Lecture 8: Development of Prosocial Behaviour and Moral Reasoning

Prosocial Behaviour

• “Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another” (Eisenberg et al.,
2006)
– Sharing, helping, comforting

Altruistic vs. Prosocial

– Motivated purely by desire to help another, at cost to oneself (ex.
Anonymous donation)
– Pattern of behaviour, regardless of motivation (potential benefit/associated
costs to the donor)

Why be prosocial?

• Evolutionary roots: Increase survival of kin
– more likely to assist genetically related individuals (humans &
nonhumans)
– Benefit the survival of the group?
• Ex: Eisenberg (1983)
– 7-17yr-olds more likely to help family, friends, similar background
• Enhance reputation/acceptance within group, learn to follow
norms of behaviour

Are humans naturally prosocial?

– Spontaneous prosocial behaviour in children
from relatively early age
– Some evidence from twin studies of genetic
contribution to prosocial tendencies

Conditioned or socially learned?

– Early attachment to parents
– Parental/ adult responses to behaviour important

when does pro-social behaviour develop

– Around first birthday, helping behaviour
emerges
– Rapidly increases in toddler/preschooler
period, and then slowly thereafter into early
adulthood
– At least into late adolescence
– Shift to act according to moral principles, rather
than for selfish motivations or to gain approval

Experimental studies

• Reinforce prosocial behaviour
– Prompting and reinforcement both encouraged prosocial donations (ex. Donation game)
– Explicit scaffolding (encouragement and praise) increases prosocial behaviour in infants (ex: Dahl
et al., 2017)

Modelling prosocial behaviour

– Observing helpful behaviour increases prosocial
behaviour in infants (ex: Schuhmacher et al.,
2018)
– Children who see model donate are more likely to
themselves (more impact than “preaching”)
– More likely to copy skilled, warm, and familiar
models

Experimental Studies: Potential Problems

• Artificial environment
– Unfamiliar experimenters, some deception
• Really measuring prosocial behaviour?
– No effect of modelling after 3-week follow-up
• Child just trying to puzzle out “right” solution or conform to adult demands?
– Zarbatany et al (1985): older children only affected by experimenter
influence, not peer influence
• measuring age differences in conformity

Observational Studies
• Observe spontaneous, naturally occurring behaviour (directly or through reports)

• Zahn-Waxler et al (2001): 14-36 months

– Mothers report responses to events in which negative emotions expressed
– Increase in empathic responses with age

• Harmond & Bromwell (2018)

– Parents asked to report on helping
behaviour and motivations in 1-4-year-olds
– Helping increased with age

Experimental study of spontaneous helping

• Warneken & Tomasello (2006)
– 24 18-month-olds
– Experimental condition: looked at object and child, verbalized problem
– Control: neutral face toward object

Warneken & Tomasello (2006)

• Children more likely to help in experimental condition for most tasks
– Immediately in most cases – eye-contact and verbal announcement
unnecessary
– Restricted by ability to interpret goal/need
• Helped more than chimpanzees (ex:chimp)
– Unfamiliar adult
– More sophisticated cognitive skills
– Natural tendency to help others

factors influencing pro-social hbheaviour

Factors influencing prosocial development

• Parenting styles and response
– secure attachment = higher empathy
– Parents who are empathic, respond sensitively,
encourage empathy
• Perspective-taking ability
• Ability to regulate emotions
• Cross-cultural differences
– Values placed on cooperation vs. competition,
individualism vs. support

Moral Reasoning

• What is moral reasoning?
– How we reason or judge whether an action is right or wrong
• How does moral reasoning develop?
– Piaget (of course!)
– Kohlberg

Piaget’s Theory
•

Observed how children understood “rules of the game”, corresponds to “rules
of society”
– 3-stages of understanding
• Premoral (Up to 4 years): rules not understood
• Moral realism/Heteronomous (4 to 10): rules come from higher authority, cannot be
changed
• Moral subjectivism/Autonomous (10+): rules mutually agreed by players, can change

• Heteronomous morality

  Children are between the ages of 4–5 and 8–9, and have a strong sense of rules. They believe that rules are established by authority figures, such as parents or teachers, and cannot be changed. They also believe that "naughty" behavior must be punished, and that the punishment will be proportional. 

• Autonomous morality

  Children are around age 9–10, and are no longer blindly obedient to authority. They realize that rules can be changed through negotiation, and that rules can sometimes be broken for the public good. They also consider the intentions of an actor when judging the morality of an act.

• Linaza (1984): cross-cultural test

– English & Spanish children
– Confirmed Piaget’s findings

Piaget’s Theory
• Dilemma method: which child is naughtiest?

