Prosociality and Moral Reasoning Flashcards
Differentiate between altruism and prosociality
Altruism: Motivated purely by desire to help another, at cost to oneself (ex. anonymous donation)
Prosocial: Pattern of behaviour, regardless of motivation (potential benefit/associated costs to the donor)
What are the possible reasons for exhibiting prosocial behaviour?
- Evolutionary roots; Increase survival of kin
- Ex: Eisenberg (1983) found that 7-17yo are more likely to help family, friends or people of similar background - Enhance reputation/acceptance within group, learn to follow norms of behaviour
Is prosocial behaviour innate or learned?
- Interaction between the two sides!
- Humans as naturally prosocial behaviour
- Spontaneous prosocial behaviour in children from relatively early age
- Some evidence from twin studies of genetic contribution to prosocial tendencies - Conditioning/Socially Learned
- Early attachment to parents
- Parental/adult responses to behaviour as an important influence
When does prosocial behaviour emerge?
- Typically at 1yo, tendency to help emerges
- Rapidly increases in toddler/pre-schooler period, and then slowly thereafter into early adulthood
- Shift to act according to moral principles, rather than for selfish motivations or to gain approval
Explain the experimental studies’ findings in “Reinforcement of Prosocial Behaviour”
- Prompting and reinforcement both encouraged prosocial donations
- Studies like the one from Dahl et al (2017) showed that explicit scaffolding (encouragement and praise) increases prosocial behaviour in infants
Explain the experimental studies’ findings in “Modelling of Prosocial Behaviour”
- Observing helpful behaviour increases prosocial behaviour in infants (Schuhmacher et al., 2018)
- Children who see model donate are more likely to also themselves (more impact than preaching)
- More likely to copy skilled, warm, and familiar models
What are the potential problems in experimental studies on prosociality?
- Artificial environment (unfamiliar environment and some deception)
- No precise, honest way of really defining/measuring prosociality because it can easily be influenced by social expectations/demands or conformity
What were the findings from Zahn-Waxler et al (2001) on 14-36mo and empathy?
- Mothers report responses to events in which negative emotions expressed
- Increase in empathetic responses with age
What were the findings from Harmond & Bromwellr (2016) on 1-4yo and helping?
- Parents asked to report on helping behaviour and motivations in their 1-4yo
- Helping increased with age
What were the findings from Warneken & Tomasello (2006) on spontaneous helping?
(Task, Findings, Chimpanzee Comparison)
Task:
- Tested on 24 18mo
- Experimental condition: looked at object and child, verbalised problem
- Control: neutral face towards object
- Ex. retrieving spoon, stacking books, etc.
Findings:
- Children were more likely to help in experimental condition for most tasks
- Immediately in most cases (eye-contact and verbal announcement not needed)
- Restricted by ability to interpret goal/need
Chimpanzee Comparison:
- Helped more than chimpanzees
- Unfamiliar adult
- More sophisticated skills
- Natural tendency to help others
What are the factors influencing prosocial development?
- Parenting style and response (secure attachment = higher empathy; empathetic, sensitive parents encourage the same in their kids)
- Perspective-taking ability
- Ability to regulate emotions
- Cross-cultural differences (different cultures place different values on cooperation, individualism, etc.)
What is moral reasoning?
How we reason or judge whether an action is right or wrong
What are the existing theories in how moral reasoning develops?
- Piaget’s theory
- Kohlberg’s theory
Explain Piaget’s Theory for the development of moral reasoning (from “rules of society”)
Foundation:
- Observed how children understood “rules of the game”, corresponds to “rules of society”
3 Stages of understanding:
1. Premoral (up to 4yo): rules not understood
2. Moral Realism/Heteronomous (4-10): rules come from higher authority, cannot be changed
3. Moral subjectivism/Autonomous (10+): rules mutually agreed by players, can change
Supported by:
- Linaza’s (1984) results confirmed Piaget’s findings
- English and Spanish children
Explain Piaget’s Theory for the development of moral reasoning (from “dilemma method”)
(Findings, Problems)
- Dilemma method: which child is naughtiest?
- Findings: up to 9/10yo, children judge based on amount of damage and not motive or intention
Problems with this design:
- Unequal damage distracts children
- “Bad intentions” are vague
- Memory demands too high for young children
What were the criticisms towards Piaget’s theory for moral reasoning?
- Possibly underestimated the children’s ability (ex. if the damage was equal, 5yo will judge based on intent)
- 2-5yo can differentiate between violations of social convention and moral conventions (Smetana, 1981)
Explain Kohlberg’s Theory for the development of moral reasoning
(Piaget, Task, Reasoning Levels)
- Expanded upon Piaget’s concepts to extend it across one’s lifespan (0ver 30yrs; not just childhood)
Task:
- Participants were presented with stories of dilemmas and asked the crucial aspect of WHY sth was or wasn’t wrong
Reasoning Levels:
1. Preconventional
2. Conventional
3. Postconventional
Explain Kohlberg’s Preconventional Morality Level
- Reason in relation to self, little understanding of shared rules
- Seek pleasure, avoid punishment
- Children under 9, some adolescents, adult “criminal offenders”
Stage 1:
- Concerned with authority, obey rules to avoid punishment
Stage 2:
- Weight the risks and benefits
- Recognise others might have different interests
- Action determined by one’s needs
Explain Kohlberg’s Conventional Morality Level
- Importance of rules, expectations, conventions of society
- Most adolescents and adults
Stage 3: Focus Interpersonal Relationships
- Being good = having good motives
- Influenced by other’s expectations (find approval/disapproval of others important)
Stage 4: Focus on Society as a Whole
- Performing one’s duty to maintain social order
Explain Kohlberg’s Postconventional Morality Level
- Understanding of moral principles underlying laws
Stage 5:
- Importance of functioning society AND individual rights
- Usually not until 20+ and not everyone
Stage 6:
- Following universal ethical principles
- When law violates principle, act in accordance to principle
What were the criticisms towards Kohlberg’s Theory?
- Dilemmas were criticised for being too artificial and not reliable
- Clinical interview method too subjective
- Colby et al (1987) suggested for a better scoring system - Cultural bias
- Snarey (1985) did a review across 27 cultures which found that stage 5 only applied to urban societies
- Biased toward cultures favoring individualism
- Suggested for approaches which take into account the diversity of values within cultures - Gender bias
- All original participants were male
- Stages reflect specifically ‘male morality’
- Gilligan (1982) criticised Kohlberg and Piaget for negative views on ‘female morality’
- Gilligan (1982) argues females are ‘people before principles’ and males are ‘principles before people’
