Moralityand Crime1 Mod

Morality and Crime

Kohlberg’s Theory

Freud’s theory

Pavlov’s theory

Do criminals have a different perspective to

non - criminals?

Social/Moral DevelopmentPiaget argues that moral development is closely related with cognitive development

Children have difficulties forming moral judgments until they get out of egocentric thinking and are able to assume another’s perspective Rule-based games are a manifestation of concrete operations in children’s social interactions These games provide structures circumstances in which children balance the rules of society against their own desires

Methods for studying children’s moral ideas Behavioural observations of games Clinical interviews about rules and moral dilemmas

Can you see any problems with this approach?

Boys - rules in marble gamesPiaget observed children’s rule-following behaviour during the game of marbles.Preschoolers typically played in an egocentric manner. If 2 boys were playing, each would play in his own way. They had little sense of winning, one might yell ¨I won and you won too!¨After age 7, children tried to follow common rules that determine who wins. Rules were fixed and determined by authority – God or the government!After age 10, children were more relativistic - began to treat rules as social conventions that could be changed if the other players agreed.

Stages of moral development: Piaget found two qualitatively different forms of

moral judgments, which follow an amoral stageHeteronomous morality (Age 4-7): ¨subject to another’s law¨

child regards adult rules as sacred and unchangeablemoral wrongness is defined in terms of adult sanctionsacts that are wrong are ones acts that adults punishmoral responsibility is understood as obedience to authorityevaluate actions in terms of its consequences. e.g., a well-intended act with a big physical damage is considered to be more naughty than a negatively intended act resulting in less physical damage

Moral judgmentsPiaget used stories to assess the nature of moral judgments of children. Ali was outside when his mother called him in for dinner. As he opened the dining room door he accidentally knocked over a tray of cups, breaking all eight of them. Compare him with Osman who came home from school hungry. Though his mother told him not to eat before dinner, he climbed up the cupboard anyway to steal a cookie; while up there, he broke one cup. Who is naughtier, Ali or Osman?

Moral judgmentsAfter school Michael ran into a market, stole three large, red apples and ran out the door. As he fled a policeman saw and chased him. In attempting to escape, Michael crossed a bridge. As he reached the top, the bridge cracked, Michael fell into the water, and he was captured. Would the bridge have broken if Michael had not stolen the apples?

What would a younger/older child say?

Stages of moral development: Piaget

Autonomous morality (Age 8 on): ¨subject to one’s own law¨

moral flexibility: rules can be changed

rules are now regarded as products of group agreement

wrongdoing interpreted in terms of subjective intentions, not objective consequences. See previous moral judgement – stolen apples.

Factors causing moral development (Piaget)

General cognitive development from egocentrism to perspective-taking. Valid?

Stage theory, universal , invariant and hierarchical. Flexible?

Changed social relationsearly on, child-parent relations are predominant. But peer interactions increase during middle childhood…affecting moral development

peer relations are based on reciprocal negotiations based on consensus, not on unilateral respect for authority figures or constraint. Valid?

Kohlberg: moral developmentModified and elaborated on Piaget’s ideas about moral thinkingUsed interviews with individuals based on moral dilemmas (e.g., the Heinz dilemma)In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might

save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. The druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should the husband had done that? Why? Write your answer in private.

Kohlberg: moral development

Found 3 kinds of morality that form a developmental order. Stage theory.The preconventional morality: the child shows no internalization of moral values, just based on punishment (stage 1) or reward/benefit (stage 2)

Stage 1 (Heteronomous morality) (Age 4-7): • obedience for its own sake• involves deference to powerful people, usually the

parents, in order to avoid punishment• the morality of an act is defined in terms of its

physical consequences• Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will

be put in jail

Kohlberg: moral developmentThe preconventional morality

Stage 2 (Instrumental morality) (Age 7-10): • the child conforming to gain rewards• although there is evidence of reciprocity and sharing, it

is a manipulative, self-serving reciprocity rather than one based on a true sense of justice, generosity, or sympathy

• justice is seen as an exchange system; you give as much as you receive

I’ll lend you my bike if I can play with your wagon.• Heinz should steal the drug because someday he might

have cancer and would want someone to steal it from him

The conventional morality: the child’s internalization of moral values is intermediate. He/she abides by certain standards of other people such as parents (stage 3) or the rules of society (stage 4)

Stage 3 (Good-child morality) (Age: 10-12)• good behaviour is that which maintains approval and good

relations with others• the child is concerned about conforming to friends’ and

families’ standards to maintain good-will and good relations• a social-relational moral perspective develops, based on

feelings and agreements between people• Heinz should steal the drug for his wife. He loves his wife

and his wife loves him. You can do anything for love!

