5

M O D U L E

Prosocial Behavior

ⁿ Eisenberg’s Theory

ⁿ Perspective Taking

ⁿ Empathy

Cognitive-Developmental Moral Reasoning

ⁿ Piaget’s Theory

ⁿ Kohlberg’s Theory

ⁿ Gilligan’s Criticism

Moral Development

Outline Learning Goals

1. Explain how thinking or reasoning about moral issues becomes more sophisticated over time, and identify any gender differences in moral reasoning.

2. Describe the importance of perspective taking and empathy to prosocial behavior, and identify any gender differences that exist in prosocial behaviors.

Aggressive Behavior

ⁿ Social-Cognitive Domains

ⁿ Social-Information Processing

Summary Key Concepts Case Studies: Reflect and Evaluate

Applications: Advancing Moral Development

ⁿ Family Context

ⁿ Peer Context

ⁿ School Context

3. Describe the cognitive deficits that may explain why some individuals are more likely than other individuals to use aggression.

4. Explain how families, peers, and schools contribute to the moral development of children and adolescents.

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 76 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 76 10/9/08 8:27:37 AM

10/9/08 8:27:37 AM

module five moral development 77

COGNITIVE-DEVELOPMENTAL MORAL REASONING

Do you think lying is wrong? Is taking someone else’s life wrong? Most of us would answer yes. Yet we all tell falsehoods at some point in our lives. And, although most of us will never take another’s life, we might think of exceptions, times when taking a life is noble or at least justified. When we think about such moral issues, a process called moral reasoning, we are seeking rationales for determining right and wrong.

As you already know, people might think about what is right and wrong, but they don’t always behave consistently with those thoughts. However, individuals must be able to understand right from wrong before they can behave in appropriate ways. Hence, theories on moral reasoning focus on the thought processes individuals use to determine right from wrong, not on the moral (or immoral) behaviors individuals may exhibit. Before we can discuss how an understanding of moral development can serve teachers in the classroom, we need to summarize the prominent moral development theories.

Piaget’s Theory

Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget is best known in the fields of education and psychology for his theory of cognitive development. In one of his early writings, The Moral Judgment of the Child (1932), he proposed a two-step process of cognitive moral development. According to Piaget, in the first stage of cognitive moral development, labeled moral realism, children believe that right and wrong are determined by the consequences of behavior as given by adult authority figures. Rules are absolute and are not meant to be broken or bent under any circumstances. At this stage, intentions are not important. As they develop more advanced thinking skills, children move into the stage of morality of cooperation, or autonomy, and understand that in certain situations or under particular circumstances rules can be bent. In other words, children begin to see the complexities of right and wrong, for example, understanding that lying may be necessary to spare someone’s feelings or that killing someone may be acceptable in war or self-defense.

Kohlberg’s Theory

Lawerence Kohlberg, one of Piaget’s students, believed that moral reasoning was much more complex than the two-stage process proposed by Piaget. Kohlberg did believe that children and adults become more advanced in their moral reasoning across developmental stages. However, Kohlberg (1963, 1981) developed his own theory of moral reasoning, framing it in three levels, each of which encompasses two stages, as summarized in Table 5.1.

The preconventional level is defined by an egocentric, self-interested view of right and wrong, and disregards the conventions or standards of society. Egocentrism is a focus on the self with little consideration for other people or their perspectives. Children in the first stage of this level, punish-ment/obedience, focus on the consequences of their behavior, similar to Piaget’s moral realism. For example, “Cheating is wrong because I might get caught and fail the course.” In the second stage, naive hedonistic or personal reward, children focus on whether there will be a reward for their behavior: “What’s in it for me?” Here individuals are concerned with the quid pro quo of behavior, a more or less equal exchange also called manipulative reciprocity. For example, “If you are nice to me, then I will be nice to you.” An individual also may justify misbehavior by invoking manipulative reciprocity. For example, “Cheating is okay because the teacher’s tests are unfair.” Children need to be exposed to people and situations that introduce new ideas, outside their own perspectives, in order to advance beyond the preconventional level (Shaffer, 2000).

