Moral Development Flashcards
1
Q
Piaget’s contributions
A
- phase theory & outcome orientation
- critiques of his work: moral development portrayed as step-wise and discontinuous (going from self-centered & rule-based to abstract & principles-based)
2
Q
Piaget’s phase theory
A
- 2 stages: heteronomous phase and autonomous phase
- Heteronomous Phase:
- Rules are a given
- Constrained by authority
- Only consequences matter
- Autonomous Phase:
- All eventually reach this mature stage
- Age 11/12
- Rules are a social agreement
- Consider motives
3
Q
outcome orientation
A
- young kids focus on the outcome of an action more than the outcome’s intent
- Boy 1 knocks over 15 cups accidentally by opening a door without knowing that the cups were behind the door; boy 2 knocks over one cup while trying to sneak jam from the cupboard -> Kids in heteronomous phase will say boy 1 is more at fault/morally wrong because more cups were broken (even though it was a result of an innocent behaviour, unlike the other boy who was trying to sneak something)
4
Q
Kohlberg’s contributions
A
- analyzed moral reasoning through structured interviews (ie. Heinz dilemma - should Heinz steal the overpriced drug from the druggist in order to save his wife from dying?), came up with 3 stages
- critiques of his work: Western conceptions of morality; moral development portrayed as step-wise and discontinuous (going from self-centered & rules-based to abstract & principles-based)
5
Q
Kohlberg’s 3 stages of moral reasoning
A
- Pre-conventional: Moral reasoning is self-centered, focusing on getting rewards and avoiding punishment (Ex. Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because if he does, he might go to jail)
- Conventional: Moral reasoning is centered on compliance with social relationships and conforming to laws/societal norms (Ex. Heinz shouldn’t steal the drug because stealing is illegal)
- Post-conventional: Moral reasoning involved with ideals, focusing on moral principles (Ex. It’s morally wrong to steal from someone else)
6
Q
empathy (in babies, animals, individual differences, etc.)
A
- babies show empathy by crying more when others are in pain/are crying (vs. when they hear a tape of themselves crying), and by showing comforting behaviours towards upset people (ex. Bringing toys, offering touch, getting mom, etc.)
- Animals display empathy as well (Ex. Experiment where rhesus monkeys could pull a lever to get food, but if they did, another monkey would get shocked -> the monkeys chose to starve rather than shocking the other monkey in order to eat)
- Empathy is different across different people (ex. Psychopaths) and across different contexts
- We don’t have same amount of empathy for everyone (ex. Robber’s cave -> boys arbitrarily assigned to 2 camps engaged in competitions and violence with the other group -> lost empathy for other group of boys due to arbitrary separation -> other peoples’ pain doesn’t bother us equally -> empathy is malleable and context-dependent)
7
Q
Moral vs. Conventional Judgments
A
- Moral judgments: right and wrong, fairness, justice
- Conventional judgments: social custom, regulation, choice of dress, greeting (Ex. “Daxing” study – little boy was very persistent in adhering to arbitrary, conventional judgments)
- Moral/conventional judgments may vary cross-culturally, but culture is an unknown factor due to limited research
8
Q
kids and moral/conventional jugments
A
- kids can distinguish between moral and conventional transgressions, and believe that moral wrongs are worse than conventional wrongs
- Kids will be more likely to engage in conventional wrongs if an adult/authority figure tells them that it’s okay (but they won’t engage in moral wrongs even if an adult/authority figure says it’s okay)
9
Q
psychopaths and moral/conventional jugments
A
- Psychopaths, unlike the typical population, contend to consider both moral and conventional transgressions as impermissible (can’t distinguish between the two)
- Psychopaths (and more generally, people with antisocial disorder) score lower on empathy
10
Q
unwilling vs. unable study
A
- contradicted Piaget’s claim that kids focus more on outcome than intent by showing that kids do actually take intent into account
- 2 confederates, neither one can reach the toy for the child, but one confederate looks teasing/smug about it (unwilling) while the other one looks sad/upset about it (unable)
- Later on, the confederates are reaching for the same toy that’s within reach of the child. Child is more likely to hand the toy to the unable confederate than the unwilling one -> shows they take intent into account when making this decision
11
Q
successful vs. unable study
A
- both actresses are similarly positive in intent (ie. There’s no teasing), but one can reach the toy and one can’t.
- In this case, infants are not more likely to be selective based on outcome (ie. They don’t automatically give the toy to the person who helped them reach it) -> they treat both equally as both had positive intent (this is more evidence that kids take intent into account)
12
Q
3 types of prosocial behaviour
A
- helping
- comforting
- sharing
13
Q
helping
A
- Kids engage in this behaviour spontaneously
- Helping can costly, but kids will help even if they have to stop playing with a fun, novel toy and even if they have to go over obstacles
- Situation matters! If you’re under time constraints for example, you’re less likely to help
- Helping is instrisically motivated – 20-month-olds will spontaneously help over 75% of the time even if they receive either no feedback or verbal praise (rather than a physical reward)
- Overjustification effect present
14
Q
overjustification effect
A
external rewards induce extrinsic motivational orientation -> over time, kids learn to only help if they get a reward, so their helping behaviours decline
15
Q
sharing
A
- Children prefer when others are fair and expect resources to be divided equally
- When they have the opportunity to distribute resources, they’ll allocate them fairly between themselves and others
- Children also prefer and ascribe more positive qualities to kids who are wealthy or arbitrarily lucky, and have a stronger desire to be friends with these kids, however, they prefer to share resources with disadvantaged or unlucky individuals (Affective tagging may explain this)