Stage 4

Stage 4) "He should steal it. Heinz has a duty to protect his wife's life; it's a vow he took in marriage. However it's wrong to steal, so he would have to take the drug with the idea of paying the druggist for it and accepting the penalty (of) breaking the law later." (Rest, 1979)

Stages 5 and 6(Stage 5) "Although there is a law against stealing, the law wasn't meant to violate a person's right to life. . . . Heinz is justified in stealing in this instance. If Heinz is prosecuted for stealing, the law needs to be reinterpreted to take into account (certain) situations. . . ." (Rest, 1979)(Stage 6) "If Heinz does not do everything he can to save his wife, then he is putting some value higher than the value of life. It doesn't make sense to put respect for property above respect for life itself." (Kohlberg, 1969)

Convention vs. morality

In a study by Nucci (1981), children were asked about dilemmas based on conventions and dilemmas based on morality. An example of a convention dilemma is: There is a school in a faraway place where boys can wear dresses. Is it okay for a boy to wear a dress in that school?

Convention vs. moralityAn example of the matching moral dilemma is: There is a school in a faraway place where there's no rule against hitting other kids. Is it okay to hit other kids if you go to that school? When these two types of dilemma are juxtaposed, even very young children (ages four to six) show that they understand that moral transgressions are worse than violations of social convention (e.g., it's okay for boys to wear dresses, but it's still not okay for kids to hit each other).

Reasoning and actual behaviourHow does children’s reasoning about fairness correspond to their actual behaviour?Damon did a study in which 6-year-old and 10-year-old groups were asked to divide candy bars given to their group as ¨payment¨ for making bracelets.

6-year-olds insisted that fairness means equal outcomesOlder children were better able to adjust the outcome to fit the profile of abilities and contributions in the group

in about 50 % of the cases, children’s behaviour matched their reasoning level in hypothetical situationsin 10 % of the cases, their behaviour was at a higher levelin 40 % of the cases, it was lower. Influence on stage theory?

real candies make a difference!

FairnessThorkildsen studied children’s ability to consider context in reasoning about fairnessShe told to children from 6- to 11-year olds that there is a classroom where everyone is trying hard to learn how to read, but some children finish the assignments more quickly than othersThen asked them to rate the fairness of faster readers helping slower readers in each of these 3 situations

is it fair for the teacher to ask the fast readers to help the slow readers during a reading lesson?is it fair for the good readers to help the slow readers by whispering answers during a spelling test?is it fair for the good readers to help the slow readers during a test?

FairnessThe nature of the activity made a difference in the judgments of all the childrenAll children thought it was fair to have a reading lesson in which children work independently or help each other

but it would be unfair to introduce competition

if the activity was a spelling test, they thought it would be unfair to help6-year-olds were as good as 11-year-olds in taking social context into account

Evidence for Kohlberg

Researchers have concluded that delinquent adolescents are more likely to display Stage 1 or Stage 2 moral reasoning whereas non delinquent youth are more often in Stage 3 (Arbuthnot et al., 1987).

Evidence against Kohlberg

Poor reliability

Correlational data

Inconsistent for different crimes

Moral dilemma method - ecological validity

Self-reports

Evidence against Kohlberg

The failure to control for variations in personality;

The failure to control for the type of offence. (Thornton and Reid (1982) reported that convicted criminals who had offended for no financial gain (assault, murder, sex offences) showed more mature moral judgement than those who offended for money (robbery, burglary, theft, fraud)).

Evidence against KohlbergAs both Ross and Fabiano (1985) and Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986) point out, research has focused on the offender’s beliefs and attitudes (content), this can be contrasted with the offender’s actions (process). Ross and Fabiano suggest: ‘One can argue eloquently and convincingly about social/moral issues yet have a personal set of values which are entirely self-serving, hedonistic or anti-social’ Consider politicians such as Jeffery Archer who during the course of their office espouse virtue but do not practice it, by committing perjury for example.

Evidence against Kohlberg

Several well-known experiments have shown that people will behave in ways which they believe or know to be wrong, being influenced by the present situation rather than their individual disposition to behave morally (Asch 1952; Milgram 1963).

