combined areas and core studies

1.      Milgram

Background

•     The agentic state- handing over responsibility to someone else, the participant does not feel responsible.

• They become an instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes.

• He wanted to investigate the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis to explain why the nazis were so obedient (12000 deaths a day).  

Aim milgram

·         To investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

·         Was interested in studying the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis because historians explained the holocaust as the Germans had a character defect making them obedient.

Sample milgram

·         40 males aged 20-50

·         From new haven USA, self selected through posters.

·         Took place at yale

·         Paid $4

·         No females as he wanted to explain the Germans (androcentric), no students as there more likely to obey.

Method- controlled observation (no manipulated IV) milgram

·         Quantitative data was collected by the maximum level of shock participants administered (interval level data)

·         Qualitative data was collected through video recordings and photographs from behind a one way mirror, they researchers were looking for nervous behavior (sweating, biting lips, stuttering, crying, digging fingernails into hands) 14 displayed nervous laughter and ‘3 had full blown uncontrollable seizures.’

Procedure milgram

·         Participants were told they were taking part in a learning and memory task at yale.

·         They arrived and met with experimenter in a white lab coat, holding a clip board.

·         They then met the mild, mannered and likeable confederate, and they drew paper out of a hat to determine if they would be a teacher or a learner but it was rigged to always be the confederate as the learner.

·         All three walk into the second room where the electric shock chair is, participant is strapped into the chair and given a shock of 45 volts so they believed it was real.

·         Then taken into a third room by the experimenter and sat in front of the electric shock box (30 switches, 15 volts, 450 volts (XXX).

·         The teacher then read the learner word pairs (e.g bay and blue), and then the teacher would have to say variations of one co-Ord (e.g yellow, pink, blue) and the learner had to chose which word was the original word paired with, ‘boy’

·         Was done over a computer, the correct answer- no shock, incorrect- shocked, and the learner was scheduled to occasionally get a wrong answer.

procedure milgram continued

·         At 300 volts the participants heard a recording of pounding on the wall from the confederates room, milgram did this to see if it would have an effect on participants.

·         If the teacher says they want to stop as their worried about the learner the experimenter gives out prods to see weather they would obey.

·         Prod 1- please continue

·         Prod 2- the experiment requires you to continue

·         Prod 3- it is absolutely essential that you must continue

·         Prod 4- you have no other choice, you must go on.

·         Teacher  was debriefed after the experiment.

Results- quantitative milgram

·         100% went to 300 volts

·         12.5 (5pps) stopped after 300 volts

·         10% (4pps) stopped after 315 volts

·         65% went up to 450 volts (26pps)

Results- qualitative milgram

·         Sweating, trembling, stuttering, bit there lips, crying, dug finger nails into skin. 14 displayed nervous behavior.

·         3 had full blown uncontrollable seizures

Conclusions- why was obedience levels so high? milgram

·         The agentic state (giving responsibly to someone else)

·         Prods got progressively more aggressive

·         Lack of general knowledge about voltages

·         Didn’t want to disrupt experiment

·         Shocks are temporary pain

·         Paid $4

·         Assumed they’d be told to stop if they went too far.

1.      Bocchiaro

Background- what is obedience, whistle blowing and disobedience?

.     A whistle blower is a person who exposes/ informs on a person or organization regarded as engaging in unlawful or immoral activity.

·         Disobedience involves the rejection of social power to behave in accordance with your own morals/ beliefs.

·         Social power is the influence an individual has to change anothers thoughts feelings or behaviors. Individuals may have social power to influence those with a lower social status within their social hierarchy.

Background- what questions did Milgram leave unanswered? Bocchiaro

·         Personality could’ve affected levels of obedience.

Background- real life examples bocchiaro

·         Nelson mandala (1918-2013)- helped bring an end to apartheid (racial superiority) and has been global advocate for human rights. He was disobedient as he disobeyed the police- authority figures and fought against them in peaceful protests.

Aim bocchiaro

·         To investigate the rates of obedience and disobedience and whistle blowing in a situation where no physical violence was involved but it was clear that the instructions were ethically wrong.

Sample- self selected (flyers round campus) bocchiaro

·         149 undergraduate students 53 males 96 females (both), 11 participants were removed due to suspicions of the aim.

·         (mean age 20.8)

·         Paid $7 or course credit

·         VW university of Amsterdam

·         Lab study

What dispositional measures were used? bocchiaro

·         HEXACO- P1- R personality test

·         Questionnaire on social values- measured using the decomposed games (which measures social values orientation)

·         Questionnaire on religiousness- asking participants questions about religious applications, frequency of worship and extent of faith.

