ALTRUISM & MORAL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 10. MORALITY COMPONENTS OF MORALITY THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT PIAGET KOHLBERG TURIEL GILLIGAN PARENTAL INFLUENCES.

ALTRUISM & MORAL DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 10

MORALITY• COMPONENTS OF MORALITY• THEORIES OF MORAL

DEVELOPMENT• PIAGET• KOHLBERG• TURIEL• GILLIGAN

• PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON MORALITY

MORALITY• SET OF PRINCIPLES

• DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG

• ACT ON THIS DISTINCTION

• EXPERIENCE PRIDE IN MORAL CONDUCT AND SHAME WHEN ONE VIOLATES ONE’S STANDARDS

COMPONENTS OF MORALITY

Moral

Affect Reasoning

Behavior

AFFECT, REASONING, & BEHAVIOR

• MORAL AFFECT• EMOTIONAL COMPONENT• FEELINGS SUCH AS SHAME, GUILT AND PRIDE

• MORAL REASONING• COGNITIVE COMPONENT• HOW PEOPLE DECIDE VARIOUS ACTS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG

• MORAL BEHAVIOR• BEHAVIORAL COMPONENT• ACTIONS CONSISTENT WITH MORAL STANDARDS

THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

PIAGET’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

• PREMORAL PERIOD• PRESCHOOL AGE• LITTLE CONCERN OR AWARENESS FOR RULES• MAKE UP RULES AS THEY GO

• MORAL REALISM/HETERONOMOUS MORALITY• 5 – 10 YEARS OLD• RESPECT FOR RULES• RULES = MORAL ABSOLUTES• BELIEVE IN IMMANENT JUSTICE (PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING

THE RULES)

PIAGET’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

• MORAL RELATIVISM / AUTONOMOUS MORALITY• 10 OR 11 YEARS• RULES CAN BE CHALLENGED OR CHANGED BY AUTHORITY

FIGURES• BELIEVE IN RECIPROCAL PUNISHMENT – PUNISHMENT TO FIT

THE “CRIME”• INTENTIONS ARE IMPORTANT• NO LONGER BELIEVE IN IMMANENT JUSTICE

WHICH STAGE?• DOMINOES

• A. PREMORAL• B. MORAL REALISM - HETERONOMOUS• C. MORAL RELATIVISM - AUTONOMOUS

IF YOU ARE 6: WHICH GIRL DO YOU THINK WAS MORE BAD, OLIVIA OR

MELISSA? IF YOU ARE 10: WHICH GIRL DO YOU THINK WAS MORE BAD, OLIVIA OR

MELISSA? • ONE DAY, A GIRL NAMED OLIVIA WAS PLAYING WITH HER MOMMY. OLIVIA DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE FUN TO HAVE A TEA PARTY WITH HER MOMMY AND HER DOLLS. SO, OLIVIA WENT INTO THE KITCHEN AND GOT A BOX OF CRACKERS AND SIX TEA CUPS. OLIVIA CAREFULLY ARRANGED THE TEA CUPS ON A TRAY, BUT WHILE SHE REACHED FOR THE BOX OF CRACKERS, THE TRAY ACCIDENTALLY SLIPPED OUT OF HER HANDS AND THE SIX CUPS SMASHED INTO PIECES ON THE FLOOR.

• ANOTHER GIRL, ONE NAMED MELISSA, WAS PLAYING WITH HER DADDY. MELISSA WANTED TO PLAY MARCHING BAND IN THE KITCHEN BY CLANGING POT LIDS TOGETHER. WHEN HER DADDY SAID THE HE DIDN’T WANT TO PLAY MARCHING BAND BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LOUD, MELISSA BECAME VERY UPSET. SHE WAS SO ANGRY THAT SHE GRABBED A CUP OFF THE COUNTER AND THREW IT ONTO THE FLOOR, SMASHING IT INTO PIECES.

EVALUATION OF PIAGET’S THEORY • RESEARCH IN WESTERN CULTURES SUPPORTS THEORY,

BUT FINDINGS IN OTHER CULTURES HAVE BEEN LESS CONSISTENT

• EXAMPLE: IN NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES, THE BELIEF IN IMMANENT JUSTICE INCREASES RATHER THAN DECREASES WITH AGE

• PIAGET UNDERESTIMATED CHILDREN’S CAPACITIES• UNDERESTIMATION MAY BE RELATED TO METHOD OF STUDY

(I.E., CONFOUNDING OF INTENTIONS WITH ACTION OUTCOMES)• WHEN STORIES ARE SIMPLIFIED, CHILDREN SHOW

UNDERSTANDING OF INTENTION AT YOUNGER AGES

ALLIGATOR RIVER

KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Level 1: Preconventio

nal• (1) Obedience

vs. punishment

• (2) Gain rewards

Level 2: Convention

al• (3) “Good

boy/girl”

• (4) Law & Order

Level 3: Post-

Conventional

• (5) Social Contract

• (6) Principles

of Conscience

Obey rules to receive rewards and avoid punishment; self-

oriented

Obey rules and social norms to win approval

and avoid blameWhat is moral now differs from what is

legal.