Evidence against KohlbergTests of moral development which assess answers to hypothetical moral and social issues have also been criticized as having little relevance to the type of thinking an offender engages in when deciding whether to commit a crime (Jurkovic 1980). Indeed, studies of thinking prior to offending show that the criminal is not concerned with moral issues, but rather with the likelihood of being successful (J. Carroll and Weaver 1986).

Freud’s Theory

Structural (Tripartite) Theory

Freud’s second model of the mind to explain psychopathology

Developed in the early 1900’s

The ID

Home of instinctual Drives

“I want it and I want it NOW”

Completely unconscious

Present at birth

Operates on the Pleasure Principle (instinctual urges) and employs Primary Process Thinking (immediate gratification)

The Superego

Internalized morals/values- sense of right and wrong

Suppresses instinctual drives of ID (through guilt and shame) and serves as the moral conscience.

The Superego

Largely unconscious, but has conscious componentDevelops with socialization, and through identification with same-sex parent (via introjection) at the resolution of the Oedipal ConflictIntrojection: absorbing rules for behavior from role models

“Ego” Defense MechanismsThe Ego employs “ego defense mechanisms”They serve to protect an individual from unpleasant thoughts or emotionsDefense Mechanisms are primarily unconsciousResult from interactions between the ID, Ego, and Superego. Thus, they’re compromises.Attempts to express an impulse (to satisfy the ID) in a socially acceptable or disguised way (so that the Superego can deal with it).Some defense mechanisms explain aspects of psychopathology:

E.g. Identification with aggressor: can explain tendency of some abused kids to grow into abusers

Classification of Defenses

Mature

Immature

Mature DefensesAltruism - unselfishly assisting others to avoid

negative personal feelings

Anticipation -thinking ahead and planning appropriately

HumourSublimation - rerouting an unacceptable drive in a

socially acceptable way; redirecting the energy from a forbidden drive into a constructive act. E.g.Martial Arts

Suppression - deliberately (consciously) pushing anxiety-provoking or personally unacceptable material out of conscious awareness

Immature Defenses - some examplesActing Out Behaving in an attention-getting, often socially inappropriate manner to avoid dealing with unacceptable emotions or material

Somatization Unconscious transformation of unacceptable impulses or feelings into physical symptoms

Regression Return to earlier level of functioning (childlike behaviours) during stressful situations

Denial Unconsciously discounting external reality

Projection Falsely attributing one’s own unacceptable impulses or feelings onto others

Displacement Redirection of unacceptable feelings, impulses from their source onto a less threatening person or object

Repression Keeping an idea or feeling out of conscious awareness

Magical Thinking A thought is given great power, deemed to have more of a connection to events than is realistic

E.g. Thinking about a disaster can bring it about

Evidence for Freud

Are the defence mechanism valid?

Do you have experience of such approaches?

Socialisation depends on a good relationship with parents

Can explain child abuse and paedophilia

Evidence against Freud

Case study method (e.g. Little Hans)

Little research evidence.

Small samples.

Difficult to clearly categorise – subjective.

Classical Conditioning

Is the basis for social learning theory.

Ivan Pavlov and the role of Serendipity

Russian physiologist studying the digestive system

Focusing on what substance helped to break food down

One notable substance studied was saliva

Developed method to measure saliva production

Salivary Conditioning Apparatus

Process of Pavlov’s Saliva ResearchDog given food and salivation was recorded while the dog ate

Key finding: Experienced dogs salivated before the food was presented

Pavlov’s Theory: Some stimulus (e.g. experimenter; apparatus) that proceeded food presentation had acquired capacity to elicit the response of salivation

What was happening? Dogs were exhibiting simple type of learning

This type of learning is the foundation of Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning – Evidence for

Children can be made to feel guilt by association

The basis of social learning theory. Bandura. Behaviour is a product of reinforcement and imitation.

Classical conditioning – Evidence against

Ignores cognition. Determinism criminal behaviour is out of a persons’ control vs. morality suggests we have a choice whether to behave criminally. Free will.

Children who are reasoned with plus a mild punishment show the most improvement

Evaluation points

These three theories have some research evidence to back them up but the methods used are all questionable:

Moral dilemmas

Case studies

Story telling (Piaget)

Animal experiments with dogs applied to humans

The End