At the conventional level, the individual focuses on external authorities, such as the conventions and standards of society, in determining right and wrong. Because of their less egocentric focus and more advanced thinking skills, children at the conventional level are capable of judging the intentions of actions, for example, “He didn’t mean to trip me.” In the third stage, interpersonal authority has the highest priority, meaning that children want to hold the same beliefs as their parents and other family members. Therefore, they will conform to rules to gain the approval of authority figures and avoid disapproval—for example, “Cheating is wrong because my mother says you are only cheating yourself and should do your own work.” The next stage of conventional reasoning, social authority, focuses on social systems in determining laws and norms of behavior. Here an individual may claim that cheating is wrong because it is against school policy.

The postconventional level moves beyond simple consequences and away from external authorities to an internal authority, as the individual establishes personal convictions about what is

Moral

Development

Module 5 :

>><<

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development: See page 119.

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 77 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 77 10/9/08 8:27:45 AM

10/9/08 8:27:45 AM

78 cluster one personal development

TA B L E 5 .1 Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Reasoning Level Stage Description

Preconventional Punishment/obedience

Naive hedonistic

n Focus on the consequences of behavior

n Focus on equal exchange, manipulative reciprocity

Morality of individual principles

Postconventional Morality of social contract

Conventional Interpersonal authority

Social authority

n Focus on conforming to rules of parents and other family members

n Focus on conforming to laws and norms of society

n Focus on personal decisions to determine when and how rules should be bent

n Focus on what will most benefit society as a whole or the greater good

right and wrong. Again, advances in cognitive development allow individuals to move into the post-conventional level of reasoning such that individuals who attend college or have more years of formal education show more complex reasoning than individuals who lack those educational experiences (Speicher, 1994). Morality of social contract, the fifth stage, includes personal decisions about when, why, and how rules should be bent or under which circumstances actions that typically are considered misbehaviors may actually be appropriate. For example, cheating is okay only if the task is unimportant (e.g., playing a card game with friends) or when it benefits someone else (e.g., cheating to let a younger child win in order to boost his or her confidence). In the sixth stage of moral reasoning, morality of individual principles, individuals focus on the system of morality that will most benefit society, or the greater good. For example, stealing should never be tolerated because societal chaos and disruption will follow.

Kohlberg measured an individual’s level of moral reasoning by presenting moral dilemmas and rating responses according to the stages. Moral dilemmas have no right or wrong answer, so Kohlberg was interested not in the individual’s choice to do or not do something but rather in a person’s stage of moral development as determined by his or her rationale or reasoning for the choice.

The classic Heinz dilemma used by Kohlberg to measure moral reasoning follows. Read the dilemma and think about whether you would make the same choice as Heinz. More important, explain why you would or would not make that choice.

In Europe, a woman was near death from a rare form of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2,000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what the drug cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said no. So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. (Kohlberg, 1984, p. 186)

Kohlberg believed that his theory of moral reasoning was universal across all cultures, but he was convinced that not all adults function at the highest levels of reasoning (Carpendale, 2000). While adults have been found to use a mix of moral reasoning strategies, children appear to progress developmentally from preconventional to postconventional thinking, as Kohlberg hypothesized (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1983; Rest, Thomas, & Edwards, 1997; Walker, de Vries, & Trevethan, 1987). For example, high school students are likely to provide responses to moral dilemmas consistent with the interpersonal authority stage (conventional level), whereas college students provide responses consistent with the postconventional social contract stage (Boom, Brugman, & van der Heijden, 2001). Support for Kohlberg’s hypothesized order of cognitive-developmental moral reason-

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 78 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 78 10/9/08 8:27:48 AM

10/9/08 8:27:48 AM

module five moral development 79

Moral

Module 5 :

Conventional Reasoning. Students at this stage may consider some behaviors wrong or immoral because the behaviors are against school policy as outlined in the student handbook.