Method of the experiment bocchiaro

• 92 participants were used for a pilot study·      

• Participants were met by an experimenter who had a stem appearance and was wearing a lab coat.

•   The experimenter told participants conducting an experiment on sensory deprivation, he had done a similar study before and it had gone wrong as some participants developed auditory hallucinations and 2 had such bad negative symptoms they had to stop the experiment.

• he was waiting for the ethics committee to approve his request to carry out the experiment as they were unsure due to results of previous experiment (he then tells them he will offer them a job in the future if they do this experiment). The experimenter leaves them for 3 minutes so they can come to terms with the information.

• take them into another room where they’ll complete the statement.

• In this statement they’re told to be enthusiastic and use 2 of these words (great, incredible, exciting, superb) and must NOT mention the negative effects of sensory deprivation.

• left for 7 mins

• wrote statement- obey (vise versa)

• experimenter took into room where they did dispositional measures tests and debriefed

138 people asked asked after study how likely they thought obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing would be- what they and average student would do

WHAT THEY WOULD DO

• 3.6% said would obey

• 31.9% would disobey

• 64.5% would whistle blow

WHAT OTHER STUDENTS WOULD DO

• 18.8% obey

• 43.9% disobey

• 37.3% whistle blow

Results of the actual participants for bocciaro

• 76.5% obeyed

• 14.1% disobeyed

• 9.4% blew the whistle (6% anonymously, 3.4% openly)

Significance of results bocchiaro

• none of the HEXACO personality dimensions showed significant differences for honesty, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, concentration, openness to experience.

3 conclusions bocchiaro

•   People overestimate the tendency to blow the whistle and underestimate the likelihood of obedience.

• There is little or no evidence that dispositional factors effect obedience or whistle blowing.

• Results support the findings of previous research that we tend to see ourselves as special and we rate ourselves as less likely to follow destructive orders.

ethical issues bocchiaro

• Told about potential risks/benefits of participation- protection

• Told about right to withdraw at any time with no penalty

•  Assured of confidentiality

   Piliavin

Aim

• To investigate influence of bystander by staging a series of sitchuations involving a person in need of help,

• 1- to see if the type of victim (drunk or ill) impacts the rate of helping.

• 2- if race of victim impacts help

• 3- impact of modelling.

• 4- to consider the effect of group size

Background to study pilliavin

In 1964 kitty Genovese was stabbed to death over for over 20 minutes, outside an apartment block residents heard her scream and there were 6 witnesses.

• Many social psychologists studied concept of the good Samaritan (e.g lantane) much of work on victimization conducted in  lab using non visual emergency situations. This study was designed to investigate (in real life conditions) the effect of several variables on helping behavior.    

Key themes piliavin focuses on

• Bystander apathy- an individual likelihood of helping decreases when passive bystanders are present in emergency situation someone else will do what’s necessary so no need to assist.

IVS (tmrs) (tell me religion sucks) piliavin

•   Type of victim (ill/drunk)

•   Model

•   Race of victim

• Size of witness group

DVS piliavin

·         Time taken to help

·         Number of people who helped

·         Gender of helper

·         Race of helper

·         Comments made

·         Number of people who are left in critical area

Sample- opportunity (April 15^th- June 26^th 1968) piliavin

·         44450 participants (mean of 43 per trial)

·         Male and females

·         103 trials

·         Subway between 11am- 3pm in NYC (more reliable as not too busy so victim was able to fall, participants were likely unemployed, less valid as sample is biased)

·         Two month period

·         45% black 55% white

procedure for piliavin

• 103 trials, 43 people per carriage (mean)

• Field experiment

• Victim was either drunk with a bottle in a paper bag or ill with a cane, male, 26-35 years, 3 white, 1 black

• Models were 24-29, all male, all 4 were white

• All 4 people (2 female observers, one victim and one model)

• The victim is stood in critical area

• Models are in critical or adjacent, observers are always in the adjacent area

• After 70 seconds the victim would stagger forward and fall over staring at the ceiling until they were helped. If no one helps the model will step in.

