Announcements

Social Cognition: Moral DevelopmentHow can we define morality? What comes to mind when you think of morals?

Why do we care about morality?

To what degree is morality absolute or context dependent?

Can it be broken down into different components? Valuable from a research perspective.Components of morality:

Cognition: thinking about/processing information about topic

Affect:

Behavior:

Bigger picture: culture, belief systemsPiaget and MoralityGame playing children

Preschoolers are premoral; no real sense of rule following; outcome bound rather than intention bound (early to middle childhood)

School aged children are heteronomous, rigid rule followers; strict adherence to authority, rules and duties (6-7 to 10-11 years).

Adolescents and adults are autonomous and they understand that together, we in society form rules and can change rules

Kohlberg and MoralityLawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) used dilemmas to assess moral developmentStage theory

Sequence, timing

Kohlberg cont.Tested a core sample of 72 boys from middle and lower class Chicago families; ages 10, 13 and 16; used the Heinz Dilemma

Later examined other samples, including girls, people of different cultures, and delinquents

Very Piagetian flavor to the work; but went beyond Piaget in this domain

Kohlbergs StagesPre-conventional (childhood):

Punishment-obedience orientationBad to steal because youll get punishedOk to steal because he asked first and it wasnt anything bighe wont get punished

Instrumental hedonismOk to steal because it will cure her and she can cook for himNot ok to steal because he might not be able to stand being in prisonConventional: (adolescence):

Good boy/good girl orientationOk to do itpeople will think hes a good husbandNot ok to do itgood people dont stealBUT some consideration of intention starts to come into play

Authority and social order maintenanceOk to do itbut accept the consequencesNot ok to do itits against the law

Post-conventional (adulthoodor not).

Morality of contracts, individual rights, and democratically accepted law.Okeveryone has the right to lifeNot okthe right to fair compensation must be maintained

Morality of individual principles of conscienceClear and broad conception of universal principlesNot scored any moreProblems with theory: specific Ignores variation in reflection:

Ignores moral affect vs. behavior: we dont always behave the way that we think or feel

Abstract problems vs. real-life situations:

Factors besides moral thought influence behavior: Problems with theory: general Culture bias?Western emphasisIsolated villages and tribal communities seldom get above Stage 3. Can we say that they are less moral?

Gender bias???Gilligan suggests that women have.

Liberal bias?????

Another perspective: Importance of Affect/Emotion

Adapted by Josh Greene and colleagues

Outcome is the same, but people almost invariably have a problem with the second one

fMRI brain scanning reveals interesting things:

[Medial frontal gyrus vs. dorsolateral prefrontal cortex]

People take longer to make incongruent decisions.i.e., strong emotional salience in the footbridge condition takes awhile to over-ride cognitively

What does this mean for Kohlberg?

Too much emphasis on cognition & not enough on emotion?

Additional evidence for an affective or emotional argumentPatients with prefrontal damage (where emotion centers of brain are located) :

Engage in highly immoral behaviors (lying, stealing, child neglect) with no remorse

Conclusions about processes involved in moral judgments Not driven entirely by cognitionin fact, greater evidence that affect/emotion plays an important role (and maybe it should!)

In many cases:

Development of moralityAmoral babies: not born with any innate sense of right or wrong

Milestones in the first two yearsDistress at anothers negative emotions Distress at negative outcomes

Research: ChildhoodNelsons work shows more sophistication than Piaget and Kohlberg thought

3- to 4-year-olds; 6- to 8-year-oldsGiven motive information and outcome information (matched or mismatched)Asked to judge actors goodness

Findings:

Even the 3-year-olds took into account the intention information in making judgments

However, they had some trouble with mismatch; misremembered incongruent information

Older children differentiated judgments more appropriately than younger children; did not have memory difficulties

Research: ChildhoodWhat do children consider to be fair? (Helwig & Kim, 1999). Grades 1, 3, and 5.

Older children recognize limitations in knowledgeUnderstanding of contracts and agreements by 3- to 10-year-olds (Keller et al., 2004)

Maxi has to keep his room clean in order to get the bikeCleans room -> Cleans room -> Doesnt clean room -> Doesnt clean room ->

Had to reason directly about contract violations or make inferences about contract violations.

Results:All children understood that character would feel bad if contract violatedAdolescenceMore motivation to behave morally (mostly stage 3, some stage 4).

Dodges information processing model.From encoding to enactmentE.g., You are walking in the hallway, and suddenly, you trip. You look back and notice that you stumbled over the foot of a person who was sitting in the hallway. What is your interpretation of this?

Adulthood: Postconventional (not everyone)

Rigidity with age

Promotion of moral developmentSocial/Observational learning:

Induction vs. Power assertion vs. Love withdrawal

Natural cognitive growth:

Social experience: