W12: MORAL DEVELOPMENT Flashcards
Theories of Moral Development
Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development:
Suggests that the changes we see in moral reasoning in childhood is due to increases in cognitive development
Developed by watching children play games and negotiate things like rules → who makes the rules? Where do these rules come from?
Examined “moral reasoning”
Understanding of RULES (where do rules come from? Who makes rules?), MORAL RESPONSIBILITY (who is to blame for bad things?), and JUSTICE (how should someone be punished?)
From these things that Piaget developed his theory
Measured via children’s responses to vignettes (situations)
Measures situation stories about things that happened and asking children to tell the experimenter what they would do or how they see the situation
Example: Beth is told that she can’t have a cookie until after dinner and Beth says “I’m gonna do what I want anyway” and as she climbs onto the counter to get the cookie, one of the mugs sitting on the counter falls and breaks. In a separate situation, Sally doesn’t know what’s happening, opens the door to the kitchen and accidentally knocks over 3 mugs and they break. Who is more to blame?
Beth is more to blame because of INTENTION
3 Stages of Moral Development:
Stages are discontinuous (one stage completely different from the other stage, separate stages); linear progression through them
1 Heteronomous (until ~7 yo):
Blind obedience to rules (rules are “things”) → rules are concrete
Consequences > intention → think that the person who is most to blame is Sally
Imminent justice
E.g., beth goes outsides and slips → kids would say she slipped because she broke the mug
If you were told not to do something and you did it (not enforcing the rules), → justice is coming for you (punishment)
Coincides with the preoperational stage of development → things are concrete, not thinning abstractly
2 Transitional (~7-10 yo):
Rules can change (by situation, majority opinion) → exceptions to rules
3 Autonomous (~11yo):
Intention > consequences → kids say Beth is more culpable than Sally
Punishments should fit the crime
Consider fairness and equality
Kids will get upset if they notice injustice
Kids will know that rules and justice are necessary for society to function
Corresponds to formal operational stage of development
STRENGHTS:
Moral development does depend on cognitive maturity
The more cognitively advanced children are, the more they will elan towards that autonomous stage
Considered role of interactions with others → considering social influences on morality
Based on multiple methods of data collection (interviews, observations)
WEAKNESSES:
Understanding of intentions develops earlier… (before 2yo!)
Moral reasoning isn’t always this linear
Sometimes we make judgments about morality more based on intentions other than consequences, depends on the situation
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Like Piaget: discontinuous stages, how children think about situations → cognitive aspect of morality
Focus on rationale behind moral decisions → WHY, why did you choose Beth?
Measured by presenting hypothetical moral dilemmas
Popular dilemma used = Heinz Dilemma
Heinz’s wife is dying from a specific type of cancer. Doctors say a new drug might save her. The drug costs $50,000 to make. Heinz cannot afford the drug, so he asks the pharmacist to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. The pharmacist refuses, saying he discovered the drug and will make a profit. Heinz is desperate to save his wife, so he considers breaking into the pharmacist’s store to steal the drug.
3 Stages of Moral Development (each with 2 substages):
Preconventional:
Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation
Reasoning is focused on consequences (“if you steal, you will go to jail”)
Focused on the WHY of decisions and the possible consequences they might have
Stage 2: Instrumental and Exchange Orientation
Reasoning is focused on fair exchange → instrumental orientation = “what’s in it for me?” (“he should steal the drug so his wife can cook for him”)
All focused about getting rewards and avoiding punishments
If reasonings are based on figuring out what’s the reward, what’s the punishment → you would its in the pre conventional stage
Only looks at punishment and consequences
Conventional:
Stage 3: “Good Girl, Nice Boy” Orientation
Reasoning is focused on social expectations (“if you get caught, you will shame your family”)
What would other people want you to do? → its focused on what other people would think of you
All about compliance with social duties, focusing on social relationships
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation
Reasoning is focused on fulfilling duties and upholding laws (“it’s against the law to steal”)
What does the law want you to do?
Social compliance stage → I’m going to comply with what others want from me, as well as the law
Postconventional:
Stage 5/6: Individual Rights/Universal Ethics Orientation
Reasoning is focused on ethical principles (“he should steal because everyone has the right to life”)
Its understanding that laws doesn’t necessarily supersede these big moral ideas we have about humanity, what it means to have a right to life
Understanding justice is sometimes more important than the law, as sometimes the law isn’t fair
How do children respond to Heinz’s dilemma?