• There are 4 model possibilities 1- model didn’t help until the end, 2- early model condition- model helps 70 seconds after victim collapses. 3- late model- helps 150 seconds after they collapse

observer 1 measured piliavin

·         Race, sex and location of every person in critical area

·         Total number of people on carriage and critical area

·         Number of people who helped

·         Race, sex and location of helpers

·         Noted any comments made

observer 2 piliavin

·         Race, sex and location of everyone in critical area

·         Time when help was offered

·         Noted down any comments made

Identify 2 results regarding ill and drunk victims and models

• The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time within 5 seconds (62/65 trials)

• compared to the drunk victim 50% of the time (19/38 trials);

• overall there was 100% help for the cane victim compared to 81% help for the drunk victim;

• no diffusion of responsibility was found- as group size increased help also increased (against previous lab research)

• 19/19 early model trials, model triggered passengers to help

• 4/7 late model trials model triggered passengers to help

Result regarding the race of the victim

·         64% of white helped and more quickly

·         Black victims received help less quickly

The conclusions of p9 iviavins study

• The cost reward matrix- refers to why a result may have occurred due to the costs of helping in the situation and the costs of not helping.

• An response to an emergency situation model- emergency situation is heightened by empathy, proximity or duration of emergency- to reduce this they must help, get help, leave or decide that victim is undeserving.

1.      Levine

Background- what is helping behavior and what are the three theories of helping

• Helping behavior is a from of prosocial behavior and refers to voluntary actions intended to help others

•  1. Diffusion of responsibility (stebleys theory is when a population reaches 300,000 helping rate decreases as number of people increase helping rate decreases.)

•  2. Cost- reward matrix

•  3. Pluralistic ignorance

Sample (opportunity sampling) levine

• 23 countries

• Participants were the second person who crossed a pre-determined line

• 1198 participants

What were the three helping measures and time/place experiment took place levine

• Accidentally dropped pen condition

• Dropping magazines condition

• Blind crossing the road condition

• During business hours of the day

• During summer months 1992- 1997

• Main down town areas

Who was selected for dropped pen and hurt leg condition

• Individuals walking alone

• Excluded if younger than 17, physically disabled, elderly, those carrying anything.

What were the 4 community values Levine looked at?

• Cultural values (individualism- give priority to personal goals and motivated by personal rewards and benefits, collectivism- group of goals and what’s best for the group- show more helping behavior due to wanting to help others and simpatia- the concern for wellbeing of others and obliged to be friendly, polite and helpful- Spain and Latin America are)- rated from 1-10

• Population size in all 23 cities

• Economic wellbeing- wealth of the city (purchasing power party- PPP) how much the average income in each city is capable of purchasing

• Pace of life- walking speed over 60 feet

What are the three aims of levines research

1.      To identify if a ally’s tendency to offer non-emergency help to strangers is stable across situations over a wider range of cultures.

2.      To obtain data on helping behavior acoss cultures using identical procedures

3.      To identify country level variables that might relate to difference in helping behavior

What gender were the experimenters and procedure for each condition in levine?

• Male

• Trained- detailed instructions sheet, on site training for how to act in their roles

• No communication was used

• Dropped pen then walked 15 paces (10 seconds)214 men 210 women approached

• Hurt leg heavy limp dropped magazines and struggled to reach down 253 men 240 women approached - 20 feet drop magazines

• Blind cross street- dark glasses carrying canes, stepped up to corner before light turns green, held out cane and waited for trial to be terminated after 60 seconds when light goes red 281 trials, minimum helping- telling when light is green.

Results- levine- what was the highest helping and lowest helping rate country?

• Highest- Rio Brazil (99.33%)

• Lowest Malaysia (40.33%)

Conclusions- What was the only community variable that correlated with helping behavior levine?

Economic wellbeing- 0.43 as it increased, helping behavior decreased.

Which cultural value produced a difference in helping behavior? levine

• Simpatia counties were more helpful than non

• Mean helping rate in simpatia countries was 82.87% SD:8.84

• Mean helping rate for non simpatia countries was 65.87% SD:13.41

what were the IVs and DVs of levines study

IVs

• Dropped pen

• Hurt leg

• Blind victim trying to cross the street

DVs

• Helping rate of 23 individual cities- calculated using helping index

Strengths of the social area

• Investigates issues highly relevant in society (more applications)

•   Demonstrates extent to which situational factors impact behavior (reductionist- more useful- can predict behavior)

•   IVs manipulated (high internal validity)

Weaknesses of the social area

• Research is unethical (more withdrawals, smaller sample size and results aren’t replicable and generalizable)

• Demand characteristics (low internal validity)

• Reductionist (only explains behaviors using situational meaning lower construct validity)

background for Bandura- what is the social learning theory

• The social learning theory states that children develop through learning from other people around them by copying (imitation)

