Moral Development
March 29 – April 3
How do
children learn
right from
wrong? Morality has three
components:
Emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral
• Evolutionary, genetic heritage
Biological
• Brain areas
• Freud: superego and guilt
Perspectives Psychoanalytic
• Today: induction, empathy-based guilt
Both focus on
the
on Moral internalization
of social
Development Social Learning Modeling moral behavior standards
Cognitive-
Children as active thinkers about social rules
Developmental
Evolutionary/Biological
Approach to
Understanding Morality
Altruism, reciprocity seen in other species
Bases for morality: empathy, caring, self-
Evidence for sacrifice
the Biased to help family groups, communities
Evolutionary Social exchange aids group function, survival
Approach Natural selection fostered altruism
Prewired emotional reactions, like empathy
Ventromedial and orbitofrontal prefrontal cortex
Evolutionary
Approach:
Altruism
Psychoanalytic Approach
to Understanding
Morality: Role of Guilt
Freud’s Oedipal and Electra
Complexes
Fear of punishment/loss of parental
love competition with same sex
parent
Superego (conscience) develops
Role of Guilt Internalize norms of same-sex parents
Hostility that was directed at same-sex
parent becomes directed inward (guilt)
when they disobey the superego
Moral development complete by age 5
or 6
Children experience guilt when they hurt
another person.
Modern Harsh punishment and threat are not
researchers effective.
disagree with Parents who are warm and responsive have
Freud’s children who feel more guilt after misdeeds.
emphasis on
guilt.
Helps child notice others’ feelings
by pointing out effects of
misbehavior on others
Note other’s distress and make
clear the child caused the distress
Inductive Empathy-based guilt
Discipline Children whose parents use these
techniques behave more
“morally”
Moral identity in adolescence –
endorsement of moral values as
central to self-concept
Information about how to behave
(rather than just what not to do) Threats,
Emphasizes the impact of the psychological
child’s behavior on others to control, and harsh
motivate prosocial behavior
Why does Empathy and sympathy
punishments may
make a child too
induction Encourages moral reasoning and anxious, angry, or
the adoption of moral standards
work? Develop scripts for the
frightened that
consequences of harming others they cannot think
about what they
Explanations help children
understand the fairness behind did or should do.
discipline internalization
Empathy
Empathic children
require less power
assertion
Child Factors Temperament
in Inductive Anxious: mild,
Discipline patient tactics
Fearless: warm
relationship, firm
correction
Social Learning: Modeling
and Reinforcing Moral
Behavior
Moral behavior is
modeling and then
reinforced
Modeling and Models who are:
Reinforcing Warm and
responsive
Moral Competent and
Behavior powerful
Kids imitate the
Act in line with people they like and
their assertions the people they look
(are consistent) up to
Physical punishment and frequent punishment have
undesirable effects.
Weak internalization of moral values
Harsh Depression, anxiety, aggression, behavioral problems, etc.
punishment Why?
affects the Physical punishment models aggression
Harshly treated children get angry and feel threatened,
learning of focusing on their own distress instead of feeling guilt or
sympathy toward others
moral rules It hurts the parent-child relationship, start to avoid the
and behavior. punitive parent
Harsh punishment is immediately rewarding for the parent
use more frequently abuse
Intergenerational transmission
Consistency, warmth, explanations
Time-outs, withdrawing privileges
Effective Positive parenting – praise good behavior
Alternatives to
Physical
Punishment
Build mutually respectful bond
Let the child know how to act ahead of time
Positive Praise mature behavior
Parenting Foster a closer relationship
Tactics
Use transgressions as opportunities to teach
Reduce opportunities for misbehavior
Provide reasons for rules
Family routines/duties
Compromise/problem solving
Encourage maturity
Be sensitive to physical and emotional resources
Cognitive-Developmental
Approach to
Understanding Morality
Morality can’t simply be about obeying rules and how
you learned to obey rules.
Sometimes acting ethically is at odds with prevailing
social norms/rules.
Criticisms of Norms compete – how do children then choose which
norm to follow?
Morality as
“Internalization
of Rules” Cognitive-
developmental
approaches believe
that morality is
constructed by
attending to multiple
perspectives in
conflict situations
Stage Age Rules Morality Mechanism
Stage 1: 5-8 Permanent, Wrongness is Rules handed
Morality of unchangeable, based on down by
Constraint require strict outcomes/consequ authorities
Piaget’s obedience ences, not
intentions
Theory of Transition 7/8- Constructed by Perspective- Increased
Moral Period 10 the group taking; moral
autonomy
peer
interaction
Development Stage 2: 11+ Socially agreed Ideal Reciprocity; Increased
Autonomous upon and flexible moral relativism; peer
Morality fairness/equality; interaction;
motives are cognitive
important skills
Children can judge intentions earlier than
Piaget.
Young children center more often on
Evaluations of consequences, interpret intentions rigidly.
Piaget’s Young children question basis of authority.
Theory Many children show both heteronomous and
autonomous reasoning – doubts about stages.
Moral development process extends longer than
Piaget thought.
Lawrence Kohlberg
We learn from interacting with
others.
Kohlberg’s Strongly influenced by Piaget
Stages of
Assessed moral judgment by
Moral presenting children with
Development hypothetical moral dilemmas
and then questioning them
about the issues involved in
their moral judgments
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
Heinz he knew to borrow the money, but he could only
Dilemma get together 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 to sell it cheaper
or let him pay later. But 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 have done that? Why?
