Lecture 19 - Morality and Conscience Cognitive Theories CONT'D

Domains of morality

Rules (and transgressions) may reflect two main domains

• Moral domain — welfare and rights of others (hitting, stealing, harming, not sharing, cheating, etc.)

• Social-conventional domain — social etiquette, coventions (using correct utensils, saying thank-you, sitting in a designated place, etc.)

Smetana:

Already by age 3-4, children have a good understanding of the differences

Compared to social-conventional transgressions, moral transgressions are seen as:

• More serious

• Less relative (never ok)

• Less rule-contingent (wrong even if no rule)

• Less authority-contingent (wrong even if nobody known)

• Deserve more punishment

William Damon

Research on positive justice

William Damon: Level 0 (under age 4, 4-5)

• I should get it because I want it

• I should get it because I am a girl (or a boy; or older, etc.). Still basically self-serving

William Damon: Level 1 (age 5-7, 6-9)

• Strict equality; everybody should get the same

• Reciprocity; people should be paid back for what they contribute; new concepts of merit and deserving

William Damon: Level 2 (age 8-10, 10 and up)

• Moral relativity; special needs vs. deserving

• Equality, reciprocity, needs — all perspectives coordinated and integrated

Learning Approaches to Morality

Psychoanalytic and cognitive models assume that morality is a general quality of an individual (either superego or cognitive level/stage)

Conclusions to Learning Approaches to Morality

No coherence across different measures of morality in multiple situations. The same child may behave very differently.

But, to qualify: Later re-analyses by Burton, Rushton → moral behavior is reasonably consistent as long as contexts are similar (e.g., resistance to temptation, prosocial behavior)

Learning theories: It’s no surprise. Depending on learning history, children may or may not be consistent. It depends on which behaviors have been reinforced or punished

Early Learning Approach — Acquiring conscience

Passive avoidance learning (learning not to do certain things, restraint)

Parke (70’s)

Research on the effectiveness of punishments in internalizing prohibitions

Forbidden toy paradigm

1. Child plays with multiple toys; some are designated as forbidden; during play, Experimenter dispenses carefully controlled punishments

2. Test of internalization while child is alone

Findings

• Timing (more effective before, when child initiates the act, than after transgression)

• Intensity (firm punishments more effective). However, be careful while generalizing to “real life”: Severe punishment promotes resentment and anger, and thus undermine internalization

• Consistency (consistent much more effective; inconsistent makes forbidden behavior extremely hard to extinguish)

• Relationship with the punitive agent (warm more effective than aloof)

• Role of verbal rationales (reasoning, explanations)

Role of verbal rationales (reasoning, explanations)

• Increase effectiveness of punishment

• Counteract mildness, delay, aloofness of agent

• Instill long-term controls

• Work even in the absence of punishments

• Developmentally sensitive:

  • With younger children → matter-of-fact rationales

  • With older children → person-oriented

Social-learning Model (Bandura)

Morality is learned, like everything else (recall aggression, achievement, etc.)

Bandura: Moral behaviors are a class of responses, acquired by direct tuition and observational learning

Self-reinforcements are particularly important

Moral acts begin to “feel good”, immoral acts begin to “feel bad” —> thus, no need for surveillance (reinforcements internalized)

Modeling of altruism: Importance of moral exhortations vs. actual behavior