Lecture 18 - Proscocial behaviour

Prosocial and Moral Development in Childhood and Adolescence

PSYC205 I Week 9 | Lecture 18 Thursday, 5th December 2024

Learning Objectives

Understanding Prosocial Behaviour: Explore the definition and significance of prosocial behaviours in children and adolescents, including their development and long-term impact on society.
Exploring Morality: Delve into the concept of morality, how it is defined, and various methods of studying moral development.
Evaluating Theories of Moral Development: Analyze the main theories of moral development, such as those proposed by Piaget and Kohlberg, and discuss their strengths and weaknesses.
Researching Prosocial and Moral Behaviours: Consider the challenges involved in studying the development of these behaviours, including methodological approaches and cultural influences.

Structure

Social Development
Prosocial Development
- What is prosocial behaviour?
- Differences between prosocial and antisocial behaviours.
- The progression and development of prosocial behaviour.
- Factors that influence the development of prosocial behaviour.
Moral Development
- Overview: how morality is conceptualized and its importance.
- Methods for studying morality.
- Cognitive developmental approaches.
- Theories by Piaget and Kohlberg on moral development.
- Critiques of cognitive developmental approaches.
- The domain approach to understanding moral development.

Social Development

Characterized by two main themes:

Continuity: Certain behaviours, such as aggression and empathy, maintain consistency throughout development, influencing interpersonal relationships.
Transformation: This refers to qualitative changes in social behaviour influenced by cognitive growth and emotional maturity, leading to more complex interactions and social understanding.

What is Prosocial Behaviour?

Defined as:

“Voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another” (Eisenberg et al., 2006).
“Any voluntary, intentional action that produces a positive or beneficial outcome for the recipient, regardless of cost to the donor” (Grusec et al., 2002).

Distinction of Prosocial Behaviour

Altruistic Behaviour: Unlike prosocial behaviour, altruism is characterized by selflessness, where there is no intention to gain any benefit for the helper, potentially leading to costs for them.
Motivations for Prosocial Behaviour: These can be influenced by various factors, including empathetic feelings, a sense of social responsibility, cultural norms, and contextual variables that guide moral decision-making.

Prosocial vs Antisocial Behaviour

Understanding the continuum of behaviours:

Antisocial Behaviour: Behaviours that cause harm or discomfort to others are positioned as the opposite of prosocial behaviours. Studies have shown that personality traits influence both prosocial and antisocial behaviours, with traits such as high aggressiveness correlating negatively with prosocial behaviours

Development of Prosocial Behaviour

Notable features include:

Early emergence of prosocial behaviours in infants and toddlers with research suggesting no significant gender differences in these early stages.
No gender differences
Reports from parents indicating that behaviours such as sharing, helping, and comforting others are observable in preschoolers, thus indicating preliminary moral understanding.
The complexities in understanding children’s intentions behind their prosocial acts, which may be situational, spontaneous, or influenced by external factors such as peer validation.
intentions are not always clear,
- may be seeking a reaction from others
- praise seeking
Research Methods: Experimental studies demonstrate causal links, such as the research by Grusec et al. (1978) which highlighted observational learning's effectiveness in promoting prosocial behaviours, noting that children who learned by observation fared better than those who received simple instructions.
Self-report instruments like the Prosocial Tendencies Measure also capture adolescents' motivations, reflecting a move toward principled reasoning rather than seeking mere social approval. - observing proscocial behaviour, children are more likely to do it themselves
as they internalize the values and norms displayed by others, leading to a greater likelihood of engaging in similar acts of kindness and cooperation.
Observational studies
Reveal early emergence
Suggest that parents reward prosocial behaviour and react to alack of prosocial behaviour where expected
Self-report, e.g. Prosocial Tendencies Measure (Carlo etal., 2003)• Reveal motivations for prosocial behaviour
Adolescents less likely to act prosocially for approval; morelikely to act according to principles/concern for others

Factors Influencing Development

Crucial components that influence the development of prosocial behaviours include:

Temperament and Personality Traits: Individual characteristics, such as empathy and sociability, play a significant role.
Social Environment: This encompasses the influence of parental interaction, peer relationships, and siblings, which shape behavioural norms.
Cultural Contexts: Different cultural backgrounds instil varying values regarding social responsibility and the importance of collective versus individualistic approaches to helping.

Moral Development

Definition: A framework of principles that guide behaviour in distinguishing right from wrong.

Studying Morality

Focus on three primary components:

Affective Component: Emotions related to moral actions impact cognitive processes and subsequent behaviours.
Cognitive Component: This relates to how children understand moral concepts and make decisions around them, including reflections on right and wrong.
Behavioral Component: This reflects the actual behaviour exhibited in decision-making scenarios, including instances where individuals are tempted to lie or cheat.

Cognitive-Developmental Approaches

These approaches establish a link between the progression of moral understanding and cognitive development, suggesting that moral reasoning evolves alongside cognitive abilities.
Global Stage Theories: They propose that development occurs universally through defined stages, where initial learning about morality at a young age is based on following rules, evolving into a nuanced understanding of moral principles as cognitive abilities mature.

Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development

Notable work includes The Moral Judgement of the Child (1932), which emphasizes child-based moral judgments rooted in gameplay rules.
'The Moral Judgement of the Child' (1932), Piaget describes how children's moral understanding evolves from a focus on consequences to an understanding of intentions.
linked to egocentricm, increase in operational thought and peer conflict
Findings:
- At ages up to 4-5: Children exhibit premoral judgement where rules are not understood or internalized.
- From 4-5 to 9-10 years: Shift to moral realism, where children see rules as fixed by authority and unchangeable.
  - rules comes from higher authority and cannot be changed
  - evualate actions by outcome
  - punishment is an inevitable retribution
- Before age 9-10, children judge actions based on the amount of damage caused (moral realism).
- After 9-10 years: Transition to moral subjectivism, demonstrating a cooperative understanding of rules based on consensus, where moral reasoning also shifts to evaluate intent rather than merely consequences.
- After age 9-10, children begin to consider the motives behind actions (moral subjectivism), indicating a shift in moral reasoning
  - autonomous morality of cooperation
  - rules can be changed by mutual consent
  - evaluate action by intention
  - punishment as chosen to fit crime

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

An extensive expansion of Piaget’s work, developed through longitudinal interviews with males, leading to categorization of moral reasoning into stages:
based on 50 American males, every 3 years
3 levels or moral reasoning, 6 sub stages
- Level 1: Pre-conventional Morality - individuals reasons about himself, not conventional or societal rules and expectation
  - Stage 1: Heteronomous morality, where authority dictates right/wrong, obedience and punishment orientation
  - Stage 2: Instrumental morality, focusing on actions taken for personal advantage, individualism and exchange. Conforms to rules in order to gain or satisfy personal goals
- Level 2: Conventional Morality - moral behaviour confirms to and upholds societal rules, expectations and conventions
  - Stage 3: Interpersonal normative morality, concerned with pleasing others, good interpersonal relationship. Good boy/girl, bahviour is perceived to please, aid and assist others
  - Stage 4: Social system morality, emphasizing adherence to social rules, maintaining social order. rules are obeyed to maintain social order, laws should be upheld
- Level 3: Post-conventional Morality - understanding of societal rules but moral judgments based on universal moral principles, judgment by principle not conventions
  - Stage 5: Social contract orientation, where laws are viewed as social agreements for welfare, social contract and individual rights, the laws are seen as a tool for expressing the will or majority of human welfare
  - Stage 6: Universal ethical principles, aligning with personal moral standards, universal principles, defines right and wrong on the basis of their self chosen ethical principles

Critiques of Cognitive-Developmental Approaches

Noted issues include the utilization of dilemmas that lack real-life validity and the unpredictability of behaviour across moral stages. The predominantly male sample used in research has also led to validity and generalizability concerns.
Further critiques from Gilligan (1982) propose that Kohlberg's framework may embody a male-centric view on morality, overlooking the nuances of care-oriented ethical considerations, which are often more prevalent in female moral reasoning contexts.
- male morality
- moral reasoning also incorporates responsibility
- morality of justice, principles before people
- morality of care, people before principles
not relevant to young people, because the moral dilemmas presented may not resonate with their everyday experiences and challenges, leading to a disconnect in understanding and applying these ethical principles.
only used males
limited empirical support
cross-cultural differences - Standardised scoring (Colby et al.,1978) showed evidence of stages 1– 4 thinking in original sample, but limited evidence of stage 5 and stage 6 is hypothetical(unobserved)
Snarey (1985) reviewed published tests of Kohlberg’s theory.• Dilemmas had been changed to culturally-appropriate versions.• Examined invariant sequence, full strange and general applicability.

Domain Approach to Moral Development

Introduced by Turiel (2002), this approach differentiates morality from societal norms, suggesting that moral rules carry absolute weight while social conventions are negotiable. Children can recognize these distinctions early on and personal experiences and societal interactions significantly influence their moral development.
Children understand and can reason about morality and socialconventions in different ways as young as 4 years.
Hitting is not right, ever.
Eating with your hands can be ok.
Personal experiences underpin early moral development; reasoning becomes more abstract.
Social experiences are important for learning

Summary

Early prosocial behaviours emerge significantly, evolving through interactions within various social contexts. Morality is often assessed through responses to different moral dilemmas, revealing distinct developmental stages aligned with cognitive growth, as suggested by the theories of Piaget and Kohlberg. Moreover, Turiel's domain approach emphasizes the profound impact of social environments in shaping moral understanding and behaviour across different stages of development.

Core Reading

Harris & Westermann, "A Student’s Guide to Developmental Psychology," Ch. 14 and 17
Smith, Cowie & Blades, "Understanding Children’s Development," Ch. 9
Slater & Bremner, "An Introduction to Developmental Psychology," Ch. 15
Students should post questions on the Moodle forum prior to the Q&A session on Friday to facilitate focused discussion.