Lecture 8 - Prosocial behaviour and moral reasoning

Why be prosocial? experimental and observational studies, moral reasoning (Piaget and Kohlberg)

prosocial behaviour

voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another (sharing, helping comforting)

this is a pattern of behaviour, regardless of motivation (potential benefits etc)

what are the benefits of being prosocial?

evolutionary roots:

increase survival of kin as we are more likely to be prosocial towards people we are genetically related to

benefit the survival of the group

we can also enhance our reputation/acceptance within group, learn to follow norms of behaviour

is prosocial behaviour innate?

innate:

• some evidence from twin studies of genetic contribution to prosocial tendencies

• some evidence suggests that spontaneous prosocial behaviour in children from a relatively early age

conditioned or socially learned:

• early attachment to parents

• parental/adult responses to behaviour are important

most likely to be an interaction between innate and learned

when does prosocial behaviour emerge?

around first birthday, helping emerges

rapidly increases in toddler/pre-schooler period, and then slowly thereafter into early adulthood and at least into late adolescence

there is a shift in act according to moral principles, rather than selfish motivations or to gain approval

Schuhmacher et al (2018) modelling prosocial behaviour

they observed helpful behavior increases prosocial behavior in infants

children who see the model donate are more likely to donate as well

more likely to copy skilled, warm and familiar models

potential problems in experimental studies for prosocial behaviour

• artificial environment (some deception, unfamiliar experimenters)

• are they measuring prosocial behaviour? there might be no effect after a 3-week follow up, so is the child just trying to find the ‘right’ solution or conform to adult demands

observational studies Zahn-Waxler et al (2001)

14-36 months where experimenters observed naturally occurring spontaneous behaviour

• mothers report responses to events in which negative emotions expressed

• increase in empathic responses with age

Warneken and Tomasello (2006) spontaneous helping

24 18-month-olds

experimental condition: experimenter look at object and child, verbalizes the problem

control: neutral face towards the object

this is to test whether the child can figure out that this object is something that the experimenter needs

• children were more likely to help in experimental condition for most tasks

• immediately in most cases - eye contact and verbal announcement

• restricted by ability to interpret goal/need

what factors affect prosocial development

• parenting styles and responses (secure attachment = higher empathy as parents who are empathic and respond sensitively encourage empathy)

• perspective-taking ability - theory of mind

• ability to regulate emotions

• cross-cultural differences (values placed on cooperation vs. competition and individualism vs. support)

moral reasoning

how we reason or judge whether an action is right or wrong

Piaget’s theory of moral reasoning

observed how children understood ‘rules of the game’ and corresponds to ‘rules of society’

there are 3 stages of understanding:

• premoral (up to 4 years) where rules aren’t understood

• moral realism (4 to 10 years) wherre rules come from higher authority and cannot be changed

• moral subjectivism (10+) rules mutually agreed by players and can change

Linaza (1984) cross cultural test for moral reasoning

english and spanish children

found the same pattern of behaviour that Piaget stated (the 3 stages)

the dilemma method

children were asked who was the naughtiest?

up to 9-10 years children judged based on amount of damage, not motive or intention

• problems with this interpretation - unequal damage distracts damage and ‘bad intentions’ are a bit vague

criticism of Piaget’s theory

underestimation of ability (e.g. if damage is equal, children as young as 5 years old will judge based on intent

preconventional morality - Kohlberg

stage 1: this is the first level of moral development in Kohlberg’s theory

it is typically observed in children and individuals make moral decisions based on the direct consequences of their actions, rather than societal norms

stage 2: is where they weigh the risks and benefits and recognize that others have different needs. however their actions are still determined by their own needs

conventional morality - Kohlberg

importance of rules, expectations and conventions of society

stage 3: focus on interpersonal relationships where being good = having good motives and living up to what is expected of you

stage 4 focus on society as a whole where performing one’s duty to maintain social order

post-conventional morality - Kohlberg

understanding of moral principles underlying laws and regulations of a society

stage 5: importance of functioning society and individual rights and usually not until 20+ years

stage 6: following universal ethical principles and when law violates principles you act accordingly to principle

criticism of Kohlberg’s stages

• dilemmas criticized for being too artificial and not reliable as the clinical interview method is too subjective

• cultural bias - Snarey at al did a review of studies in 27 cultures and found that in stage 5 was only found in urban societies

• all original participants are male - gender bias and only reflect male morality

Gillian (1982) criticizing Kohlberg and Piaget

criticised them for their negative views on ‘female morality’

argued females are more concerned about impact behaviour and how that affects others

‘people before principles’ (female) vs. ‘principles before people’ (male)