LEVEL 1: PRECONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT & OBEDIENCE• JUDGMENT OF ACT DEPENDS ON CONSEQUENCES

• STAGE 2: GAIN REWARDS• SOME CONCERN FOR OTHERS PERSPECTIVE• OTHER-ORIENTED BEHAVIORS ARE MOTIVATED BY

BENEFITING IN RETURN

LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• STAGE 3: GOOD GIRL/BOY• MORAL BEHAVIOR ARE THOSE ACTIONS THAT PLEASE OR ARE

APPROVED BY OTHERS• ACTIONS EVALUATED BASED ON INTENT

• STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER• WHAT IS RIGHT CONFORMS TO RULES OF LEGAL AUTHORITY• BELIEF THAT RULES/LAWS MAINTAIN SOCIAL ORDER

LEVEL 3: POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY

• STAGE 5: SOCIAL CONTRACT• LAWS BASED ON SOCIAL MUTUALITY MEANT TO FURTHER

HUMAN VALUES• LAWS THAT COMPROMISE HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERED UNJUST

• STAGE 6: PRINCIPLES OF CONSCIENCE• DEFINES RIGHT/WRONG BASED ON SELF-CHOSEN ETHICAL

PRINCIPLES OF OWN CONSCIENCE• TRANSCEND LAW AND SOCIAL CONTRACTS• TAKE PERSPECTIVE OF EACH AND EVERY PERSON WHO ARE

AFFECTED BY ACTION

BRINGING IT TOGETHER• Individuals at the preconventional and conventional levels

• Act morally when external forces demand (more rewards, few costs),

• Without many rewards, few costs, would not act moral

• Individuals at the postconventional level • Act morally even when external forces may not favor it

(high cost, few rewards)

• People with higher-level moral reasoning• Are more likely to assist others• Are less likely to engage in delinquent activities• Are more likely to behave in a moral manner

**HAND-OUT STAGES

Kohlberg’s Stage

Most Offensive Least Offensive

1 Slug Ivan2 Gregory Sinbad3 Sinbad Abigail or Slug4 Sinbad Abigail or Slug5 Sinbad, Abigail,

SlugGregory

6 Gregory Abigail

NATIONAL COLLEGE SURVEYMen Women

Slug Gregory

Abigail Sinbad

Sinbad Ivan

Ivan Slug

Gregory Abigail

WHICH STAGE (START AT 1:30)?• CHILDREN WERE READ HEINZ MORAL DILEMMA AND THEN ASKED

WHETHER HEINZ SHOULD STEAL THE DRUG.

• HEINZ NEEDS A PARTICULAR EXPENSIVE DRUG TO HELP HIS DYING WIFE. THE PHARMACIST WHO DISCOVERED AND CONTROLS THE SUPPLY OF THE DRUG HAS REFUSED HEINZ’S OFFER TO GIVE HIM ALL THE MONEY HE HAS, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT HALF THE NECESSARY SUM, AND TO PAY THE REST LATER. HEINZ MUST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO STEAL THE DRUG TO SAVE HIS WIFE; THAT IS, WHETHER TO OBEY THE RULES AND LAWS OF SOCIETY OR TO VIOLATE THEM TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF HIS WIFE. WHAT SHOULD HEINZ DO, AND WHY?

KOHLBERG’S THEORY: DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL

REASONING

MOR

AL JU

DGM

ENTS

AT

EACH

AGE

(P

ERCE

NT)

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman, M. (1983). A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 48 (Serial No. 200). Fig 1, p. 46. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Blackwell

LONGITUDINAL EVIDENCE FOR KOHLBERG’S THEORY

• ADOLESCENCE• Preconventional (level 1) ↓• Conventional (level 2) ↑

• ADULTHOOD• For most, conventional reasoning maintained• Few participants showed postconventional

• Ps went through stages in order and never skipped a stage (like Kohlberg thought!).