,

GANGS AND GANG ACTIVITY

Students are prohibited from engaging in gang activity. A gang is any group of two or more persons whose purpose includes the commission of illegal acts. No student on or about school grounds, on school buses, or off school grounds at a school activity shall engage in any gang activity, including, but not limited to:
1. Wearing, using, distributing, displaying, or selling any clothing, jewelry, emblem, badge, symbol,

sign, or other thing proving evidence of membership or affiliation in any gang.
2. Committing any act or omission, or using any speech, either verbal or non-verbal (such as gestures

or handshakes) showing membership or affiliation in a gang.
3. Using any speech or committing any act or omission in furtherance of the interests of any gang or

gang activity, including, but not limited to: (a) soliciting others for membership in any gangs, (b)

requesting any person to pay protection or otherwise intimidating or threatening any person, (c)

committing any other illegal act or other violation of school policies, (d) inciting other students to act

with physical violence upon any other person.

Students engaging in gang-related activity will be subject to one or more of the following disciplinary actions:
1. Removal from extra-curricular and athletic activities.
2. Conference with parents/guardians.
3. Referral to appropriate law enforcement agency.
4. Out-of-school suspension for up to ten (10) days.
5. Expulsion for the remainder of the term.

HAZING

Soliciting, encouraging, aiding, or engaging in hazing is prohibited. Hazing means any intentional, knowing, or reckless act directed against a student for the purpose of being initiated into, affiliated with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization, club, or athletic team whose members are or include other students. Students engaging in hazing will be subject to one or more of the following disciplinary actions:
1. Detention assignment.
2. Removal from the extra-curricular activities.
3. Conference with students and parents.
4. Suspension.
5. Referral to appropriate law enforcement agency.
6. If serious enough, possible recommendation for expulsion.

BULLYING/HARASSMENT

Bullying is defined, but not limited to: taunting, insults, teasing, aggression, exclusion, humiliation, alienation, harassment, intimidation, or any behavior repeated with the intent of hurting someone physically or emotionally.

CHEATING

Cheating is the most serious of academic crimes and an inarguable deceitful act which a school cannot afford to foster. Cheating will be defined as a student’s intentional presentation of academic work which is not his/her own. Cheating will be constituted any time a student submits work which (1) has been fraudulently borrowed from another individual, including but not limited to current students and graduates; or (2) has been fraudulently borrowed from a published author. Furthermore, any student who knowingly lends his/her work to another in a circumstance where cheating exists will be considered an aide to cheating.

The consequences for those who cheat or are aides to cheating are as follows:
1. Resubmission of work in question.
2. No credit received for the work submitted, regardless of length and magnitude.
3. A semester’s failing grade for the course.

DRESS EXPECTATIONS

Students will be expected and required to dress in a manner consistent with accepted community standards of decency, good taste, and respectability. In those instances where students make an error

Development

ing has been found in Israel and Turkey, suggesting that, as he proposed, the theory applies universally across cultures (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987).

Gilligan’s Criticism

Carol Gilligan has criticized several developmental theories for their lack of attention to women and exclusion of a feminine perspective. Most notably, Gilligan has criticized Kohlberg’s theory of moral

,

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 79 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 79 10/23/08 3:48:20 PM

10/23/08 3:48:20 PM

80 cluster one personal development

reasoning for focusing on justice as the overarching theme in determining the level of moral reasoning. Gilligan (1977) suggests that men, who typically are more focused on independence and individuality, will have a justice orientation that focuses on the rights of individuals. Women, however, who typically are more focused on interpersonal relationships, will have a caring orientation that focuses on responding to others’ needs in intimate relationships. Gilligan suggested that the moral dilemmas presented to measure an individual’s level of moral reasoning needed to be real-life situations rather than the hypothetical situations presented by Kohlberg (Walker, 2006).

Early research using Kohlberg’s methodology was conducted only with men, leading Gilligan to criticize the sample on which the theory was based. In addition, early studies using samples of women suggested that women’s responses to the moral dilemmas were more likely to be scored in the third stage, interpersonal authority, while men’s responses were scored more often in the fourth or fifth stage of moral reasoning (Walker, 2006). However, Kohlberg’s scoring system for the moral dilemmas was revised following the first few empirical studies due to a number of problems. Lawrence Walker (2006) reviewed the literature on gender differences in moral reasoning and found that, overall, men and women do not differ in their moral reasoning. Moreover, no evidence suggests that two separate orientations—justice vs. caring—exist. Rather, most people use a combination of justice and caring to determine what is right and wrong in a given situation (Jorgensen, 2006). Although Gilligan’s basic premise that men and women have different moral orientations has not been supported, her criticism did spark interest in moral development, issues of measurement in moral development, and the importance of caring and empathy in moral reasoning.