At age 10, most in preconventional stages
In teenage years, decline in preconventional/increase in conventional
At age 18, most in stage 3 (doing what is expected by others)
Most adults remain in conventional in 20s-30s
Few ever reach postconventional
STRENGHTS:
Link between cognitive ability/perspective-taking skills and higher-level moral reasoning
Moderate correlation between moral reasoning and moral behaviour (external validity)
WEAKNESSES:
Stages are neither discontinuous nor linear: varying types of responses depending on dilemma type, social norms…
Hard to say if a kid falls into one stage or another
Ignores cultural differences in moral reasoning → some people value more things than others
Eisenberg’s Theory of Prosocial Moral Development
To understand prosocial behaviours → how you actually act out in the world, whether you make decisions that help other people, etc.
Measured by presenting prosocial moral dilemmas: more typical of everyday situations
5 Stages of Moral Orientations:
Level 1: Hedonistic Self-Focused (Preschool/Elementary):
Personal interests and gains
What does he get rewarded?
“He should help because then he may get a thank-you gift”
Level 2: Needs-based orientation (Elem/HS):
Focuses on others needs
Decision based on what other people are needing in that moment
“He should help because the other boy is bleeding and hurt”
Level 3: Approval/stereotyped (HS):
Getting approval of others AND/OR stereotyped images of good and bad
“He should help because his mom will be proud of him if he does”
Level 4: Self-reflective empathetic (HS):
Concern for others’ humanness OR guilt/positive emotions about consequences
Focuses on emotional consequences
“He would feel really guilty if he went to the party and didn’t help”
Level 4b: Transitional
Concerned with internalized values, norms, duties, or responsibilities
“He should help because helping is important”
Level 5: Strongly internalized (rare):
Clearly articulated internalized values, etc.
“Eric would feel bad if he didn’t help because he wouldn’t live up to his values. It’s important to help people in need.”
Reasoning in prosocial vignettes are correlated with prosocial behaviour
Familiar and realistic situations
“Earlier”/”faster” development of moral reasoning in children
Kids who give rationales what are at higher levels are more likely to then also be prosocial when they are called upon to help or when they are called upon to give up something in order to be fair to somebody else
What is CONSCIENCE?
Conscience: having a sense of internal right and wrong → the little motor that drives you towards the acceptable behaviour in your culture
Internal regulatory mechanism – towards adhering to acceptable behaviour in one’s culture
Different cultures will have different ideas about what is acceptable conscious moral behaviour
May be advantageous for cooperation, and thus survival
Early preference for “helper” vs. “hinderer”
Development of conscience influenced by adults:
Parents → conscious is not only innate, it’s going to be shaped by the people around the baby:
Socialization and awareness of others’ thoughts & feelings
“Well how do you think this person felt when you didn’t share the toy with them?”
Draw attention and get children to think about what others might feel
Secure attachment
Teachers:
Inductive discipline (offering explanations for why a behaviour is right or wrong, clarifying how child should behave, setting expectations for behaviour) → sets expectations for the child but explaining gently and warmly what should be done instead
Prosocial Behaviour
Prosocial behaviour: actions taken to benefit another
E.g., donating money and clothes, holding the door open, volunteering
Often related to underlying moral motivation… but not always! → doing a social behaviour because you have a certain morality (doing something you believe so good
E.g., standing up to a bully because bullying is wrong, however, you could also be doing this because you think “its cool” → making yourself look good
Pro-social behaviour is separate from the underlying reasoning for it or the underlying mechanism or motivation → more talking about behaviours that are done to help somebody else
Helping behaviours emerge early (by ≈ age 2)
What factors predict prosocial behaviours?