LIMITATIONS OF KOHLBERGS THEORY

• PEOPLE GENERALLY INCREASE THROUGH STAGES, EXCEPT 5 & 6 (SMALL # OF PEOPLE REACH THESE)

• MORE ADVANCED REASONING FOR HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS, LOWER LEVELS OF REASONING ABOUT PERSONALLY RELEVANT SITUATIONS

• REQUIRES ABILITY TO REASON OUT LOUD (LIMITATION OF ASSESSMENT, NOT REALLY THEORY)

• CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN MORAL REASONING• POSTCONVENTIONAL → WESTERN DEMOCRACIES • CONVENTIONAL → RURAL, NONINDUSTRIALIZED AREAS

• SEXIST – PLACES WOMEN AT LOWER LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING

DOMAIN THEORY: TURIEL• SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS (SPECIFICITY)

• PROPOSED FEATURES THAT DISTINGUISH MORAL FROM CONVENTIONAL TRANSGRESSIONS

• 3 SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS• MORAL: CONCERNS WITH JUSTICE, WELFARE, AND RIGHTS• SOCIAL-CONVENTIONAL: CONCERNS WITH AUTHORITY,

TRADITION, AND SOCIAL NORMS• PERSONAL: CONCERNS WITH PRIVACY, BODILY, INTEGRITY,

AND CONTROL

MORAL DOMAIN• CONCERNS WITH JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, HARM, WELFARE, AND RIGHTS

• MORAL TRANSGRESSIONS (E.G., UNPROVOKED HITTING)• MORE WRONG• MORE PUNISHABLE• INDEPENDENT OF STRUCTURES OF AUTHORITY• UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE

• INTRINSIC CONSEQUENCES (HARMFUL, AFFECTS WELFARE OF OTHERS)

• CHILDREN CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MORAL AND CONVENTIONAL VIOLATIONS AS EARLY AS 39 MONTHS (SMETANA & BRAEGES, 1990)

CRITERIA FOR MORALITY• GENERALIZABILITY

• WRONG ACROSS MULTIPLE CONTEXTS• MORAL OBLIGATION

• OBLIGATED TO PERFORM ACTION OR OBEY RULE• INALTERABILITY

• WON’T CHANGE OVER TIME• INDEPENDENCE FROM RULES AND SANCTIONS

• ACT WOULD STILL BE WRONG IN THE ABSENCE OF RULES OR IF AUTHORITY DID NOT SEE VIOLATION

SOCIAL CONVENTIONAL DOMAIN• CONCERNS WITH AUTHORITY, TRADITION, & SOCIAL NORMS

• CONTEXTUALLY RELATIVE, CONSENSUALLY AGREED UPON NORMS (E.G., MANNERS, LAWS) THAT COORDINATE INDIVIDUALS’ INTERACTIONS IN SOCIAL SYSTEMS

• PROVIDE EXPECTATIONS FOR APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR

• CONVENTIONAL TRANSGRESSIONS• VARY ACROSS CULTURES AND CONTEXTS• DERIVED FROM AUTHORITY OR FROM SOCIETAL NORMS• NO INTRINSIC CONSEQUENCES• TYPICALLY, LESS “WRONG” AND LESS PUNISHABLE

CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL CONVENTION

• CONTEXTUAL RELATIVITY• “WRONGNESS” VARIES W/ CULTURE AND CONTEXT

• ALTERABILITY• CAN CHANGE OVER TIME

• DEPENDS ON RULES AND AUTHORITY• ACT IS WRONG IF THE ACT BREAKS A RULE OR THE AUTHORITY

FIGURE SEES THE VIOLATION• ACT NOT WRONG IF DOES NOT BREAK RULE

PERSONAL DOMAIN

• CONCERNS WITH PRIVACY, BODILY INTEGRITY, CHOICES/PREFERENCES

• PERSONAL AGENCY, CONTROL OVER PERSONAL ISSUES

• PRIVATE ASPECTS OF ONE’S LIFE

• AUTONOMY/DISTINCTIVENESS FROM OTHERS (NOT A CONVENTIONAL OR MORAL ISSUE)

• EX: CHOICE OF FRIENDS, ACTIVITIES

• LESS RESEARCH ON THIS DOMAIN

MORAL OR CONVENTIONAL?• DID YOU SEE WHAT JUST HAPPENED?

• YES. THEY WERE NOISY.

• IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO OR NOT SUPPOSED TO DO?

• NOT DO.

• IS THERE A RULE ABOUT THAT? • YES. WE HAVE TO BE QUIET.

• WHAT IF THERE WERE NO RULE, WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT TO DO THEN?

• YES.

• WHY? • BECAUSE THERE IS NO RULE.

MORAL OR CONVENTIONAL?• Q: DID YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENED?

• YES. THEY WERE PLAYING AND JOHN HIT HIM TOO HARD. • Q: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO OR NOT SUPPOSED

TO DO? • NOT SO HARD TO HURT.

• IS THERE A RULE ABOUT THAT? • YES.

• WHAT IS THE RULE? • YOU'RE NOT TO HIT HARD.

• WHAT IF THERE WERE NO RULE ABOUT HITTING HARD, WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT TO DO THEN?

• NO.

• WHY NOT?• BECAUSE HE COULD GET HURT AND START TO CRY.

