors
- Manipulating friendships; kicking people out of the friend group
physical aggression: changes with age
high in toddlerhood/easy childhood, then decreases
- Why it decreases:
○ I don’t like it when people kick me, so I shouldn’t kick other people
○ Emotional relation and behavioral development
social/relational aggression: changes with age
increases in middle childhood/adolescence
- Some evidence that this is more so for girls than boys
- BUT: gender related pattern is less consistent than we thought
influences on aggression
- biological
- parenting
- peers
- patterns of thinking
influences on aggression: flowchart
biological predispositions + socialization (parents, peers, school) –> patterns of thinking –> aggressive behavior
biological (influences on aggression)
genetics; neurological differences
- Individual continuity: kids who are more aggressive tend to grow up to be teens that are more aggressive
- Suggests genetic predisposition
- those w/ challenges w/ attention and self regulation are factors that predict more aggressive behavior
parenting (influences on aggression)
harsh, punitive; low monitoring; high conflict
- parents who are less involved predict more aggressive behavior
- Has to do with modeling
peers (influences on aggression)
time spent with other antisocial children
- likely has to do with modeling
- we learn from our peers
cognitive patterns (influences on aggression)
hostile attribution bias: when we tend to interpret things as more hostile, we tend to act more aggressively
antisocial behavior: cheating
- can take many forms
- common in youth: 80-90% report cheating during high school (low in childhood –> rapid increase in adolescence)
cheating: definition
Many different forms and definition
- Intentionally carrying out forbidden behaviors to gain an unfair advantage
○ Examples: copying off someone else’s test, using a cheat sheet, etc.
- Doing something against the rules to gain a benefit
cheating: long-term predictions
- Kids who are more likely to cheat learn less in school
- More likely to engage in less great practices in their jobs
○ Dishonest in their jobs too
why teens and children cheat
Why do kids and teens cheat?
- Pressure for performance
- Social norms
○ Everyone else is doing it
- Social comparison
- Not enough time to prepare/study
- Lack of interest
○ Less personally motivated/connected
- Perceive teacher to be unfair or caring
influences on cheating
- situation
- peers
- mindset
- praise
situation (influences on cheating)
more common when not being monitored
peers (influences on cheating)
more common when observe/think others to be cheating
mindset (influences on cheating)
more common for fixed mindset about intelligence
- How you think about performance and intelligence
Fixed mindset: seems to predict more cheating
Growth mindset = less cheating
praise (influences on cheating)
more common when told you’re “smart”
- The way we talk to kids matters
- Growth vs fixed mindset can be shaped by praise
- When they’re given more praise about their ability
“wow, you’re so smart!” vs. “wow, you worked so hard on this!”
study: praise and cheating
- Card game w/ built in opportunity for cheating
- Manipulation: how they praised them
○ “you’re really smart” or “you worked so hard” - When you praise them for their ability, they’re more likely to cheat (in comparison to the baseline or other forms of praise)
indirect praise (cheating)
lots of the information we receive is indirect
- does indirect praise (i.e. overhearing comments about another person) influence cheating?
study: indirect praise
question: does overhearing people talk about praise in certain ways seem to predict cheating?
○ Children hear the experimenters talking about another kid (“john is so smart” or “john is doing so good at this game”)
findings: indirect praise (study)
Findings:
○ 3 year old: overhearing ability praise did no difference
○ 5 year old: overhearing ability praise led kids to be more likely to cheat
§ Overhearing indirect ability praise for other children
Why?
- Social comparison and theory of mind come up
- 5 year olds are better at keeping track of multiple things
moral development: social, cognitive, and neurologicaldomains
- Social influences
○ Peers, teachers, etc. - Cognitive influences
○ How you think about intelligence and ability
○ Theory of mind –> thinking about other perspectives - Neurological developments
○ Theory of mind has neurological developments
