ALTRUISM & MORAL
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 10
MORALITY
• COMPONENTS OF MORALITY
• THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
• PIAGET
• KOHLBERG
• TURIEL
• GILLIGAN
• PARENTAL INFLUENCES ON MORALITY
• SET OF PRINCIPLES
MORALITY
• 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
• DOMINOES
WHICH STAGE?
• 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
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
What is moral now differs
from what is legal.
DEVELOPMENT
Level 1:
Preconventional
• (1) Obedience vs.
punishment
Level 2:
Conventional
• (3) “Good
boy/girl”
Level 3:
PostConventional
• (5) Social
Contract
• (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
**HAND-OUT STAGES
Kohlberg’s Stage
Most Offensive
Least Offensive
1
2
3
Slug
Gregory
Sinbad
Ivan
Sinbad
Abigail or Slug
4
5
6
Sinbad
Sinbad, Abigail, Slug
Gregory
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?
MORAL JUDGMENTS AT EACH AGE (PERCENT)
KOHLBERG’S THEORY: DEVELOPMENT OF
MORAL REASONING
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
withdrawal
• Withholding attention, affection,
or approval as a consequence of
child misbehavior
Power
assertion
• Use power to control child
behavior e.g., spanking, physical
restraints, taking away privileges
Induction
• Explaining why behavior is wrong
and should change
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?