Moral Development

Question 1

3 views of children’s moral development

Answer 1

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

Question 2

children’s explicit moral reasoning

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

key theorists of moral development

Answer 3

• 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)

Question 4

Piaget’s structured interviews

Answer 4

• 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)

Question 5

Kohlberg’s stages of moral development

Answer 5

1. Morality of constraint
2. Transitional period
3. Autonomous morality

Question 6

morality of constraint stage

Answer 6

• Under 7 years

- Moral rules are inflexible and dictated by authority

Question 7

transitional period

Answer 7

• 7-10 years

- Rules are constructed and can be changed if everyone agrees

Question 8

autonomous morality stage

Answer 8

• 11+ years

- Consider fairness and equality when evaluating moral rules

Question 9

Kohlberg’s contributions

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning

Answer 10

1. Pre-conventional
2. Conventional
3. Post-conventional

Question 11

pre-conventional stage

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

conventional stage

Answer 12

• Adolescence
• Concerned with following rules and norms to maintain social order (ex. Heinz should act based on what society would think of him)

Question 13

post-conventional stage

Answer 13

• Adulthood
• Concerned with basic human rights and self-defined ethical principles (ex. Heinz should act based on what he feels is ethically right)

Question 14

morality in infancy

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

how do infants evaluate helpful vs. unhelpful behaviours?

Answer 15

• 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”

Question 16

controls/limitations addressed in helper vs. hinderer study

Answer 16

• 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)

Question 17

prosocial behaviour

Answer 17

Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another person

Question 18

prosocial behaviour study: Wernaken and Tomasello

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Wernaken and Tomasello control studies

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

infant sharing study: Aknin, Hamlin, and Dunn

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

factors influencing prosocial behaviour

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

3 major prosocial behaviours

Answer 22

Helping, sharing, and empathizing

Question 23

altruistic motives

Answer 23

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

Question 24

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

Answer 24

• 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

Question 25

cultural differences in pro-social behaviour

Answer 25

- 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)