Psych Week 9 Morality 1 and 2

What is Rationalism in moral development?

the idea that morality can be studied by examining children's reasoning and explanations about moral situations. Piaget and Kohlberg both used this approach.

What was Piaget's main method for studying moral judgment?

presented children with moral stories and asked who was naughtier and why. He was interested in how children's moral reasoning changes with age.

In Piaget's broken-glasses story, what are the two characters?

• Child 1 accidentally breaks 15 glasses while entering a room.

• Child 2 intentionally tries to steal cookies and breaks 1 glass.

Piaget used this story to study whether children focus on outcomes or intentions.

What is Piaget's Stage 1: Moral Realism?

(Under age 7)

Children:

• Focus on outcomes rather than intentions.

• View rules as fixed.

• Believe authority figures decide punishments.

What is Piaget's Transitional Stage?

(Ages 8–10)

Children learn through peer interactions that rules can be created, changed, and negotiated by groups.

What is Piaget's Stage 3: Moral Relativism?

(Age 11+)

Children:

• Focus on intentions.

• Understand rules are social agreements.

• Believe punishment should be fair and fit the crime.

How did Kohlberg differ from Piaget?

Kohlberg cared more about why people made moral judgments (their justifications) than the judgments themselves.

What is Kohlberg's Preconventional Level?

(Stages 1 & 2)

People follow rules mainly to:

• Avoid punishment

• Gain rewards

Rules are obeyed because authority says so.

What is Kohlberg's Conventional Level?

(Stages 3 & 4)

People behave morally because they want to:

• Be seen as good

• Gain approval

• Maintain social order

What is Kohlberg's Postconventional Level?

(Stages 5 & 6)

People follow universal moral principles such as:

• Human rights

• Justice

• Equality

Even when these principles conflict with laws.

What did Rakoczy, Warneken, & Tomasello (2008) find about young children and rules?

Young children care strongly about rules and often enforce them, supporting part of Piaget and Kohlberg's theories.

What was Challenge #1 to Piaget and Kohlberg's theories?

A: Children do not treat all rules equally. Even 3- to 4-year-olds distinguish between:

• Moral rules (harming others)

• Conventional rules (social customs)

What is the difference between a moral rule and a conventional rule?

A:

• Moral rule: involves harm or fairness (e.g., hitting someone).

• Conventional rule: social norm (e.g., dress code, classroom rules).

What was Challenge #2 to Piaget's theory?

Piaget believed young children focus mainly on outcomes, but research suggests even infants care about intentions

What did Dunfield & Kuhlmeier (2012) study?

They tested whether 21-month-old infants pay attention to intentions when deciding whom to help.

What happened in the Dunfield & Kuhlmeier (2012) experiment?

Two adults failed to give an infant a toy:

• One was unable (clumsy).

• One was unwilling (mean/tricky).

Infants later chose whom to help

What were the results of Dunfield & Kuhlmeier (2012)?

About 75% of infants helped the person who was unable to help them, while only 25% helped the unwilling person.

This suggests infants consider intentions.

What was Challenge #3 to stage theories of morality?

Adults are often not purely rational when making moral judgments.

What did Jonathan Haidt's brother-sister story demonstrate?

People often feel something is morally wrong even when they cannot clearly explain why.

What is moral dumbfounding?

When people strongly believe something is wrong but cannot provide a logical reason to justify their judgment.

What do trolley problem studies suggest about morality?

Moral decisions are influenced by emotions, not just logical reasoning.

In trolley studies, which option were people most willing to choose?

Pulling a lever to save 5 people by sacrificing 1 person (77% said yes).

In trolley studies, which option were people least willing to choose?

Letting a surgeon kill 1 person to harvest organs and save 5 others (only 10% said yes).

What question do the Yale Infant Studies try to answer?

Whether infants can distinguish between good and bad social behavior before they can talk.

What did Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom (2007) claim?

Infants preferred helpful characters over harmful characters, suggesting very early moral reasoning.

Why should we be cautious about the Yale helper-hinderer findings?

A large replication project (ManyBabies) produced weaker evidence for infants preferring helpers

What was the ManyBabies project?

A large replication study involving:

• 37 labs

• 567 infants

It tested whether infants reliably prefer helpers over hinderers.

What conclusion did the lecture draw about infant helper preferences?

The evidence is mixed. Infants may sometimes prefer helpers, but the findings are not as strong as originally thought.

At what age do toddlers begin showing helping behavior?

Around 14 months old.

