Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Moral Development - Y2 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Under 5 - premoral stage:
        
        Egocentric
        
        Have different rules and had little concern for them
        
        Played ;together'
      - 5-10 - moral realism:
        
        Incipient cooperation
        
        Mastered basic rules
        
        Cooperates and competes
        
        Do not assist each other
        
        Adhere to agreed upon framework
      - 11-12 - moral reciprocity: - Genuine cooperation - Thorough mastery of rules - Enjoys settling differences of opinion concerning new rules, inventing new rules and elaborating on them
  - - - Inkblot moral puzzle -
        
        One little boy wants to help his father by filling the ink well - he accidentally spills it and makes a large stain
        
        The other little boy plays with the ink-well even though it is forbidden - he spills some ink and makes a small stain
        
        Which boy was naughtier?
        
        Answer:
        -> Are they both equally naughty or not? - No
        -> Which is the most naughty? - the one who made the big blot because it was big
        -> why did he make the big blot - to be helpful
        -> And why did the other make a blot - because he was always touching things
        -> Then which is the naughtiest - the one who made the big blot
      - Moral subjectivity and moral reasoning:
        
        Children below the age of 10 - the boy who made the large stain is naughtier as his intention is immaterial
        -> Moral realist - judgement is made on the extent of the damage caused
        
        Children above the age of 10 - the boy who made the large stain is not naughty as his intention was good
        -> Moral subjectivist (moral reciprocity) - subjective factors, including intentions, are considered
  - - - Addressing these criticisms - Wimmer, Wachter & Perner, 1982: - - Two boys paint a fence. One boy is lazy and puts in no effort, but he is big and has a big brush. He paints a lot of the fence. The other boy puts in a lot of effort. He only paints a little bit of the fence, but he is small and only has a small brush
        
        Who should be rewarded with more cookies?
        -> Four year old children rewarded outcome?
        -> Eight year old children rewarded effort?
        -> Six year old children were intermediate?
        -> Still has a developmental effect - despite being earlier than Piaget's suggestion
        
        Not a problem with cause-effect relationships -
        -> Children understand the relation between effort and amount of fence painted (all things equal)
        -> Still reward based on outcome rather than effort
- - - - Preconventional level - justification for behaviour is based on the desire to avoid punishment and gain rewards
        
        Avoid punishments (stage 1) - Heinz can steal because he asked first and its not like he stole something big, he won't be punished
        
        Seek rewards (stage 2) - he should steal for his wife because she might return the favour
      - Conventional level - moral judgement is based on the motive to conform, either to get approval from others or to follow society's rules and conventions
        
        Conform to get approval from others (stage 3) - I don't think any husband should watch his wife die
        
        Conform with society's laws, rules and conventions such as duty to family (stage 4) - if everybody did as he wanted to do, set up his own beliefs as to right and wrong there would be chaos - legal structure is the only thing that structures civilisation as people are bound to follow it
      - Postconventional level - judgements are controlled by an internalised ethical code that is relatively independent of the approval or disapproval of others
        
        Morality is based on society's consensus about human rights (stage 5) - it is the husband's duty to save his wife, the fact that her life is in danger transcends every other standard you might use to judge his action - life is more important than property
        
        Morality is based on abstract principles of justice and equality (stage 6) - act like they do not know which role they will eventually occupy
  - - - Standard Issue Scoring (Colby et al, 1987) - scores with clear criteria the responses to the issue chosen by the respondent for each dilemma:
        
        Life and law issue in Heinz dilemma for example
        
        High reliability scores - supports the first 4 stages, but not the latter 2 - these are therefore hypothetical stages not empirically established (Colby et al, 1983)
      - Cultural validity - Snarey (1985) - 27 different cultural areas show this, and dilemmas are adapted for different approaches
        
        All societies progress through stages 1-4, but very few showed stage 5 reasoning and only in urban societies
        
        Stage 5 therefore likely reflects the individualistic, capitalistic orientation of middle-class, Western, urban society
        
        Religions that do not emphasise this show more emphasis on collectivism and therefore no stage 5 or 6
- - - - How children learn the rules and distinguish among moral, social-conventional and psychological domains:
        
        Role of culture
        -> Children all over the world learn this - but content of social conventions varies across cultures
        -> The content of personal issue also varies
        -> Despite differences, children still judge violations in the moral domain as more serious than infractions in the social-conventional and psychological domains
- - - - Judgements -
        
        All judged it to be wrong in the straightforward condition
        
        Worse to exclude based on race than gender - exclusion is always seen as wrong
        
        Used moral more than social conventional reasoning - exclusion is a moral issue, but use of social reasoning does change; children use stereotypical knowledge, but adolescents use group functioning
    - - Findings - children thought it was more acceptable to exclude in school than peer contexts - social conventional reasoning
        
        Children thought it to be more acceptable to exclude based on gender than religion, especially in young children
        
        Could research contexts without single gender or religious schooling
      - Reasoning -
        
        Moral reasoning led to concern with group discrimination and aiming for fairness r equal rights
        
        Social and conventional - concern with how the group will function and stereotypes
      - Discussion -
        
        All moral correlated with non-acceptance and all social conventional correlated with acceptance
        
        Accepting of separate but equal for gender with age - Saudi Arabian children show more respect for exclusion when it comes from a father over a peer, and British children show more respect when it comes from a teacher
        
        Social conventional
    - - Social and racial justice as fundamental goals for the field of human development (Killen, Yee and Ruck, 2021):
        
        Different experiences shape our understanding of justice itself and including these perspectives in rigorous scientific research
        
        Study of ethnic and racial identity should shift from a narrative of deficit to one of competency and resilience, and the dynamic between group identity and moral concerns that underlie bias
        
        Conceptualising as us v them is too simple