Social interaction theory
Social interactions theory highlights a discrepancy between developing concepts of morality in children. According to the social interaction theory (also known as the moral domain theory), a child’s concept of morality and ethics concerning fairness, right and other’s welfare are established during early childhood (Turiel 1983). In contrast to Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive development, social interaction theory suggests that moral reasoning and social conventions are not connected in terms of development, instead, the idea of a moral obligation is related to social experiences (Miller 1987). Elliot Turiel (1983) defined the three moral domains as; the moral which is the doctrines of how individuals should be treated,
…show more content…
Children in early childhood develop these moral concepts in parallel in growth rather than moral reasoning emerging out of social conventions as proposed in the Kohlberg’s theory. Turiel (1983) also believed that children do make moral judgements that go beyond the heteronomous obedience to authority and rules and that early moral thought should be characterised as moral not pre-conventional. From his empirical studies, Turiel designed a test to investigate a children’s ability to distinguish morality from convention, concluding that from an early age, children judge moral issues as objectively appropriate across situations (Turiel 1983, 1998). Through a development of experience, generalisation and assessment, younger children are able to understand that hitting someone is wrong as it results in negative intrinsic consequences to that person. As such Turiel’s theory proposes that young children's moral reasoning is effectively more sophisticated that what Kohlberg (1984) proposed. However, the moral domain theory allows a larger change of morally-centred assessments of younger children than would be anticipated from the Kohlberg …show more content…
Empirical data showed that young children are able to develop morals through experiences. For an instance, using Vygotsky’s theory, as children begin to develop language and their method of communication, they are able to interact with society and other social beings and thus are able to formulate their own moral reasoning. Additionally, social learning theory explains how through imitation and observation, children are able to slowly develop morality and ethics. However, because the theory is not a developmental theory and does not account for the learning of general moral reasoning, it cannot to some extent be used for the investigation of moral development. Conversely, some researchers (Narvaez, 2008; Lupien et al, 2009) argue that social interaction affect moral reasoning as early as before birth through the experiences of the mother. Ultimately the evidence for social interaction theory as a method of moral development cannot be disregarded but whether it has more superior ground than cognitive development theory is a discussion that requires more empirical
Morality, which is one’s general standards about right and wrong behavior, also includes prosocial behavior and other traits such as honesty, fairness, and concern about other people’s rights and welfare (Omrod, 2014). Both morality and prosocial behavior involve multiple parts of the brain, emotions and complex reasoning abilities. Some age-typical characteristics for preschool aged children include, some understanding that behaviors causing physical or psychological harm are morally wrong, a sense of guilt and shame about misbehaviors that cause harm to others, also display empathy and sympathy, and children at this age also show an appreciation for the need to be fair.
The two competing theoretical frameworks that attempt to explain the development of morality are cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-developmental. The cognitive-behavioral approach is taken by Liebert, and the cognitive-developmental approach is taken by Kohlberg.
The Nature versus Nurture debate has been one of longest most withstanding debates of our world. Despite all the differences in beliefs, I believe significant evidence suggests that there is a reason to believe that our morality is not simply learned from imitation, coached ethics, or social cues (though those do play a part in growing it), but that it, like so many other natural abilities of the body, is a part of us beginning with the development of our brains in utero.
They are able of solving problems using reasoning and logic. They can organize facts and events in mature fashion and figure out possible moves and their outcomes. They can also deal with proportions and analogies and reflect on their own thinking. One of the major themes of development is moral development. The most influential research on development was done by Lawrence Kohlberg. It was influenced by Piaget’s cognitive developmental approach. Kohlberg divided Moral development into 6 stages. The first stage is called Preconventional level. During this stage individuals recognize labels of “good” and “bad”, right and wrong, but do not interpret these labels in terms of social standards. The next stage is called Conventional level. During this level individuals make moral judgments based on expectations, whether the expectations are coming from family or society. This level of morality is shown mainly by adolescents and adults. The next level is the post conventional level. During this stage individuals accept and stand by society’s rules and laws but tend to view them in terms of the underlying principles. Individuals may also follow personal ethical principles. This is where they take into account human rights or life and
Today I will be interviewing Baumeister, Gilligan, and Piaget who are some of the most influential psychologists in the field of moral development. I will be interviewing these three so and I have three critical questions in the field of moral development that I would like each to answer. I will then conclude with a brief summary of the similarities and differences between the psychologists I have interviewed.