1. Genetics (e.g., heritability of concern for others in twin studies)
- Temperament (e.g., arousal levels in face of distress, shyness) → need a little bit of noticing that something’s wrong and a little bit of motivation to do something in order to help
- Empathy and sympathy
Empathy = emotional reaction to another’s emotional state → someone tells you about a sad story and you start to feel sad as well
Sympathy = feeling bad for someone (but not feeling that way yourself) → you feel bad for someone else, you recognize that other person’s need, but you don’t necessarily feel it yourself - Theory of Mind → being able to understand others mental states and intentions; if you understand that somebody else has intentions that might be different front our own, you might be more likely to help
Children with greater TOM skills = participate more in prosocial behaviours
- Culture (e.g., more helping in traditional > urban communities)
Traditional communities that are closer knit → shows more prosocial behavior
SES has plays a role → more resources, more willing to help other people
PARENTING:
Being a role model and teaching (“please”) → leading by example, showing kids the behaviour they want to see
Explicit instructions about ethical obligations (“that person is hurt—we should help them”)
Arranging opportunities for prosocial behaviour (e.g., volunteering opportunities, service learning programs)
Disciplinary style (e.g., internalize prosocial values through inductive discipline, rather than rewards/punishments)
Inductive discipline is better than rewards/punishments → it’s better to discuss with them the expected behaviour, what are the expectations
Antisocial Behaviour
Antisocial Behaviour: behaviour that is harmful to others
E.g., aggression, bullying, rule-breaking, lying, stealing
Aggression → subcomponent of antisocial behaviour
Can be differentiated by purpose or by form
PURPOSE (WHY are you doing the aggression?): Reactive aggression vs. proactive
Reactive: hostile, emotional response to provocation (e.g., hitting sibling after not getting their way)
Hostile distribution bias is more common in children → more commonly related to reactive forms of aggression because its in response to a perceived sight
If you perceive things that are ambiguous as hostile towards you, you are more likely to respond to them with hostility as well
Proactive: aggression used to obtain something (e.g., forcing toy from another kid)
Common in young children – don’t have language skills to communicate desires better
Not a cause for concern unless its excessive
Early emerging type of behaviour:
E.g., 12mo tug objects away from one another, 18mo hit and push (especially over possession of object)
Increases until age 2-3, then decreases (with growth of language skills)
Delinquent behaviours:
Non-aggressive antisocial behaviours (e.g., rule-breaking, vandalism, skipping school, crime) → done with the intent to harm others but isn’t aggressive
Violent crime peaks at age 17
Predicted by earlier aggression
Lying:
Part of typical development!
Associated with cognitive maturity, ToM, self-control
What factors predict antisocial behaviours?
1. Genetics (e.g., heritability of aggression)
- Temperament (e.g., difficult temperament in infancy)
Infants who have a more difficult temperament tend to be more aggressive - Low self-control and high impulsivity
Somebody’s first response might be aggression - Hostile attribution bias
Neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., ADHD) → idea of impulsivity and emotional lability are often characteristics that accompany some of these conditions - Environment
Experiencing aggression at home (physical punishment, high parental conflict)
Harsh or inconsistent parenting styles → modeling
Lower SES (increased environmental stressors, less opportunities for protective factors) → e.g., living in a neighborhood
Peer Rejection and SOCIOMETRICS
Sociometrics: process through which researchers quantify social relationships
Sociometric status: measurement of degree to which children are liked/disliked by peers
Nominations by classmates → ask kids “who do you like” and have them check off a list
Like/dislike or other behaviours (Who do you like to play with? Who is nice to you? Who is mean?)
5 Status Groups:
Popular
Many positive noms (nominations)
Few negative noms
Average
Average number of positive/negative noms
Rejected
Many negative noms
Few positive noms
Neglected
Few noms at all
Less involved
Controversial
Many negative noms
Many positive noms
Rejected children have most negative peer interactions & worst outcomes
Poorer academic achievement → they might not like going to school, internalizing (anxiety, depression) and externalizing behaviours (aggression), victimization
40-50% are ‘rejected-aggressive’ → handles rejection with aggression;
10-25% are ‘rejected-withdrawn’ → disliked by their peers, rejected by peers and don’t engage → “loners”
Worse outcomes for rejected-aggressive: want to engage socially but lack skills → e.g., they might not know when to share in a game, uses aggression to solve things
Stability in sociometrics?
Average children tend to remain average
Variability in other categories over time, especially during transition periods (e.g., changing schools → re-establishing the social hierarchy in way, making new friends and a new identity for yourself)