1. Behavior is modelled by role model

2. Behavior is observed and noted

3. The consequences of behavior are vicariously reinforced or punished

4. Behavior is imitated (has been learnt)

what did people believe about watching aggressive films before Bandura

• They believed that watching aggressive films has a cathartic affect, purging them of wanting to show any aggressive behavior.

how did he describe the Jamie Bulger case

1. Role model- chucky and other violent films

2. observation- violent acts in films

3. reinforcement/ punishment- violent individuals have no consequences

4. Imitation- murder of Jamie

Aim of bandura

To see if learning took place in one situation (e.g learning to be aggressive) would be generalized to other situations

Hypothesis for bandura

• Observing an aggressive role model will have a significant increase in reproducing aggressive acts similar to there role models than observing a non-aggressive role model or no role model.

• Observing an aggressive role model will have a significant effect in behaving in a general aggressive manner than observing a non-aggressive role model or none

• Observing a same sex role model will have a significant increase in aggression than observing an opposite sex role model

• Boys will have significantly more aggressive behavior than girls.

what is the methodology for bandura

IV:

• agressive or non aggressive role model

• sex of model

• sex of child

DV:

• behavioral response of children (aggressive acts)

OBSERVATION METHOD
LAB
MATCHED PARTICIPANT

sample and sample features for bandura

• 36 girls, 36 boys

• 24 in non, 24 in aggressive, 24 in control

• 12 (6 girls, 6 boys) in male, 12 in female (6 girls, 6 boys) x2 in aggressive vs non

• from stand-ford bing nursery

• age 3-5 years

• mean age 4.5 years

procedure for phase 1 bandura

Modelling phase

• entered experimental room individually and male or female invited in

• child seated in corner and encouraged to design a picture with stickers and potato prints

• once settled female experimenter escorted model to opposite corner containing hammer toy set, mallet and a 5 ft inflatable bobo doll

• the experimenter left the room

• after 10 mins experimenter came back to take child into another room

what was it like in the aggressive condition for bandura

• Model spends 1 minute playing nicely and quietly

• Spends 9 minutes playing aggressively by physically, whacking the bobo doll with a mallet on its head, throwing bobo doll, kicking bobo doll, sitting on and punching the bobo doll. And verbally ‘hit him down’ ‘pow’ ‘he keeps coming back for more’ (repeated throughout 9 mins)

non aggressive condition explain for bandura

• model spends 10 mins playing quietly, subdued, calm and boring ignoring the Bobo doll

the control skipped phase 1

procedure for phase 2

agression arousal:

• All children were taken into a room individually that contained attractive toys such as fire engine’s, spinning tops, doll set, witch wardrobe, baby and crib and they were allowed to start playing with the toys

• 2 minutes later the child was told by experimenter ‘I’ve decided to reserve these toys for other children so you can’t play with them anymore’

• They were then moved into the adjoining room

why was phase 2 provoking bandura

• To make sure all children were frustrated to the same level (and those in non-aggressive to be frustrated)

• To rule out possibility that those in the aggressive condition wouldn’t be aggressive as they had already seen aggression and wouldn’t want to do it themselves

procedure for phase 3 bandura

test for delayed imitation

• Child was left in the room for 20 mins with aggressive and non aggressive toys

• Aggressive- mallet, dart gun, leather ball, bobo doll.

• Non aggressive- tea set, crayons, paper, cars and plastic animals

• Toys arranged in fixed order to increase reliability

• Behavior was observed and rated by experimenter and a second observer from behind a one way mirror

how was behavior recorded

• 240 observations

• Recorded every 5 seconds by 2 observers for 20 mins

• Behavior was recorded into 3 categories

1. Complete imitative aggression reponses (physical- hitting bobo doll with mallet, verbal ‘pow’)

2. Partially imitative aggressive responses (anything copied from the model by changed slightly for example- mallet on other toys

3. Non- imitative aggressive responses (slapping bobo doll, using a gun, ‘your so horrible’)

how was aggression controlled for bandura

• Ratings of aggression of the children were done before the experiment by an experimenter who knew children well and one of the children’s teachers

• Each child was placed into a group of 3 that had similar score for aggressive behavior, they were then allocated to one of the conditions

results for bandura

• aggressive model condition showed more imitative aggression responses than those in the non- aggressive or no model condition- 70% of children from the non aggressive and control group had a 0 aggression score

• Children in the non-aggressive condition spent more time playing in a non- aggressive manner than the aggressive and no-model condition

• Gender effects- boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models than girls

• Boys imitated more physical aggression than girls, there was little difference in verbal aggression between genders

conclusions for a theory to explain behavior

-The results support the social learning theory- children who observed aggressive model acted more aggressively

Conclusion on generalizing aggression and gender of model

• Generalizing aggression- behaviors can be generalized to other situations

• Gender of model- Males have a higher reward value as there are less found in primary schools so are a novelty to young children

• Physical aggression is a male type behavior- males imitated more than females and imitations were physical more than verbal.