Scarf, D., Imuta, K., Colombo, M., Hayne, H. (2012) Social evaluation or simple association? Simple association may explain moral reasoning in infants. PLoS ONE 7(8) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042698
Proper socialization as an infant has long lasting effects on an individual well into adulthood. Sociality in the form of bonding with one’s mother, friendships or just mental stimulation from sound and touch can help form a person’s personality and determine their moral attitude. Morality correlates to empathy because empathy gives someone the ability to relate to how another is feeling, which in turn could help someone determine what is considered right and wrong. Empathy is associated with being responsible for someone’s ability to make socially acceptable decisions and exhibit moral behavior. When someone is lacking empathy or has been socially stunted such as the case of the Romanian orphans, it is believed that they are more capable of doing immoral things such as stealing, lying and cheating. What is morally acceptable
There are certain characteristics of parents who influence their children’s moral behavior. The first characteristic are warm and supportive parents, parents who also involve their children in family decisions, parents who models morally thinking and behavior, and finally parents who inform their children of what behaviors are acceptable, expected and reasoning behind. An example of these parents’ characteristics’ can be when a child is upset because their sibling has taken their toy from them. A parent with the above characteristics will talk to the children on their level, ask open-ended questions, and talk about solutions for their issue. The parent will also voice own opinion on what is the acceptable thing to do, and explain why that is. These four characteristics are sort of strategies’ that are excellent for parents to utilize in order to foster their children’s moral development. Parents who are warm and supportive tend to have a secure attachment to their children which is the base for creating a positive parent-child relationship, without that, parents cannot model behavior to the child, as the child will not trust in the parent. By being an informative parent with reasoning, parents teach their children positive socializing and thus an appropriate positive moral behavior. They also provide
...omplished candidate. While morality plays an important part in day-to-day life, it is a small footnote in the large spectrum of developmental psychology. Erikson did a greater service to the field because he developed a more in-depth, thought out, relevant theory. His theory also has more uses than Kohlberg’s. Erikson’s theory can be applied to parenting, counseling, education and more.
Kohlberg’s theory of the stages of moral development has gained some popularity despite being controversial. The claim that the levels form a “ladder,” the bottom being the immature child with a pre-conventional level and the top being a post conventional ethical individual. The sequence is unvarying and the subject must begin at the bottom with aspirations to reach the top, possibly doing so. (7) Research confirms that individuals from different cultures actually progress according to Kohlbergs theory, at least to the conventional level. Kohlberg’s stages of moral development continue to provide a foundation for psychology studies of moral reasoning. (6)
The moral development of children can depend on many factors. Parenting and upbringing of the child, their environment, social environment, gender, and race are all aspects that can contribute to how a child develops their moral standards and expectations. Many psychologists have tried for several years to develop a theory of how morality is developed. One in particular is Lawrence Kohlberg (1958). His moral development theory is based on the cognitive development of children and it is thought that moral development proceeds and changes as cognitive development occurs (Arnett, 2012).
The definition of the social learning theory is People learn through observing others’ behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors. “Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” (Learning Theories Knowledgebase ). Most people learn through watching other. As a child, we learn by mocking what we have observed repeatedly. This is how we learn to walk, talk, speak, and to feed ourselves. We also learn social skills from the people around us. We learn right from wrong, we learn what is acceptable in our everyday lives. We also learn societal norms. Most children learn social norms from the family structure. If the family structure is broken or not complete it may cause problems for the children. If the family has only one parent then the family unit suffers. If the child is part of a family that has deviant problems then the child learns that these problems are the norm. This could lead to the child to think that drinking or drugs are normal. It is also a factor if the child observes crime in the family unit. The child learns that crime is normal until they run up against society who states otherwise.
The ability of understanding intentions of others is very important for social development of children (Feinfield, Lee, Flavell, Green, & Flavell, 1999). By means of understanding intentions children can make sense of that people and animates are different from objects (Feinfield, et al., 1999). According to Shantz (1983), this ability is the requisite to understand morality and responsibility. To understand plans and planning we also need to have the ability of understanding intentions (Feinfield, et al., 1999). In addition, Feinfield and colleagues stated that acquiring the ability of understanding intentions of others is also important for the cognitive development of the children such as theory of mind (ToM) that is “the understanding that others have beliefs, intentions and desires different from one’s own” (Kelly, 2011; p. 5). For these stated reasons many researchers have conducted various studies about the ability of understanding intentions of others. Several studies were carried out to determine when children begin to develop the ability of understanding intentions, which factors have an impact on this ability, how these factors influence the intention attribution and what the role of intention attribution plays for the associations between cognitive capacities and moral reasoning.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: the nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
According to Kohlberg, individuals progress through a series of stages in the evolution of their sense of justice and in the kind of reasoning that they utilize to make moral judgments (Feldman, R., 2013, p. 426). His work modified and expanded from Jean Piaget’s previous work to form a theory of cognitive development that explained how pre-adolescent children develop moral reasoning (Cherry, K., 2014, October 12). Kohlberg’s theory of moral development focuses on children’s ability to distinguish right from wrong based on their perception. His theory claims that individuals progress through the levels morality in a fixed order and