Prosocial behaviour & moral development

What is prosocial behaviour (Smith et al., 2011)

helping, comforting and sharing on the part of one person to another

Why do children engage in pro-social behaviour (Grusec, 2002)

2 reasons:

• motivation due to empathy or sympathy (responses reduce these feelings)

• motivation to behave according to culture norms

Does reinforcement affect pro-social behaviour, Gelfand (1979)

• 5-6 year olds

• play marble game to earn pennies - pennies will but a prize

• told: you can donate pennies to another child

examined effect of:

• prompting child to donate

• praising child after donation

• found both prompt and praise increase donation rate

• demonstrates reinforcement can increase pro-social behaviour

Does modelling affect pro-social behaviour, Grusec (1978)

cpm[ares modelling vs. preaching

• 8-10 year olds watched adult play marbles hame

• poster: “Help poor children, Marbles buy gifts”

  • adult: either preached or not, then either have half of marbles or none

• most children who saw adults give marbles donated some

• few children donated in response to preaching only

• 3 weeks later, few donated regardless of previous condition

suggests what children observe is more important than preaching

What are the criticisms of Grusec work on pro-social behaviour

• artificial

• unfamiliar

What did Eisenberg-Berg & Hand (1979) find

observed 35 children aged 4-5 years in nursery school

• found proposal behaviour every 10-12 minutes

• prosocial behaviour is evident very early in childhood

Describe Grusec (1982) study on the role of mother’s behaviour on prosocial behaviour

examined mothers’ reports of prosocial behaviours in 4 & 7 year olds

• found 1 event per day for over 4 weeks

asked mothers to note their response after:

• child helps another child

• child fails to help another child

What did Grusec (1982) study on the role of mother’s behaviour on prosocial behaviour find

mother almost always thanked, praised, smiled in response to child’s helpfulness

• mother never accepted a lack of prosocial behaviour, unusually encouraged the child

What did Krevans & Gibbs (1996) state

children more prosocial when mothers regularly encourage them to consider how their actions affect others

Zhan-Waxler’s studies identify 5 types of parental behaviour that promote development of child’s prosocial behaviour which are:

1. provide clear rules & principles

• e.g. “you don’t bite people, it will hurt them ”works, but “don’t do that” won’t work

• reasoning is a better strategy than punishment

2. show emotional conviction

• explain rules with feeling, child more likely to understand the message is important

3. attribute prosocial behaviour to the child

• tell children they are kind, helpful, etc. and they will attribute these qualities to their personality and live up to them

4. model prosocial behaviour

• children imitate adult behaviour, demonstrate prosocial behaviour

5. emphatic caregiving

• be loving, approving, responsive to child

• promotes secure attachment and development of empathy

What are the 3 types of parenting

• authoritative parenting

• permissive parenting

• neglectful parents

How is authoritative parenting associated with prosocial behaviour

• both highly responsive and warm to child and highly demanding of them

• offer clear rules and expectations

• encourage autonomy

• increase in prosocial behaviours

How does permissive parents associate with prosocial behaviour

• highly responsive to the child

• undemanding of child

• do not provide clear rules and limits

• decrease prosocial behaviours

How do neglectful parents associate with prosocial behaviour

• unresponsive to the child

• undemanding of child

• no significant association with prosocial behaviours

How do siblings affect prosocial behaviour

experience with siblings provides opportunity for development of prosocial behaviour

• children who grew up with unfriendly siblings were more likely to have emotional difficulties in their relationships with others

Are there cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour, Whiting & Whiting (1975)

observed children aged 3-10 in 6 countries Kenya, Mexico, Philippines which were more prosocial than Okinawa, India, USA

• children are more prosocial in societies where there is most pressure for mother to work - delegating responsibility to children

• in individualistic societies children are least prosocial

Prosocial behaviour depends on the ability to make

moral judgements

What is the role of the social learning theory in moral development

morals internalised like other behaviours

• supposes children attend to remember and reproduce adult prosocial behaviour

• reinforcement alone is insufficient, prosocial behaviour is initially too rare

• views moral development as internalisation of societal norms

What is the role of cognitive developmental theory in moral development

propose: development of reasoning ability leads to moral development

• emphasis on reasoning from experience with social conflicts

How did Piaget assess moral development

via games and story pairs

What did Piaget find when assessing moral development

1. premoral (up to 4 years)

• no understanding of rules or right and wrong

2. moral realism (4 - 10 years)

• ‘concrete’ understanding

• rules are fixed

3. moral subjectivism (from 10 years)

• actions judged according to intentions

• morality based on principles, e.g. justice

Evaluate Piaget’s study on assessing moral development

• influential theory

• shows that child and adult moral reasoning differs

Criticises Piaget’s study on assessing moral development

• stories long and complex for young children

• later research shows more advanced moral reasoning at earlier age

• stage theory too rigid

What did Kohlberg do

refined Piaget’s theory

• assessed subjects responses to ‘moral dilemmas’ at interview

Describe Kohlberg’s study on moral development

• Heinz’s wife is dying of cancer

• doctor finds drug to cure it, but says it will cost $2000

• only cost the doctor $200 to make the drug

• Heinz can only raise $1000, doctor refuses to sell

• Heinz steals the drug

should he have done that?

What was the outcome of Kohlberg’s study on moral development - pre-conventual level

pre-conventional level: morals are not judged according to social conventions

• stage 1: Heteronomous morality

  • difficulty considering different viewpoints in dilemmas

  • obedient in order to avoid punishment

    • Heinz should not steal or he will go to jail

 

• stage 2: Instrumental purpose & exchange

  • can consider different viewpoints, but understanding is concrete

  • “right” is what satisfies individual’s needs

  • “fair” is an equal exchange of favours

    • Heinz and the doctor can both do what they want

What was the outcome of Kohlberg’s study on moral development - conventional level

conventional level: what is right is confirming to social and societal expectations

• stage 3: Morality of interpersonal cooperation

  • obey rules to uphold harmony among close contacts

  • trust, loyalty and concern for others is important

    • Heinz should steal or people will think he doesn’t care

 

• stage 4: Social order maintenance

  • obey rules to uphold harmony among society

  • believe society’s rules are vital to social order; must be upheld except in certain extreme cases

  • “right” is contributing to society

    • Heinz should not steal as it is his duty as a citizen to obey the law

What was the outcome of Kohlberg’s study on moral development - post-conventional level

post-conventional level: judging law according to general moral principles

• stage 5: social contract

  • move beyond unquestioning support for the law

  • define morality in terms of universal values (e.g. rights to life & freedom)

    • Heinz should steal. The law is not meant to violate the right to life, so the law needs to be changed

What are the 3 criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory

Kohlberg’s model implies differences are due to different levels of cognitive ability but:

• methodological problems

  • stages are based on artificial dilemmas

    • interview technique is open to biases and subjective interpretation

• cross culture validity

  • Snarey (1985) reviewed findings from 27 different cultures. Only found stage 5 reasoning in urban cultures

    • suggests test may reflect Western individualistic views

• gender differences

  • Gilligan (1982) suggests female morality is different from male:

    • Males’ judgments based more on principles

    • Women’s’ judgements based more on peoples’ feelings