Altruism and Moral Development Theories

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
 
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
Obey rules to receive
rewards and avoid
punishment; self-oriented
Obey rules and social
norms to win approval and
avoid blame
What 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
NATIONAL COLLEGE SURVEY
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
MORAL JUDGMENTS AT EACH AGE (PERCENT)
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
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?
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Explore the components of morality, theories of moral development by prominent psychologists like Piaget and Kohlberg, and the stages of moral development in individuals. Learn about moral affect, reasoning, and behavior as integral aspects shaping one's ethical framework and decision-making processes.

  • Altruism
  • Moral Development
  • Psychologists
  • Piaget
  • Kohlberg

Uploaded on Sep 19, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. ALTRUISM & MORAL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 10

  2. MORALITY COMPONENTS OF MORALITY THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT PIAGET KOHLBERG TURIEL GILLIGAN PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON MORALITY

  3. 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

  4. COMPONENTS OF MORALITY Moral Affect Reasoning Behavior

  5. 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

  6. THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

  7. PIAGETS 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)

  8. PIAGETS 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

  9. WHICH STAGE? DOMINOES A. PREMORAL B. MORAL REALISM - HETERONOMOUS C. MORAL RELATIVISM - AUTONOMOUS

  10. 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.

  11. EVALUATION OF PIAGETS 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

  12. ALLIGATOR RIVER

  13. Obey rules to receive rewards and avoid punishment; self-oriented Obey rules and social norms to win approval and avoid blame KOHLBERG S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT What is moral now differs from what is legal. Level 2: Conventional (3) Good boy/girl Level 3: Post- Conventional (5) Social Contract Level 1: Preconventional (1) Obedience vs. punishment (2) Gain rewards (4) Law & Order (6) Principles of Conscience

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. **HAND-OUT STAGES

  19. Kohlbergs Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 Most Offensive Slug Gregory Sinbad Sinbad Sinbad, Abigail, Slug Gregory Least Offensive Ivan Sinbad Abigail or Slug Abigail or Slug Gregory Abigail

  20. NATIONAL COLLEGE SURVEY Men Women Slug Gregory Abigail Sinbad Sinbad Ivan Ivan Slug Gregory Abigail

  21. 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?

  22. KOHLBERGS THEORY: DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL REASONING MORAL JUDGMENTS AT EACH AGE (PERCENT) 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

  23. 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!).

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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)

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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

  34. 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)

  35. 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)

  36. 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

  37. 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)

  38. 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

  39. PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON MORALITY Love Withholding attention, affection, or approval as a consequence of child misbehavior withdrawal Power assertion Use power to control child behavior e.g., spanking, physical restraints, taking away privileges Explaining why behavior is wrong and should change Induction

  40. 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?

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#