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Separate from the cognitive-developmental perspectives of Piaget and Kohlberg, other researchers have studied the foundations of individual compassion and self-sacrifice. Why do people voluntarily care for and comfort one another? Why do they cooperate and share with one another? Psychologists call this human tendency prosocial behavior, and it encompasses those voluntary actions that are intended to benefit others through helping or sharing (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Sadovsky, 2006).

Eisenberg’s Theory

Nancy Eisenberg’s theory of prosocial moral reasoning is different from the cognitive-developmental perspectives of Piaget and Kohlberg due to its focus on positive justice (Lapsley, 2006). In essence, positive justice focuses on why we do the right thing, such as helping others or sharing. Eisenberg (1986) developed levels of prosocial reasoning based on her longitudinal research. Although Eisenberg’s levels refer to prosocial reasoning (thinking), many of the outcomes also include actions (behavior). She identified five levels of prosocial thinking:

n Level 1—hedonistic or self-focused orientation: Individuals focus on the consequence to the self or self-interest as a motive for prosocial behavior. “I will share my crayons because the teacher will be happy and say something nice to me.”

n Level 2—needs orientation: Individuals focus on the needs of others even when those needs conflict with one’s self-interest. “I will share my crayons with Jenny because she can’t find hers today.”

n Level 3—approval/interpersonal orientation: Individuals engage in prosocial behavior based on the stereotypical beliefs about a person, helping a person considered to be “a good person” and not helping a person considered to be “a bad person,” in order to gain approval from or acceptance by others. “I will share my crayons with Billy because he is a nice person, but I won’t share with Tommy because he is always mean to people.”

n Level 4—self-reflective empathetic orientation: To determine whether their actions will result in positive feelings or feelings of guilt, individuals use empathy and perspective taking, the ability to understand another person’s situation or psychological state, such as their thoughts or feelings (Damon, 1988). “I will share my lecture notes with Lisa, who missed class due to her grandfather’s funeral, because I feel bad for her and I would want someone to help me.”

n Level 5—internalized orientation: Individuals behave in prosocial ways due to their personal values rather than external authority or expectations. “Because I believe more fortunate people should help others, I will give some of my holiday bonus to the local charity that provides gifts for under-privileged children.”

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 80 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 80 10/9/08 8:27:49 AM

10/9/08 8:27:49 AM

module five moral development 81

Prosocial Behaviors.

Even preschool-age children can focus on others’ needs by sharing.

,

Moral

Development

Module 5 :

Prosocial reasoning and behavior increase throughout childhood and adolescence, with girls being more likely than boys to use prosocial behaviors, particularly in relationships (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). Perspective taking and empathy are two components that help explain why older children and girls are more likely to exhibit higher levels of prosocial reasoning and behavior.

Perspective Taking

Perspective taking is vital to the development of prosocial moral reasoning, which Kohlberg also considered important for cognitive-developmental moral reasoning. Individuals capable of perspective taking can appreciate that different people facing the same event may think or feel differently due to their unique backgrounds and qualities. For example, when two middle school students lose a homework assignment, their teacher understands that the incident will affect each child differently based on their commitment to education and the consequences they face at home for failure. Preschool children, however, are not yet able to grasp the perspectives of others, because children develop that ability gradually during their school years. Robert Selman (1971a) proposed five stages of perspective-taking development from early childhood through adolescence and beyond:

n Stage 0—egocentric viewpoint: Preschool-age children (ages 3 to 6) understand that other individuals have thoughts and feelings but confuse their own emotions with those of others or have difficulty understanding the causes of others’ feelings.

n Stage 1—social-informational role taking: Early elementary children (ages 6 to 8) understand that others have thoughts and feelings that may be different from their own but do not yet understand how different perspectives are related; hence, children are likely to focus on one perspective only. “I know she is sad, but I am happy I got the bigger piece of cake.”

