Morality Flashcards
Experiment about prosociality in humans, chimpanzees, and capuchins
Potentially reread this
Prosocial acts - acts benefitting others
In this experiment, we provide evidence that all three species will display prosocial behavior, but in each case such responses were conditional rather than universal
There was a “proposer” and “receiver”. conditions included a receiver, no receiver, and self-centered scenario where the proposer got the reward.
Chimps were either together or separated
Humans had stacked shelves. Tested Adults, 7yr olds, and 5 yr olds.
Capuchins had some other configuration
Other variables were whether a MPR (high value reward) or LPR (low value reward) was given, and to which person/chimp/capuchin.
Fundamental forms of prosociality were age-dependent in children, conditional on self-beneficial resource distributions, and conditional on social or resource configurations in chimpanzees and capuchins.
we found in both 7 yr olds and chimpanzees, prosocial choices were made when the Proposer received the preferred reward (the MPR condition), but they did not exhibit a prosocial tendency when they would gain a less-preferred reward while the Receiver would gain the preferred one (the LPR condition).
-> the emergence of such demanding forms of prosociality are late developing and somewhat fragile. Aspects of prosocial behavior are far from being fully developed even by the age of 7–8 years. Only in adults did we find unconditional prosocial choices as the typical response
We provide the first evidence that experience of intra-species/ same species companions’ prosocial behavior facilitates prosocial behavior in children and chimpanzees.
(The 5 yr olds failure to exhibit a prosocial tendency towards another child who was sitting close to them)
SUMMARY: prosociality develops over time
Class wide free association
sense of right and wrong, empathy, golden rule, sharing, don’t hurt others, honesty/cheating,
What kind of things are important for the moral development of children?
Religion, etc.
Justice in other species?
LOOK UP IF THIS IS AN ARTICLE I SHOULD READ
Sure, and cooperation too.
Empathetic Yawn
yawn contagion is related, and we share it with primates.
Can we predict children’s moral behavior?
Look up Rewards dont work for 20 mos (Felix & Tomasello, 2008)
Praising intelligence (as opposed to effort) is worse than you think Praising effort--> stronger work ethic, more motivation
Rewards don’t work for 20 mos
Affiliates rewards with the behavior–when the rewards disappear, so does the behavior.
Praise and null conditions yield better results.
“To help” versus “be a helper”
Be a helper works more than asking “to help”. They like to develop their identity around positive qualities.
Kohlberg Theory of Moral Development
Pre-conventional morality, conventional, Post-conventional morality.
He told children stories involving moral dilemmas. Like a man’s(Heinz) wife was dying from cancer but he couldn’t afford the drug so he stole it. He asked participants questions like:
- Should Heinz have stolen the drug?
- Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?
Ages 10-16, some followed up for next 20 yrs
Kohlberg was mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.
He identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.
Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.
*Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.
following rules
Level 2 - Conventional morality
At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.
*Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality
*Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.
Problems with Kohlberg’s Theory/Model:
- sample was all male - could reflect only male’s moral development
- dilemna was hypothetical
- might not actually be distinct stages
