Moral Development Flashcards
(19 cards)
Theories of Moral Judgement: Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement
Moral reasoning changes from rigid acceptance of rules of authorities to modifiable moral rules related to social interactions
Piaget defines 2 stages in children moral reasoning:
- younger kids: outcomes more important than intention
- older kids: intention is as important
Theories of Moral Judgement: Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement
Stage 1: Heteronomous morality
Characteristic of kids who have not achieved stage of concrete operations (younger than 7 yrs)
- rules + duties to others regarded as unchangeable due to social + cognitive factors
- rigid acceptance of authorities’ rules
- outcome = more important than intention
Theories of Moral Judgement: Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement
Transition period
Children reaching concrete operational stage of cognitive development (7-11 yrs)
- more interactions with peers
- developing ability to perceive other’s perspectives and cooperate
Theories of Moral Judgement: Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement
Stage 2: Autonomous morality
Starts from 11-12 yrs
Rules based on social interaction
Moral relativism— no longer accept obedience to authority
Rules can be changed
Intention = as important
Theories of Moral Judgement: Piaget’s Theory of Moral Judgement
Critique of Piaget’s theory
Theory supported by research
However, underestimation of young kids’ ability to appreciate role of intentionality in morality
Theories of Moral Judgement: Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning
Interested in sequences through which kids’ moral reasoning develops over time
Proceeds though specific stages
Discontinues + hierarchical
Advanced thinking with each new stage
Presented kids with hypothetical moral dilemmas to assess moral reasoning
Heinz dilemma :
- sick woman’s husband asked everyone he knew to borrow money to buy drug from wife
- asked for it cheaper
- seller said no
- Heinz broke into drug store to steal treatment
- should he have done that?
Theories of Moral Judgement: Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning
Kohlberg’s levels + stages of moral reasoning
Preconventional level:
- self-centred, focusing on getting rewards + avoiding punishment
- stage 1: punishment + obedience orientation
- stage 2: instrumental + exchange orientation
Conventional level:
- centred on social relationships, focusing on compliance with/ social duties and laws
- stage 3: mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships + interpersonal conformity
Postconventional level:
- centred on ideals, focusing on moral principle
- stage 5: social contract or individuals rights orientation
- stage 6: universal ethical principals
Theories of Moral Judgement: Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning
Critique of Kohlberg’s Theory
Not sufficient distinction between true moral issues and social convention
Cultural differences
Reasoning not continuous
Gender differences not indicated; theory based on studies of boys
- Gilligan (1982): differences in way males + females reason morally because of what they’re socialised
— males tend to value principles of justice and rights
— females tend to value caring, responsibility for others + avoidance of hurting others
Theories of Moral Judgement: Social Domain Theory of Moral develoment
Growth in moral reasoning occurs through gradual changes based on child’s social interactions with peers + adults.
Occurs through direct socialisation from parents
Differences In moral judgments are understood to result from diferences in environments
Influence and relationships= bidirectional
Theories of Moral Judgement: Social Domain Theory of Moral develoment
3 domains of social knowledge:
Successful negotiation of social worlds requires understanding o principles in 3 domains:
- Moral domain: based on concepts of right and wrong, fairness, justice + individual rights— apply across contexts and supersede rule of authority
- Societal domain: encompasses concepts regarding rules + conventions through which societies maintain order
- Personal domain: pertains to actions in which individual preferences are main consideration; there are no right/ wring choices
Theories of Moral Judgement: Social Domain Theory of Moral develoment
Support for this theory:
Bye age 3: kids believe violations of moral rules= more wrong tat violations of social conventions
By age 4: kids believe moral transgressions = wrong, even if adult doesn’t know about them
Kids feel parents have authority, unless parents gives commands that violate moral/ societal principles
Theories of Moral Judgement: Social Domain Theory of Moral develoment
Cultural similarities + diferences
Social judgment determined by culture
Children’s ability to distinguish among domains appears across many cultures
Moral judgements eg fairness and welfare of others= largely universal
Study:
- Indian children much more generous that US kids (particularly age 5-8)
- similar for stinginess- India bit more
Core morality
Implicit measure Reva; moral underlying, even in infants
- Hamlin et al. (2007) 6-month-olds
— showed action of shape pushing another one down hill
— asked them which one was bad after
Intentions are key:
- 8-month-olds: preference actors who had good intentions, regardless of whetehr they achieved goals
Prosociality behaviour
Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit others
Eg, sharing, belong, comforting etc
Focus on behaviours and motivations behind them.
Moral emotions and their relation to moral behaviour
Deriving in part from evolutionary theory
Prosociality behaviour: 2 examples (helping)
Helping
- instrument helping
- infants help others by 14 months in simple ways
- becomes more sophisticated by 18-24 months
- 3 yrs: helps friend more than neutral partner
- with development, require fewer explicit cues— better as perspective-taking/finding ways to help
Prosociality behaviour: 2 examples (sharing)
- Emerges around 18-24 months
- more challenging, less frequent than helping
- challenging to give up something of their won
- preschoolers: say they should share equally with others— but don’t do this until 7-8 yrs
Sharing across cultures:
- prosociality game: increase with age across cultures- less variation across cultures
- costly sharing game: decrease in middle childhood, rates dobereg as kids tracked towards behaviour of adults in own societies
Prosociality behaviour: Motivations
Altruistic motives: focus on other, concern for others’ welfare
- empathy: emotional reaction/ matching to anothers state/ condition
- need to identify others’ emotions
- need to understand that other is in need
- sympathy: feeling of concern for another in reaction to their emotional stage
- following moral principles and conscience
- rewards- BUT studies show rewards dint motivate young kids’ prosocial behavior
- reciprocity: by 3 yrs, kids more prosocial toward those more prosocial towards them
- reputation - help more when observes (Tomasello)
5 year olds kids do the right thing— even when peers dont
5 year olds- help more + steal less when observed
Reputation: strategic behaviour
- 5 yr olds share mr when child watching could reciprocate/ child watch was ingroup member
4 yr olds: shared more in most/ least generous conditions than in randomly chosen one as they knew it would be displayed publicly
5 yrs old kids shared more when their individuals + groups donations were public rather than private
Prosociality behaviour: individuals diferences
Biological factors
Genetics:
- identical twins = more similar in prosocial behaviour than faternal twins
-specific genes identifies that might contribute to individualise, prosocial tendencies
Temperament:
- kids ability to regulate emotions related to kids empathy + sympathy
Prosociality behaviour: individuals diferences
Socialisation
Parenting practices
- modelling and teaching prosocial behaviour
- arranging opportunities for child to engage in prosocial behavior
- disciplining child and eliciting prosocial behavior from them
Cultural practices
Peer influences
Interventions