n Stage 2—self-reflective role taking: Older elementary children (ages 8 to 10) can understand the relationship between self and others’ perspectives, enabling them to speculate on how another will feel or what another will think prior to the circumstances. “Johnny will be mad if I cut in line.”

n Stage 3—mutual role taking: Early adolescents (ages 10 to 12) are also able to take the perspective of a third party in order to understand how two individuals influence each other in a mutual, simultaneous manner. “I can understand why both Jenny and Jill want first prize at the science fair and why each thinks the other’s project is not as good as their own.”

n Stage 4—social and conventional system role taking: By middle adolescence (ages 12 to 15) and beyond, individuals are capable of understanding social conventions that are relevant to everyone rather than to only one individual: “I can understand that you shouldn’t cheat even if the teacher’s tests are too hard.”

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 81 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 81 10/9/08 8:27:50 AM

10/9/08 8:27:50 AM

82 cluster one personal development

Selman (1971b) found that role-taking ability was related to Kohlberg’s moral reasoning stages, with low role-taking ability related to preconventional reasoning and higher role-taking ability related to conventional reasoning. While perspective-taking abilities help individuals develop prosocial reasoning, those abilities do not necessarily lead to prosocial behavior. Some individuals may have the ability to take perspective but may not be motivated to consider the other person’s perspective (Gehlbach, 2004). Others may use their perspective-taking abilities to their own advantage, understanding exactly what will anger or sadden another person and using that understanding to manipulate or con others (Damon, 1988).

Empathy

The development of prosocial behavior also relies on empathy, the ability to experience the emotions or feelings of another person, as when an individual feels sad because someone else feels sad (Eisenberg et al., 1987; Eisenberg et al., 2006). In order to experience empathy, an individual must have perspective-taking abilities (Hoffman, 2000), so both of these skills appear to be essential for pro-social moral development. Note that empathy differs from sympathy. Sympathy is the emotional response of concern for another person’s emotional state. For example, we may express sympathy toward others when their loved one dies, yet we do not experience their grief. Psychologist Martin Hoffman (2000) has suggested that empathy development occurs in three stages early in life:

n Stage 1—global empathy: Infants may cry when other infants cry, but they are unable to differentiate between self and other. They will seek comfort for their own distress when they are exposed to another’s cry or emotional distress.

n Stage 2—egocentric empathy: Toddlers begin to differentiate between self and others and may attempt to comfort others’ emotional distress, but they do so from their own egocentric perspective. For example, a child may provide another person, including adults, with their comfort toy or blanket when, in actuality, it provides comfort only to himself or herself.

n Stage 3—empathy for another’s feelings: Children as young as age 2 or 3 have an increasing awareness of others’ emotions and different perspectives of needs. Hence, children begin to understand that what comforts them may not be what comforts others. With language and cognitive development, older children and adolescents can understand another person’s emotions without having any direct experiences with that person (e.g., reading about someone).

Research supports Hoffman’s stages of empathy development as well as empathy’s relationship to prosocial behavior. For example, toddlers respond to both researchers’ and mothers’ injuries with empathy, and slightly older children will attempt to comfort siblings who are distressed (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Empathy continues to develop throughout adolescence and has been linked to prosocial behavior, with more advanced empathy related to a higher degree of prosocial behavior.

Women and girls tend to be more empathetic than men and boys (Eisenberg et al., 1987; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998), yet research findings are not conclusive. The methods used to measure empathy may explain the gender differences found in some studies (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Studies that ask individuals to report their own levels of empathy or rely on reports from teachers or parents favor girls slightly. The expectation that girls will be more emotional and caring may bias these reports. Researchers who use behavioral observations to determine empathy have not found gender differences. Hence, girls may be expected to have higher levels of empathy, but in actuality they may have levels similar to those of boys.

Think of some examples that illustrate how a person could have perspective-taking skills but not be empathetic. Is it possible for a person to be empathetic, but not have perspective-taking skills? Why or why not?

AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Although some theories of moral development have focused on the positive, or prosocial, behaviors of individuals, aggression has also been a point of interest among scholars investigating moral development. Why are some individuals more likely to use aggression than others? Possible answers to that question include:

n biological predispositions, such as genetics or hormones that may increase aggression;

n family influences, such as direct experiences with violence and abuse from parents and siblings;

,

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 82 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 82 10/9/08 8:27:53 AM

10/9/08 8:27:53 AM

module five moral development 83

Aggressive Behaviors.

A number of factors can contribute to an individual’s becoming aggressive, such as exposure to violence in the home, on television, or in video games.

Moral

Development

Module 5 :

n peer influences, such as having friends who are aggressive;

n cultural differences; and

n other variables, such as exposure to violent television or video games.

Most often, the factors listed interact to increase the chance that a particular individual will become aggressive. The interaction among these factors can lead to differences in the ways individuals think about aggression. Much of the research on moral development has examined the cognitive deficits that accompany the use of aggression. Psychologist John C. Gibbs (1991) suggests that some individuals have a sociomoral developmental delay, or a self-centered, egocentric orientation that is not replaced by the more typical advanced moral development. This sociomoral developmental delay is maintained by two cognitive distortions:

1. Externalizing blame: Individuals see themselves as the victim, rather than those whom they have victimized. For example, students may explain their aggressive behavior toward a peer by declaring that the peer has always mistreated them.
2. Mislabeling or minimizing: Individuals will escape responsibility for their actions by viewing their behavior as less serious than social conventions might judge. For example, they might declare that an aggressive act was not that bad or that it did not really hurt the other person.

Gibbs suggests that these cognitive distortions are used by individuals to decrease their feelings of empathy-based guilt, or the pain and regret felt for causing distress or pain in another person (Hoffman, 2000). To decrease their feelings of guilt and pain, individuals may rationalize their aggressive behaviors.

Social-Cognitive Domains

A common approach to evaluating aggressive behaviors is based on the social domain model, which examines how cognitions play a role in aggression (Turiel, 1983). Through their interactions with the environment, children and adolescents may consider social situations within three domains:

1. The moral domain includes situations and circumstances related to the rights of others as well as the welfare of others.

2, The conventional domain focuses on the rules of conduct necessary for social organization.

3. The personal domain focuses on situations that affect the individual.

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 83 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 83 10/9/08 8:27:53 AM

10/9/08 8:27:53 AM

Social-Information Processing. Aggressive behaviors may occur because an individual interprets social information as intentional rather than accidental, such as bumping into someone.

The moral domain is the area of the most serious infractions, and the personal domain encompasses the least. Conventional domain issues fall in the middle. When surveyed, elementary students typically view aggressive behavior as being in the moral domain because it affects human welfare and issues of fairness (Murray-Close, Crick, & Calotti, 2006). Children and adolescents who view aggressive behavior as being in the conventional domain may have a cognitive deficit similar to minimizing (Tisak, Tisak, & Goldstein, 2006).

Social-Information Processing

Another theory used to explain aggressive behaviors in children and adolescents comes from the social-information processing model developed by Kenneth Dodge (Crick & Dodge, 1994). The model suggests that individuals process social information in six steps. Let’s walk through those steps in the context of the commonplace event of an individual being bumped into by the school bully.

1. Encoding cues: Individuals pay attention to some information in their social environment and dismiss other information. (I noticed a shocked looked on his face when he bumped into me.)
2. Interpretation of cues: Individuals determine meaning for those cues and the causes of the behavior of others in the social environment. (His shocked look must mean that he was surprised to see me standing there.)
3. Clarifi cation of goals: Individuals determine goals or outcomes for the situation. (I don’t want to make him mad.)

4. Response access: Individuals attempt to remember past responses to similar situations. (Last time he bumped into me, I just said, “Excuse me.”)

5. Response decision: Individuals evaluate the past responses and select the most appropriate response based on the expected outcome. (If I don’t want trouble, I should just walk away.)