2. Chaney

   what are the 3 behaviorist theories

• classical conditioning- (learning by association pavlovs dogs/little albert)

• operant conditioning (reinforcement or punishement, skinner)

• social learning theory

aim of chaney

• A pilot study to establish whether a specifically designed ‘fun haler’ would increase compliance in a group of young children with asthma who were prescribed regular inhaler therapy

sample and features for chaney

• 32 children (10 male and 22 female) age range 1.5-6 years with a mean of 3.2

• Average duration of asthma 2.2 years 75%> 3 years

• Children from Australia all using a low volume spacer device

• Opportunity sampling- 7 young local pediatrician’s/ GP clinics in 51km radius with differencing socioeconomics (wealth)

IVs DVs and method chaney

IV:

• Whether the child used a standardized/ small volume spacer device (breath- A- Tech or Aero chamber) 

• Whether the child used a fun haler (inf med Ltd Australia)

DV:

• Amount of adherence to the prescribed medical regime

Field experiment

Repeated measures design

Describe the inhalers Chaney

• Standard inhalers are called spacers

• A fun haler has a spinning disk, and a whistle which acts as a reward

• Doesn’t interfere with drug delivery

• Ensures tidal breathing as children focus on making toys work with optimal

how was data collected chaney

• A questionnaire was administered before use of fun haler to children’s parents and 2 weeks after too.

• Monitored attitude, adherence and frequency of medication with 2 baseline characteristics

• Parents also got a phone call at a random point in the 2 weeks to see if child had been medicated the previous day on a ADOHC basis

• It is a longitudinal study

controls used in chaney

• all had a funhaler

• did it at home

• all completed two questionnaires

• 2 weeks between use

results- did funhaler increase compliance and what % of parents medicated their children the previous day when using standard spacer vs the funhaler

• yes the fun-haler increased complience

• 59% standard devise

• 81% the fun-haler

what % of children took 4 more cycles per aerosol delivery when using standard device vs funhaler

• 50% standard device

• 80% funhaler

what % of children reported pleasure when using standard device

• 10% standard devise

• 68% fun-haler

what negative behaviors were reduced when using the funhaler

• Negative- mild fear/ dislike (13%-0), panic or phobia (6%-0) dislike (16%- 0)

• parents prefer the fun-haler

conclusions for chaney

• The fun haler and its use of positive reinforcement techniques improved levels of medical compliance in young asthmatics

• The use of the fun haler could possibly improve clinical outcomes such as lowering rates of admissions to hospital for asthma attacks

• Devices that use self- reinforcement strategies can improve the actual outcome of children

the behaviorist perspective effective

• Uses controlled experimental methods to research behavior (extraneous variables are reduced meaning there is higher internal validity

• Uses observations to collect data (watches natural behaviors meaning higher in ecological validity and applications)

• Looks at the impact of environmental factors have on behaviors (reductionist meaning cause and effect can be established)

weaknesses of the behaviourist perspective

• Laboratory experiments were used meaning low ecological validity)

• Reductionist as it ignores nature (low construct validity)

• Researches children as their ‘slate’ is emptier but this is unethical (smaller samples- less replicability and generalizability) 

3. Kholberg

   what is moral development

• Morals are the principles for how individuals ought to treat others, with respect to justice, others welfare and rights.

• They are a set of values acquired by children during there childhood

Piaget’s theory stage one  

• Moral reasoning develops through childhood due to disequilibrium and decreasing egocentrism.

