name + explain: piaget’s stages of morality
- moral realism (5 - 7)
- rules = real and must be followed
- immanent justice = breaking a rule always leads to punishment
- heteronomous morality = others have determined rules and punishments - moral relativism (8 - 10+)
- rules = arbitrary guidelines
- autonomous morality = morality based on free will
- considers intentions behind the rules
question: limitations of piaget’s stages of morality?
- underestimated young children’s ability
- not considering implicit thoughts
⤷ only looking at tested beha.
explain: kohlberg’s approach to testing morality
- asked moral dilemmas
⤷ situations where any action leads to negative consequence - developed theory for how moral reasoning changes w/ age
name + explain: levels of kohlberg morality
LEVEL 1 = PRECONVENTIONAL
⤷ most children, some ado. and adults
STAGE 1 = OBEDIENCE ORIENTATION
- rules must be obeyed, if you break them = punishment
⤷ like moral realism
STAGE 2 = INSTRUMENTAL ORIENTATION
- it’s ok to act in a way that satisfies a need
⤷ egocentric
⤷ shows consideration of a need
LEVEL 2 = CONVENTIONAL
⤷ most ado and adults
STAGE 3 = INTERPERSONAL NORMS
- conforms to societal orientation
- act according to others’ expectations
STAGE 4 = SOCIAL SYS MORALITY
- law and order exist for everyone’s god
- understanding obligations to society
LEVEL 3 = POST CONVENTIONAL
⤷ some adults
STAGE 5 = SOCIAL CONTRACT ORIENTATION
- balancing indiv. needs w/ society’s needs
STAGE 6 = UNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES ORIENTATION
- personal morality based on justice, compassion, equality
- not only society’s conventions
name: evidence for kohlberg’s morality levels
- stages are invariant
⤷ follow same order w/out skipping - differences in how long they stay in each stage
⤷ don’t seem to regress
**doesn’t explain variability w/in indiv. and culture-specific factors
explain: cultural differences in social lying
- canada = overall would lie to help friend
- chinese 7 yr = would also lie for friend
- chinese 9 - 11 yrs = could no longer lie
⤷ shows influence of collectivist mindset
explain: gilligan’s ethic of caring
- kohlberg = based on males
- gilligan concluded women have a “care” orientation
⤷ value relationships more than justice - little evi.
⤷ males also show some sort of “care”
define: prosocial beha.
- voluntary beha. intended to benefit others
explain: prosocial beha. in infants (+explain character exp.)
- shown helper and hinderer charac.
- 3 mths = prefer prosocial charac. over antisoc.
- 6 mths = also show aversion to hinderer
⤷ not just a preference for helpers - shown somebody dropping items
- 18 mths = infants help others to achieve their goals
explain: prosocial beha. in children (changes from infant -> child)
- more empathy, perspective taking, moral reasoning
- overall more complex and understands intentions
explain: did you peek experiment
- talwar and lee 2002
- playing a guessing game
- adult leaves and tells child not to peek
- ask “did you peek” when they return
- most children 3 - 7 yrs peek
- most children older than 4 yrs lie about peeking
question: can adults detect lying children?
- no
- even trained officers = no
- adults’ detection improves when children are engaged in moral reasoning tasks or when they promise to tell the truth
- adults have truth bias
⤷ more likely to believe children than not - having convo about important of truth + building rapport helps against lying
question: do chimpanzees have prosocial beha.?
- show at around 36 - 54 mths
⤷ 5 - 8 yrs in humans - pick up object and inspect it before giving it back
⤷ suggests not quite the same as the 18 mth toddlers - apes don’t help in complex situations
⤷ 18 mth humans sometimes do
explain: prosocial beha. in bullies
- bullies lack all 3 skills (shows anti-social beha.)
⤷ empathy, perspective taking, moral reasoning - bullies often sent to principal’s office, detentions etc.
⤷ isolates child more