Does toddler helping depend on rewards?

No. Toddlers help even when they receive no reward.

What evidence suggests toddlers are genuinely prosocial?

A: Toddlers will pay costs to help:

• Physical costs (cross obstacles)

• Social costs (leave fun activities like a ball pit)

What did Schmidt & Sommerville (2011) study about fairness in 15-month-olds?

Infants watched a person distribute cookies between two recipients. Researchers tested whether infants noticed the difference between fair and unfair distributions.

What counted as a fair outcome in Schmidt & Sommerville (2011)?

Both recipients received the same number of cookies.

What counted as an unfair outcome in Schmidt & Sommerville (2011)?

One recipient received more cookies than the other.

What did Schmidt & Sommerville (2011) find?

Fifteen-month-old infants looked longer at unfair distributions, suggesting they expected resources to be shared equally.

It suggests that expectations about fairness may emerge during infancy, long before children can explain fairness verbally.

What did Geraci & Surian (2011) find about infants and fairness?

Infants preferred characters who shared resources equally rather than unequally.

What does "equal work deserves equal pay" mean in developmental psychology?

When two people contribute equally, children generally believe rewards should be divided equally.

How do 3-year-olds distribute rewards when two people worked equally hard?

They typically divide rewards equally between both people

How do 3- to 6-year-olds respond when one person worked harder than another?

They often still divide rewards equally.

How do 7- to 8-year-olds respond when one person worked harder than another?

They are more likely to give extra rewards to the harder worker.

What is merit in fairness research?

Merit means people receive rewards based on how much work or effort they contributed.

What did Baumard, Mascaro, & Chevallier (2012) find about young children's understanding of merit?

Young children understand merit better than it first appears when they are forced to choose between equality and rewarding effort.

Why was the Baumard et al. (2012) study important?

It showed that young children understand hard work deserves more rewards, but their preference for equality sometimes hides that understanding.

What is disadvantageous inequity aversion?

Being upset when someone else gets more than you do.

What is advantageous inequity aversion?

Being upset when you receive more than someone else.

Which develops earlier: disadvantageous inequity aversion or advantageous inequity aversion?

Disadvantageous inequity aversion develops earlier and more universally.

What did LoBue et al. (2011) find about children's reactions to unfair rewards?

Children were upset when they received fewer stickers than another child, but not when they received more.

Why doesn't LoBue et al. (2011) prove children are fair?

The results could simply reflect envy rather than a genuine concern for fairness.

Why is advantageous inequity aversion considered stronger evidence of fairness?

Because children reject situations that benefit themselves, showing concern for fairness rather than self-interest.

What did McAuliffe, Blake et al. (2015) study?

Whether children would accept or reject equal, advantageous, and disadvantageous distributions of rewards.

What did McAuliffe, Blake et al. (2015) conclude about fairness across cultures?

Disadvantageous inequity aversion appears more universal than advantageous inequity aversion, which varies more across cultures.

What was the main question in Shaw & Olson (2012)?

Would children sacrifice resources to maintain equality between two people?

In Shaw & Olson (2012), children had one extra reward after two children already had equal amounts. What were the options?

• Give the extra reward to one child (creating inequality).

• Throw the reward away (maintaining equality).

What did Shaw & Olson (2012) find?

Many children chose to throw away the extra reward rather than create inequality.

Children preferred fairness so strongly that they were willing to waste resources to preserve equality.

Did children throw away resources simply because they liked throwing things away?

No. When resources could be distributed equally, children rarely chose to throw them away.

What does Shaw & Olson (2012) suggest about fairness?

children's fairness concerns are separate from simple generosity or avoiding conflict.

What is a good justification for unequal rewards according to children?

One person worked harder and therefore deserves more

: What is a bad justification for unequal rewards according to children?

Giving someone more simply because they are your friend.

What did Shaw & Olson (2012) find about justifications for inequality?

Children accepted inequality when it was based on merit but rejected inequality based on favoritism.

What did Shaw et al. (2014) study about fairness?

Whether children care about actually being fair or simply appearing fair to other

What happened in the Shaw et al. (2014) experiment?

A child secretly received an extra eraser when the experimenter was gone and later had the opportunity to keep another eraser while appearing fair.

What did Shaw et al. (2014) find? ( eraser experiment)

Most children took the extra eraser, suggesting they cared about appearing fair while still benefiting themselves.

What does the Shaw et al. (2014) study suggest about reputation?

People care not only about fairness itself but also about how fair they appear to others.