1. Pre moral 0-5 years→ little understanding of the rules as children cant carry out complex mental operations, behavior is regulated from outside the child

2. Moral realism 5-9 years → rules are rigid and given by adults/god, rules tell you what is right and wrong, consequences dictate the severity of behavior not intentions

3. Moral relativism 10+ years → emphasizes co-operation, rules are changeable under certain circumstances and with mutual consent, they can see motives behind acts

Kholbergs aim

• To show how as young adolescence develop into young manhood move through the levels and stage he’d previously suggested

• He also looked at moral development in other cultures using hypothetical moral dilemmas

Sample Kholberg

·         75 boys aged 10-16

·         Followed at 3 year intervals to ages 22-28

·         Longitudinal

What cultures/countries were boys tested for cross cultural moral development? kholberg

• Great Britain

• Canada

• Taiwan

• Mexico

• Turkey

IV and DVs of kholberg

·         IVs→ age of the child, culture/country

·         DVs→ reactions to stories, moral development

• self report- interviews structured

• lab setting

• opportunity sampling

How was DV 1 measured for kholberg

Participants are given moral dilemmas and their ‘motive given for rule obedience or moral action’ were recorded.

• the Heinz dilemma:

• Heinz wife has terminal cancer and the chemist has developed a cure but it is not expensive and won’t be sold for less so he broke into lab and stole it

• should he have broken into the lab?

• should chemist insist on inflated price?

• what should happen to Heinz?

• does it change if Heinz didn’t love his wife?

• what if the dying person was a stranger?

What was DV2 and how was it measured? Kholberg

• Value of human life recorded

• ‘is it better to save the life of one important person or a lot of unimportant people’ aged 10

• ‘should doctor ‘mercy kill’ a fatally ill woman requesting death because of her pain? (aged 13,16,20 and 24)

• SELF REPORTS

Describe the stage theory in levels level 1

LEVEL 1→ Pre-conventional (4-10 years)

• Punishment and obedience orientation→ rules are kept to avoid punishment

• Instrumental relativist orientation→ ‘right’ behavior is that which ultimately brings rewards to oneself

level two stage theory

LEVEL 2→ Conventional

• Good boy, good girl orientation→ good behavior is that which pleases others (conformity to goodness)

• Law and order orientation→doing ones duty, obeying laws is important

level 3 stage theory

LEVEL 3→ Post conventional

• Social contract orientation→ Right is what is democratically agreed upon

• Universal principles orientation→ moral action is taken based upon self-chosen principles

Please In Good Lord Save Us

results for ‘motive given for rule obedience or moral action’

• Obeyed rules to avoid punishment

• Conform to obtain rewards, have favors returned

• Conformed to avoid disapproval, dislike to others

• Conformed to avoid censure by legitimate authorities and resultant guilt

• Conform to avoid self-condemnation (disapproval of yourself)

outline 3 results from the stages in regard to value of human life

• The value of human life is seen as instrumental to the satisfaction of the needs of its possessor or other people (does person want to live?)

• The value of human life is based on the empathy and affection of family members and others towards its possessor

• Life is conceived as sacred in terms of place on a categorical moral or religious order of rights and duties (the more religion the more value of human life)

results of stage theory

• Participants progressed through the stages with age

• Not all participants progressed through all stages and reached stage 6

• Participants progressed through stages one at a time

• Participants progressed through stages in the same order.

conclusions Kholberg

• each stage of moral development comes always in the same order

• individual may stop at any stage at any time

• moral development fits with kholbergs stage pattern theory

• is cultural universality of sequence stages

• middle and working class children go through same sequence but working class move faster

3 cross cultural findings for kholberg

• Taiwanese boys ages 10-13 tended to give classic stage 2 responses

• at the age of 16, stage 5 thinking was much more important in the US (what is right is what agreed upon- social contract) than either mexico of Taiwan

• in the US, by aged 16 stage 6 was rarely used and at aged 13 the good boy good girl orientation (what pleases others) was not used (13 and 16 around 4 and 5)

• Mexican and Taiwan showed same results except development was slower

religion- kholberg

1. no important differences were found in the development of moral thinking among Catholics, protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists

Lee et al

background

Swebber study

• concept of lying is not simply cognitive construct defined by features (factual, intention, belief)

• its also a socio-cultural construct, she argued that the understanding of lying is greatly influenced by cultural norms and moral values in which individuals are socialized

aim of Lee et al

• investigated Chinese and Canadian childrens evaluation of lying and truth telling

sample for Lee et al canada

Canadian:

• 108 children from schools in frederiction new branswick (58 male and 50 female)

• 36 7 y/o

• 40 9 y/o

• 32 11 y/o

sample of Chinese lee et al

120 Chinese children from schools in hangzhau, zheyians provence (60 male and 60 female):

• 40 7 y/o

• 40 9 y/o

• 40 11 y/o

method and IVs lee

IVs:

• social/physical story

• prosocial/ antisocial

• truth telling/ lie telling story

• age 11, 7 or 9

• Canadian/ Chinese

• gender