1/12
Positive Psychology
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
A theory that outlines the progression of moral reasoning: Obediance and punishment avoidance, Reasoning from universal ethical principles.
Done by hypothetical moral dilemmas. Shaped research in developmental and moral psychology.
Carol Gillian’s Challenge
A critique of Kohlberg's theory, emphasizing gender differences in moral reasoning and highlighting the relational aspect of ethics.
Proposed reasoning via an ‘ethic of care’ - a responsibility of others which Kohlberg stated this scored as less developed.
Suggested care reasoning wasn’t worse, but it wasn’t recongnised as equally mature in the OG scae.
Bystander effect
Darley and Latane found if bystanders were increased, then individuals were less likely to help in a staged emergancy, due to a diffusion of responsibility.
Situation rather than personal character caused the outcome, as there was recongition the indivual needed help.
Fischer et. al. Bystander effect
Major meta-analysis that found while the effect was confirmed, it was smaller and more variable than previously suggested.
In more serious emergancies, the presence of others had little effect, due to bystandards being able to offer physical support.
Meta analysis refinded the research, to make it more precise.
Kin selection and reciprocal altruism
Kin - Hamilton proposed helping relatives can indirectly help our genes to survive, as relatives help share the genes.
Reciprocal altruism - Extended by Trivers that helping non relatives can help our genes surivive too, due to possibility of kindness being returned.
Both help explain helping behaviours without needing pure selflessness.
Contestment of Kin selection
Nowak et al. argued kin selection is based on fragile assumptions that do not hold up.
This caused 100 evolutionary biologists to sign a published rebuttal in defence as still the best explanation avalible.
Kin selection still used as frame work, challenege remains unresolved.
Social Intuitionist model
Haidt suggested moral judgments are fast, automatic intutions which later cause reasoning for justification.
A contradiction to older models that state moral judgements are a deliberate reasoning process.
Reshaped how moral judgement is studied, drawing on eveidence from areas of social, cultural and evolutionary psychology.
Rationalist Challenge
Pizarro and bloom argued the role of reasoning is understated. Presenting evidence that people actively reason thier way to new moral appraisals.
Individuals can seek out new information or prespectives which can reshape the gut reaction and not just justify it after.
Haidt replied clamiming that intuition plays the primary role in most scenarios.
Three levels of focus
The first level - Positive subjective experiance - Includes wellbeing, contentment, satisfaction, flow and happiness. Often how things feel internally.
Second level - Positive inidividual traits - Includes strength of character such as curiosity, kindness, pereseverance and the capacity for love,
Third level - Positive institutions - Communtties that help individuals to have better citizanship such as work places, education and families.
Positive psychology critique
Held argued the movement can be one-sidely positive which risks devauling negative emotions such as greif or fear.
Caused a second wave of positive psychology, where it is studies how negative and posiitve emotions intercact rather than having them be oppersistes. A type of maturing science.
Hedonic approach
Ryan and Deci described the approach as pleasure attainment and pain avoidance. It emthesises the satisfaction of life and balance of negative emotion.
Eudaimonic approach
Defines wellbeing in meaning and self-realisation not a moment to moment feeling. Asks if individual os living their life with their true values and potential, and not if they feel good.
Can conflict with hedonic e.g. end training for a marathon is high Eudaimonic but low hedonic. 4 combinations - HH LE LH HE LH LE HH HE.
Eudaimonic and hedonic challenge