8 - development of prosocial behaviour and moral reasoning

what is prosocial behaviour

voluntary behaviour intended to benifit another.

patterns of behaviour regardless of motivation - potential benifit and associated cost to the donor.

why be prosocial

evolutionary roots - increases survival of kin.

enhance reputation and acceptance within a group.

what did eisenberg 1983 find in relation to prosocial behaviour

7-17 yo were more likely to help family member and friends of similar background

are humans naturally prosocial

spontaneous prosocial behaviour in children from relatively early age - some evidence from twin studies of genetic contribution to prosocial tendencies

when does prosocial behaviour emerge

around 1st birthdya helping behaviour emerges.

rapidly increases in toddlers and preschooler period then slowly after

shifts to act accordingly to moral principles rather than for selfish motivations or to gain approval.

dahl et al 2017 - reinforce prosocial behaviour

explicit scaffolding increased prosocial behaviour in infants

Schulmacher et al 2018

observing helpful behaviour increases prosocial behaviours in infants

zahn-waxler at al 2001 prosocial behaviour observation

14-36mo observation

mothers reported responses to events in which negative emotions are expresses. increases in empathetic responses with age

Warneken and Tomasello 2006 - spontaneous helping

24 18mo

looked at object and child verbalises problem control- neurtal face towards object

children more likely to help in experimental conditions for most tasks.

they helped more than chimps - unfamiliar adult more sophisticated cognitive skills.

factors influencing prosocial behaviour

parenting style

perspective taking ability

ability to regulate emotions

cross cultural differences

what is moral reasoning

how er reason or judge whether an action is right or wrong

what is Piagets theory on moral development

3 stages of understanding

• premoral - upto 4yo - rules not understood

• moral realism/heteronomous -4-10yo - rules come from higher authority and cant be changed

• moral subjectivism/autonomous - 10+ - rules mutually agreed by players can change

how was piagets theory tested - dilemma method

which child is the naughtiest

upto 9/10yo children judge based on amount of damage not motivation or intension

what are the issues with the dilemma method

unequal damage distracts children

bad intensions are too vague and memory demands are too high for children

what criticisms are there of Piagets moral theory

it is potentially an underestimation of childrens abilities

• if all damage was equal children as young as 5 would be able to to judge based on intent.

• 2-5yo can differentiate between violations of social convention and moral convention Smetana 1981.

what is Kolbergs theory of moral reasoning

expansion of piagets concepts - across the lifespan not just childhood much more intense study over 30 years

what are the levels of moral reasoning according to Kolberg

preconventional

conventional

post conventional