– Up to 9/10 years, children judge based on amount of damage, not
motive or intention
• Problems with this design?
– Unequal damage distracts children
– “bad intentions” are vague
– Memory demands too high for young children

Criticism of Piaget’s Theory

• Underestimation of ability?
– ex: if damage is equal, children as young as 5 yrs will judge based on
intent
– 2-5 yr olds can differentiate between violations of social convention and
moral conventions (Smetana, 1981)

Kohlberg’s Theory

• Expanded upon Piaget’s concepts
– Across the life-span, not just childhood
– Much more intense study of over 30 years
• Participants presented with stories of “dilemmas”
– Crucial aspect was why something was or wasn’t wrong

Kohlberg’s dilemma example

In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One
drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in
the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was
charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to
make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to
everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only
get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist
that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or
let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No.” The husband
got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the
drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that?
Why?

Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning

• Developed 3 levels of reasoning, each with 2 stages
– Preconventional
– Conventional
– Postconventional

Preconventional Morality

• Reason in relation to self, little understanding of shared rules
– Seek pleasure, avoid punishment
– Children under 9, some adolescents, adult “criminal offenders”
• Stage 1:
– Concerned with authority, obey rules to avoid punishment
• Stage 2:
– Weigh the risks and benefits
– Recognize others might have different interests
– Action determined by one’s needs

Conventional Morality

• Importance of rules, expectations, conventions of society
– Most adolescents and adults
• Stage 3: focus on interpersonal relationships
– Being good = having good motives
– Living up to what is “expected” of you
• Approval/disapproval of others important
• Stage 4: focus on society as a whole
– Performing one’s duty to maintain social order

Postconventional morality

• Understanding of moral principles underlying laws
• Stage 5:
– importance of functioning society AND individual rights
– Usually not until 20+ yrs, and not everyone!
• Stage 6
– Following universal ethical principles
– When law violates principle, act in accordance to
principle

Heinz’s Moral Dilemma stages

• He shouldn’t steal the drug because:
– Stage 1: “he might get caught”
– Stage 2: “it won’t do him any good because his wife will be dead when he
gets out of jail”
– Stage 3: “others will think he is a thief”
– Stage 4: “his wife’s condition doesn’t justify stealing”
– Stage 5: “although the druggist is being unfair, we must respect the rights
of others”
• Stage 6: He should steal the drug, but should give himself up. He’ll have to
pay the price, but will have saved a life.

Real life examples! (Shapiro & Johnna, 1995)

"We shouldn't consider war..."
• "because it would hurt our economy..."(Stage 1)
• "because we'll have more money for domestic issues..."(Stage 2)
• "because we don' t want to appear too militaristic..."(Stage 3)
• "because war is killing and killing is against the law..."(Stage 4)
• "even though the situation is bad, war is damaging to people and property and
society agrees that is bad..."(Stage 5)
• "although atrocities have been committed, it would be an even greater atrocity to
wage war..." (Stage 6)

Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Theory

• Dilemmas criticized for being too artificial, and not reliable
– Clinical interview method too subjective
** Better scoring system (Colby et al. 1987)
• Cultural Bias
– Snarey (1985) review of studies in 27 cultures
• Similar progression through stages 1-4, but Stage 5 only found in urban societies
• Biased toward cultures favouring individualism
** Approaches which take into account the diversity of values within
cultures

Gender bias
– All original participants male
– Stages reflect specifically “male morality”
• Gilligan (1982)
– Criticized both Piaget and Kohlberg of negative views of “female morality”
– Argued females more concerned about impact behaviour has on others
– “people before principles” (female) vs. “principles before people” (male)

Gilligan (1982)

– Criticized both Piaget and Kohlberg of negative views of “female morality”
– Argued females more concerned about impact behaviour has on others
– “people before principles” (female) vs. “principles before people” (male)

Summary

• Prosocial behaviour
– Develops rapidly throughout toddler/preschool years
– Shaped by reinforcement and modelling
– Linked to many other cognitive abilities
– Are we inherently prosocial and this then encouraged or do we learn to be prosocial?
• Moral reasoning
– Continues to develop into adulthood
– Views of morality shaped by culture
– More diverse, cross-cultural studies needed! (see Atari et al., 2020 for an example)

Prosocial behaviour

– Develops rapidly throughout toddler/preschool years
– Shaped by reinforcement and modelling
– Linked to many other cognitive abilities
– Are we inherently prosocial and this then encouraged or do we learn to be prosocial?

• Moral reasoning

– Continues to develop into adulthood
– Views of morality shaped by culture
– More diverse, cross-cultural studies needed! (see Atari et al., 2020 for an example)