6. Behavioral enactment: Individuals behave according to their decision to respond. (I’ll walk away.)

Although this model focuses on the cognitive or thought processes of individuals, emotions are considered to be important as well (Palmer, 2005). For example, emotional arousal may be an internal cue encoded in the first step. Similarly, empathy-based guilt may be considered in the response-decision step. However, aggressive children tend to process information differently than do non-aggressive children (Tisak, Tisak, & Goldstein, 2006) and may be less attentive to cues—such as not noticing that the person who bumped into them was surprised. A specific difference is found between aggressive and nonaggressive children in the interpretation of cues. Aggressive individuals may have what is called a hostile attributional bias, or a tendency to interpret another person’s intentions as hostile. For example, an aggressive student might interpret someone’s bumping into them in the hallway as intentional when in fact the collision was accidental. Aggressive children are likely to have this bias (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Webster-Stratton & Lindsay, 1999), leading them to externalize blame for their own aggressive behavior. The cognitive deficits of externalized blame, minimizing or mis-labeling the situation, and hostile attributional bias contribute to aggressive children’s inability to process social information correctly (Palmer, 2005).

Would you expect all individuals who have used aggression in the past to have cognitive deficits? Under what circumstances might someone without a cognitive deficit resort to aggression?

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 84 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 84 10/9/08 8:27:57 AM

10/9/08 8:27:57 AM

module five moral development 85

Comparison of Moral Development Theories Theorist Emphasis Infancy to childhood

TA B L E 5 . 2

Childhood to adolescence

Moral

Development

Module 5 :

Late adolescence to adulthood

Self-reflective role taking Mutual role taking

Beginning to consider others through perspective of external sources such as parents, society, and stereotypical views of others

Developmental trends across theories

Hoffman Empathy Global empathy

Egocentric empathy

Piaget Cognitive Moral realism Morality of cooperation

Kohlberg Cognitive Preconventional level Conventional level Posconventional level

Eisenberg Prosocial reasoning

Hedonistic or self-focused orientation needs orientation

Approval/interpersonal orientation Self-reflective empathetic orientation

Internalized orientation

Selman Perspective taking

Egocentric viewpoint Social-informational role taking

Social and conventional system role taking

Empathy for another’s feelings

Focus on the self, with little consideration for others (egocentrism)

Development of personal convictions and concern for society as a whole

APPLICATIONS: ADVANCING MORAL DEVELOPMENT

We’ve made a fast and furious survey of the theories of moral development. You may have noticed that some of these theories overlap, despite using different terminology (see Table 5.2 for a developmental comparison of theories). Many aspects of these theories have been studied in the contexts of family, peers, and schools to provide suggestions on how to advance moral development among children and adolescents.

Family Context

Although parents begin as external authority figures who provide consequences, the norms for behavior become the child’s own moral code as they outgrow the need for external consequences (Dunn, 2006; Hoffman, 2000). More specifically, maternal support and responsiveness are related to empathy and prosocial behavior in children. The children of parents who use consistent discipline that includes providing reasons for misbehavior and suggesting appropriate alternatives are more likely to exhibit higher levels of empathy and social responsibility (Damon, 1988; Eisenberg et al., 2006). In addition, siblings may play an important role in moral development by engaging in imaginative play that includes moral issues (e.g., your Barbie stole something from my Barbie, so she has to go to jail) and by modeling empathy for younger siblings (Dunn 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2006).

In examining the importance of family, psychologists have identified several parenting strategies that may help advance moral development (Berkowitz & Grych, 1998; Berkowitz, Sherblom, Bier, & Battistich, 2006):

n induction, in which parents explain discipline by verbally providing the consequences of choices as well as asking children to think about others’ emotions (e.g., empathy);

n nurturance, in which parents express warmth and affection toward their child as an indication of their concern for the child’s emotional state (e.g., perspective taking);

n demandingness, in which parents set high standards of behavior for their children and support children in their attempts to meet these standards;

n modeling, in which parents “practice what they preach” such that they become examples of moral conduct; and

>><<

Parenting: See page 32.

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 85 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 85 10/9/08 8:27:59 AM

10/9/08 8:27:59 AM

86 cluster one personal development

n democratic processes, in which parents include children in decisions, particularly those that require them to hear and appreciate another’s perspective.

