Developmental Flashcards
(19 cards)
What is the background to Kohlberg’s study?
Skinners behaviourist theory, morality is learnt.
Freuds psychoanalytic theory- morality develops with superego
Piaget- children develop at different stages
Moral dilemma- no right or wrong
What was the aim of Kohlberg?
To investigate development in moral reasoning throughout adolescence and early adulthood. To also investigate the extent to which these changes are the same in a range of cultural contexts.
K What was the method?
Interview
Longitudinal research of 12 years
K Who was the sample?
75 American boys (10-16), interviewed at 3-5 interviews over 12 years.
Cross sectional of different age groups eg Mexico, Taiwan, Canada
K Brief summary of procedure?
- Given a series of hypothetical + philosophical moral dilemmas through short stories.
- Eg for 10yr ‘is it better to save the life of one important person or a lot of important people?’ or the ‘cancer story’
K Results?
Overall-
No age or cultural links
Slight differences with class and upbringing
Invariant stages- all movement upwards, some countries slower
What are the levels?
Preconventional-
1. Punishment orientation- consequence of right/wrong
2. Self-interest- what is rewarding oneself
Conventional stages-
3. Good boy/girl orientation- conforming approval
4. Authority orientation- following rules
Post-conventional-
5. Social contract orientation- while rules do exist sometimes they may go against interest of individuals
6. Conscience and ethical principle orientation- own social conscience
K Main conclusions?
Moral development occurs in the same sequence across all cultures, each stage comes one at a time, and can stop at any stage/age.
Ethics kept/broke
Kept- deception, privacy, right to withdraw.
Broken- Protection from harm
Main evaluation points?
Ethnocentrism-
+followed in other countries eg UK and Mexico
- only American boys and may be cultural bias
Validity
Population-
+followed with other countries
- only American boys, andocentric
Internal-
- social desirability, ev, dilemmas may have been testing intelligence
Reliability-
+Large sample, standardised
Background of Lee’s study?
Piaget- 11yrs + begin to use intention as the key factor in deciding behaviour
Collectivist- needs and goals of a group eg honesty, modesty
Individualistic- individual needs
L What was the aim?
To see if the effect of culture on children’s moral evaluations on lying and truth telling between Chinese and Canadian children
L What was the method?
Lab experiment
IV- social/physical story, cross culture chinese/canadian, age 7/9/11
Quasi- age and culture
DV- scores
L What was the sample?
120 Chinese children, 60M 60F from elementary schools in Hangzou
108 Canadian, mostly middle class
36=7 40=9 32=11
L Brief summary of procedure?
- Tested individually, on a 7 point rating chart read either 4 physical/social stories
- Children were asked if what the child did was good/naughty then rate on a chart.
- Asked second section- good/naughty, words were changed around, and stories were presented randomly.
L Main results?
Prosocial behaviour/ truth telling situations- similar, Chinese ratings became less as they were older as they were more modest
Prosocial behaviour/ lie telling- Canadian rated lie telling negatively moved from honesty and modesty as they were older.
Antisocial/truth-telling- both rates positively
Antisocial/truth-telling- Canadian- confessing to a crime means you’re maintaining a social contact, China- confessing means you’ve helped to avoid conflict and maintained group harmony.
L Conclusions?
Some aspects of moral reasoning is universal.
Moral reasoning can be influenced by culture and the society we live in, influences of socio-cultural factors become stronger as we age.
Evaluation-ethics?
Broken- protection of ps
adhered- informed consent, protection of ps, confidentiality, right to withdraw.
Evaluation points
Ethnocentrism- was it westernised, translated well
Population validity- large sample, range of ages, urban centres
Reliability- same materials, same rating scale, same instructions, 4 stories rather than 1, large sample
Internal validity- Alternated good/naughty, randomised order of 4 stories, control variables, similar cities
Ecological- Stories familiar, task of judging from a story is unrealistic.