Followed boys
longitudinally Preconventional Level Stage 1: Punishment Outcomes for self
– judge by consequences and obedience
Stage 2: Instrumental Choice and self-interest
Purpose
Kohlberg’s Conventional Level – Stage 3: “Good boy- Morality of interpersonal
Stages of rules are important for good-girl” cooperation; Golden Rule
relationships and social
Moral order
Stage 4: Social Order Rules to bring order to
society
Development Postconventional Level Stage 5: Social Contract Rules can be changed for
– abstract principles and the good of the people
values that apply to all Stage 6: Universal Ethical principles that are
Stages, invariant situations/societies ethical principles good for all humanity
order,
qualitatively
distinct
Age Trends in
Moral
Reasoning
Seen in preschool children, most elementary
school students, some JH students, and a few
HS students
Preconventional Concerned with personal interest
Level: Stage 1 Obedience and punishment
Deference to superior power or prestige
What would happen to Heinz if he did this?
Would he get punished?
Seen in preschool children, most elementary
school students, some JH students, and a few
HS students
Concerned with personal interests
Preconventional Right action is what is instrumental in satisfying
the self’s needs and occasionally others’ needs
Level: Stage 2 Exchange and reciprocity
What would Heinz get out of stealing the drug?
Would it be beneficial for him? Is it worth the
personal risk?
Seen in a few elementary students, some JH
students, and many HS students
“Good girl” “good boy”
Orientation towards approval, to pleasing and
helping others
Conventional Action is evaluated in terms of intentions
Level: Stage 3
What would stealing the drug say about Heinz
as a person?
Would stealing the drug make him a bad person?
Would stealing the drug make him a good father
and husband?
Seen in a few elementary students, some JH
students, and many HS students (rare before HS)
Maintaining Norms
Doing one’s duty and showing respect for authority
Conventional Maintaining social order for its own sake. Is there a law
that prohibits the action?
Level: Stage 4
If everyone followed their base desires, we would
have chaos. There’s a reason the laws exist.
What if everyone stole what they wanted or needed?
What if everyone marked up necessary items so that
they could make a profit?
Level 4
Rarely seen before college
Self-Accepted Moral Principles
Norms of right and wrong have influence
Post- from laws and rules, but have a rational
basis
Conventional: Conflict between individual needs and laws
Stage 5 laws must prevail because they provide
for the majority will and welfare
Does stealing have benefit for more
people than just Heinz?
Age range?
Self-Accepted Moral Principles
Social rules BUT conscience as a directing
agent
Principles of moral choice because of universal
Post- human rights (human rights, justice, equality)
Conventional: May go against laws or rest of society in the
Stage 6 process
Few people reach this stage
It’s not even included on many measures
What is more important: profit or human
life?
Reasoning vs. Behavior
Can a person think this way?
Will he/see act that way in a real life dilemma?
Bias against women (Carol Gilligan)
Kohlberg doesn’t say anything about gender
differences
Criticisms of Women: base explanations on caring and personal
Kohlberg relationships (Stage 3)
Men: base explanations on justice and equity
(Stage 5)
Does Stage 6 exist?
Domain Specific
Cultural Differences
Open-mindedness
Child-rearing
practices
Influences on Caring, supportive
Moral Discuss moral
concerns
Reasoning
Schooling
Peer interaction
Culture
Trends in Morality cannot be only cognition – there
Moral is an emotional component.
Development
What comes first – emotion or cognition?
(still cognitive)
There are specific innate, universally available moral foundations
Intuitive – automatic, rapid, affective, and non-rational
Our mind makes “aesthetic judgments” of dilemmas
Gut-level emotions cause us to construct moral ideas of right and wrong
Jonathon E.g., disgust, fear, elevation, mirth
Haidt Also studied moral decision making and emotions with vignettes
E.g., family dog is killed by a car. Family cooks and eats the dog.
E.g., man buys a dead chicken at the store and masturbates with it.
E.g., woman doesn’t want flag anymore, so she cuts it into pieces and uses the
rags to clean her bathroom
Care/harm
Feel (and dislike) pain of others
Attachment
Fairness/Cheating
Justice, rights, autonomy
Proportionality/Equality (Conservative/Liberal)
Haidt’s Model Loyalty/Betrayal
– Foundations Patriotism, self-sacrifice
Authority/Subversions
Leaders & Followers
Respect for legitimate authority and traditions
Sanctity/Degradation
Disgust/contamination
“Body as a temple”
Haidt’s Model
Social Domain Theory
A little bit learning, a little bit cognition.
Children develop the capacity to
distinguish between moral imperatives,
social conventions, and matters of
choice
Social Domain From social experiences
Theory Develop relatively early, by 3-4 years
By school-age, children distinguish between
conventions that have purpose and those
that do not AND take into account
intentions, context, knowledge, and beliefs
Moral Imperatives Social Conventions
Protect people’s
Customs such as
rights and welfare
table manners or
Social Domain Victims and other dress styles
Theory children react
Peers seldom react
strongly to moral
to violations of social
offenses
convention.
Adults explain rights
Adults explain less,
and feelings of
demand obedience.
victims
Personal Choice
Choices that do
not violate others
Social Domain rights are up to
Theory the individual
Challenges to
authority occur
most within this
domain
