Understanding Altruism and Moral Development Theories
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.
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
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
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)
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
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 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
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
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
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
NATIONAL COLLEGE SURVEY Men 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?
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
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 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
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?
