Moral Development Flashcards

1
Q

3 views of children’s moral development

A
  1. Innately evil: Society must overcome young children’s selfish tendencies
  2. Innately good: Society corrupts young children’s good nature
  3. Amoral: Young children have no sense of morality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

children’s explicit moral reasoning

A
  • The same behaviour can be moral or immoral depending on the underlying motivations/intent
  • Researchers have studied children’s moral reasoning (ie. By reading them a story and asking them what was the right thing to do? What was the wrong thing to do?)
  • These studies measure children’s explicit responses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

key theorists of moral development

A
  • Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg
  • Observed that mature moral reasoning is not seen until later childhood or adulthood
  • Distinct stages of moral development (stage theories)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Piaget’s structured interviews

A
  • Conducted structured interviews and asked children to evaluate transgressions
  • Ex. Who is naughtier? John, who accidentally breaks 10 plates while trying to set the table vs. Billy, who purposely breaks 5 plates because he’s mad that he didn’t get dessert?
  • Kids younger than 6-7 tend to focus on the outcome (ex. amount of plates broken) rather than intent (ex. Good vs. Bad intentions)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

A
  1. Morality of constraint
  2. Transitional period
  3. Autonomous morality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

morality of constraint stage

A
  • Under 7 years

- Moral rules are inflexible and dictated by authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

transitional period

A
  • 7-10 years

- Rules are constructed and can be changed if everyone agrees

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

autonomous morality stage

A
  • 11+ years

- Consider fairness and equality when evaluating moral rules

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Kohlberg’s contributions

A
  • Studied explicit moral reasoning regarding moral dilemmas (ex. Heinz dilemma) -> wanted to know WHY people made the moral judgments they did
  • Proposed levels of moral reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning

A
  1. Pre-conventional
  2. Conventional
  3. Post-conventional
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

pre-conventional stage

A
  • Childhood
  • Concerned with self-interest and external consequences (ex. What’s good or bad for Heinz… not taking anyone else into account)
  • Obey rules to avoid punishment and get rewards
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

conventional stage

A
  • Adolescence
  • Concerned with following rules and norms to maintain social order (ex. Heinz should act based on what society would think of him)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

post-conventional stage

A
  • Adulthood
  • Concerned with basic human rights and self-defined ethical principles (ex. Heinz should act based on what he feels is ethically right)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

morality in infancy

A
  • If morality requires explicit reasoning, then it could be presumed that infants must be amoral
  • However, infants do care about other’s welfare:
    • Newborns cry when listening to tapes of others’ cries (not their own)
    • Infants show distress when they see that others are upset
    • Toddlers (~2 years) comfort others
  • Evidence for moral reasoning in infancy comes from studies that examine implicit evaluations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

how do infants evaluate helpful vs. unhelpful behaviours?

A
  • Study: 6- and 10-month-olds watch shows with a puppet that helps the main character achieve is goal and a puppet that blocks the main character’s goals
  • Preferential reaching technique: measure which puppet infants reach for
  • Vast majority of babies reach for the “helper” rather than the “hinderer”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

controls/limitations addressed in helper vs. hinderer study

A
  • Counterbalancing used (likely that it was moral decision rather than a preference for colour or shape)
  • It matters who you’re interacting with (infants responded differently to puppets than inanimate objects)
  • Infants like helpers and dislike hinderers (Infants reached to helpers when presented with helper vs. neutral, and reached to neutral when presented with hinderer vs. helpful)
  • Single-blind study used (experimenter who presented puppets didn’t know which was helper vs. Hinderer) and parents had eyes closed, so no parental influence
  • Used several scenarios (this is a flexible system)
  • Infants make context-specific evaluations based on the main character’s previous behaviour (if the character was originally unhelpful, babies like the character that is unhelpful to this originally unhelpful characters -> like when good things happen to good people, and when bad things happen to bad people)
  • Babies will take fewer crackers to avoid interacting with a hinderer (babies aren’t showing preference to puppets that might benefit them)
17
Q

prosocial behaviour

A

Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another person

18
Q

prosocial behaviour study: Wernaken and Tomasello

A
  • do 18-month-olds act prosocially and provide help when needed?
  • Adult experimenter was unable to accomplish a goal
  • Measured how often infants provided help
  • Infants helped the experimenter in a variety of situations
19
Q

Wernaken and Tomasello control studies

A
  • Infants only hand objects back when experimenter needs help
    • Ex. Out-of-reach: Rather than accidentally dropping it, adult throws object on the floor
    • Ex. Physical object: Rather than bumping into a cupboard they need to use, they put stuff on top of cupboard
    • Ex. Wrong result: Instead of placing book on top of pile, they place book beside pile
    • Ex. Wrong means: Instead of dropping spoon through hole, they throw it
  • Infants do this voluntarily
    • Ex. If experimenter drops something without noticing (no expectation for baby to pick it up, infants will still pick it up)
  • Infants will provide help even when it’s costly to them
    • Ex. Infants will leave a ball pit to help
20
Q

infant sharing study: Aknin, Hamlin, and Dunn

A
  • are 23-month-olds happy when sharing with a puppet in different ways?
  • 3 phases where puppet received a treat:
    • Child gives own treat to puppet (costly sharing)
    • Child gives “found” treat to puppet (non-costly sharing)
    • Child watches experimenter give treat to puppet
  • Measured infants’ emotional reactions (happiness)
    • Happier after giving than after receiving, happiest after giving own treat
21
Q

factors influencing prosocial behaviour

A
  • Nature: innate predisposition to engage in prosocial behaviour
    • Infants are prosocial without being asked
    • Infants are prosocial when it is costly to do so
  • Nurture: infants are taught to engage in prosocial behaviour
    • Social reinforcement positively associated with helping early in life
22
Q

3 major prosocial behaviours

A

Helping, sharing, and empathizing

23
Q

altruistic motives

A

helping others for reasons that initially include empathy and sympathy, and at later ages, acting in ways consistent with your own conscience and moral principles

24
Q

development of prosocial behaviour related to instrumental needs, emotional distress, and material desire

A
  • 2, 3, and 4 year olds easily help with instrumental needs (like handing puzzle pieces to experimenter doing a puzzle)
  • 3 and 4 year olds easily help with emotional distress, 2 year-olds don’t
  • 2, 3, and 4 year-olds unlikely to help with material desires (like sharing stickers with an experimenter), but 2-year-olds the most likely to
25
Q

cultural differences in pro-social behaviour

A
  • Mexican youth more prosocial if exposed to traditional value of familism (rather than individualism)
  • Chinese and Japanese infants share more than North American infants (because of collectivism vs. individualism)
  • Kids in traditional societies (ie. Philippines, Mexico) are more prosocial than kids in non-traditional societies (ie. USA)