MORAL VS. CONVENTIONAL• MORAL TRANSGRESSIONS TREATED AS MORE SERIOUS AND

MORE PUNISHABLE

• MORAL RULES RATED AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONVENTIONAL RULES

• MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS – INTRINSIC CONSEQUENCES OF ACTS, CONCERN FOR HARM/WELFARE, FAIRNESS/RIGHTS

• SOCIAL-CONVENTIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS – PUNISHMENT, RULES, AUTHORITY, SOCIAL-ORDER AND CULTURAL NORMS

DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL REASONING

• PRESCHOOLERS (3-4 YEAR OLDS)• APPLY MORAL CRITERIA MORE CONSISTENTLY TO EVENTS WITH PHYSICAL

HARM (E.G., HITTING)THAN WITH UNFAIRNESS (E.G., NOT SHARING A TOY)• OLDER CHILDREN (ELEMENTARY SCHOOL)

• MORAL REASONING DEVELOPS FROM FOCUS ON CONCRETE, PHYSICAL HARM TO UNDERSTANDING OF FAIRNESS (I.E., EQUAL TREATMENT)

• PREADOLESCENCE• MORAL REASONING MOVES FROM FAIRNESS TO EQUITY CONCERNS (E.G.,

UNDERSTANDING THAT FAIR TREATMENT REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NEEDS)

• ADOLESCENCE• MORAL REASONING BECOMES BROADER, UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE,

GENERALIZABLE ACROSS SITUATIONS, AND GREATER CONSIDERATION OF SITUATIONAL VARIATION (CONSIDER ALL CRITERIA)

HOW DOES TURIEL DIFFER FROM KOHLBERG?

• TURIEL: MORALITY AND CONVENTION ARE DISTINCT, PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORKS

• KOHLBERG: MORALITY AND CONVENTION ARE A SINGLE DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEM

• TURIEL: GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF MORAL (FAIRNESS/WELFARE) JUDGMENTS FROM YOUNGER AND LESS DEVELOPED INDIVIDUALS

• KOHLBERG: MORALITY DEVELOPS LATER THAN TURIEL’S THEORY SUGGESTS (B/C KOHLBERG DID NOT DISTINGUISH B/W MORALITY AND CONVENTION)

CRITICISMS OF DOMAIN THEORY• LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH WITH MORE DIVERSE SAMPLES

NEEDED• CURRENTLY, BASED ON CROSS-SECTIONAL DESIGNS OF

HOMOGENOUS SAMPLES

• BROADER FOCUS ON TRANSGRESSIONS• CURRENTLY, EMPHASIZES PHYSICAL AND FAIRNESS

VIOLATIONS, BUT NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PERSONAL

GENDER AND MORAL REASONING (GILLIGAN)

• FEMALES: MORALITY OF CARE AND RESPONSIBILITY• MORALITY BASED IN CARING AND COMPASSION

• RULE: DO NOT TURN AWAY FROM SOMEONE IN NEED

• MORE PREVALENT IN GIRLS B/C OF EARLY AND CONTINUED ATTACHMENT TO MOTHER (IMPORTANT FOR IDENTITY FORMATION)

• MALES: MORALITY OF JUSTICE• MORALITY BASED ON EQUALITY

• RULE: DO NOT TREAT OTHERS UNFAIRLY

• MORE PREVALENT IN BOYS B/C IDENTITY FORMATION REQUIRED THAT BOYS DETACH FROM THEIR MOTHERS AND FORM A SEPARATE IDENTITY FROM THEIR MOTHERS

• MAKES BOYS MORE AWARE OF POWER RELATIONS B/W SELF AND ADULTS – LEADING TO GREATER CONCERN OVER INEQUALITIES (THAN GIRLS)

GENDER AND MORAL REASONING• GILLIGAN – WHAT DOES RESEARCH SHOW?

• NO GENDER DIFFERENCES IN HYPOTHETICAL DILEMMAS• BOTH BOYS AND GIRLS EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT JUSTICE

AND EQUALITY

• SOME DIFFERENCES IN PERSONAL DILEMMAS

PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON MORALITY

• Withholding attention, affection, or approval as a consequence of child misbehavior

Love withdra

wal• Use power to control child

behavior e.g., spanking, physical restraints, taking away privileges

Power assertio

n• Explaining why behavior is

wrong and should changeInduction

PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON MORALITY

• INDUCTION• PROMOTES DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL MATURITY • EFFECTIVE FOR CHILDREN BETWEEN 2 – 5 YEARS OLD

• CRITICISMS• INDUCTION NOT ALWAYS EFFECTIVE FOR:

• FATHERS• PARENTS FROM LOW SES BACKGROUNDS• DIRECT EFFECTS?

• INDUCTION LEADS TO MORAL MATURITY OR MORAL MATURITY ELICIT INDUCTIVE DISCIPLINE?