These parenting strategies can provide a model for teachers to follow in developing instructional strategies that promote moral development. For example, teachers should also ask children to consider others’ feelings in order to promote empathy and perspective taking, two qualities essential to prosocial behavior. Also, teachers, like parents, are authority figures who model appropriate behavior and need to practice what they preach regarding moral conduct.

How can parents and teachers balance the need to be demanding and set high standards for behavior with the need to follow a democratic process and allow children to participate in making decisions?

Peer Context

Peer relationships must include reciprocity—aspects of sharing, fairness, and equality—because most children will discontinue relationships with other children who refuse to share or play fair. According to psychologist William Damon (1988), sharing in young children is an early sign of empathy and is considered an important aspect of prosocial behavior. He further suggests that the specific skill of perspective taking in prosocial development develops within peer interactions. Piaget and Kohlberg also both suggested that peer interaction is an essential component of moving into higher levels of cognitive moral reasoning and learning to cooperate with others to determine fairness and justice.

Hence, parents and teachers should encourage peer interaction among children. Teachers can ensure that children have adequate peer interaction by using cooperative learning strategies. Cooperative learning requires students to work collaboratively on projects and has been found to enhance both empathy and perspective-taking skills (Solomon, Watson, & Battistich, 2001). Therefore, requiring peer interaction among children and adolescents provides an opportunity for teachers to monitor and model the skills necessary for higher levels of moral reasoning.

School Context

Although teachers can benefit from the research in the family and peer contexts, several specific approaches to enhancing moral development in educational settings have also been proposed (Althof & Berkowitz, 2006; Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993; Nucci, 2006; Watson & Ecken, 2003):

1. Climate of trust: The classroom and school system should have a climate of trust and an ethic of caring. Children should feel safe to express emotions, knowing that they are supported and cared

>><<

Cooperative learning: See page 373.

>><<

Immoral behavior in the classroom: See page 352.

Climate of Trust. Schools should have a climate of trust, with positive teacher-student interactions outside the instructional classroom, to promote moral development, such as having lunch with students.

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 86 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 86 10/9/08 8:28:00 AM

10/9/08 8:28:00 AM

module five moral development 87

for by teachers and staff. Specific strategies have been suggested based on observational research among classrooms and teachers:

n Teachers can interact with students outside of instructional time, such as having lunch with students, engaging students in ordinary conversations about events, joking with students, and allowing students time to be “goofy.”

n Teachers can share minor personal information such as family, pets, and hobbies with students as well as spend time getting to know the student’s hobbies, interests, and family life.

n Teachers can use a physical posture that relays a trusting, caring attitude, such as leaning down to a young child’s level, standing close to a student, or putting a hand on a student’s shoulder.

n Teachers should be consistent and predictable in their responses and routine behaviors in order to impart a sense of trustworthiness.
2. Developmental discipline: Just as parents can use induction and a democratic process to establish standards and consequences as well as encourage empathy, teachers should employ those same strategies within the classroom:

n Teachers should help students understand the reasons behind rules.

n Rules should include prosocial behaviors such as sharing, taking turns, and respecting others.

n Teachers should use nonpunitive methods for controlling behavior.

n Teachers can hold regular class meetings and include collaborative problem solving to stop misbehavior in the classroom.

n Because adolescents will begin to view more and more issues as personal rather than conventional, desiring more power and control, teachers should give adolescents more opportunities to contribute to the development of rules and to make choices within the classroom (e.g., democratic governance).

3. Service learning: Service learning is a method of instruction that combines learning with service to the community. It can involve community service (typical volunteer activities such as tutoring, helping at a nursing home, or volunteering with an organization such as Race for the Cure), community exploration (experiential education, such as internships within the community or outdoor/ environmental education), or community action (civic reform, community enhancement). Engaging in service learning has been linked to increases in prosocial behavior, decreases in aggressive behaviors, and increases in levels of civic skills, attitudes, and

Service Learning. Instruction that connects classroom learning with service to the community can increase prosocial behavior and decrease aggressive behavior among students.

Moral

Development

Module 5 :

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 87 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 87 10/9/08 8:28:02 AM

10/9/08 8:28:02 AM

88 cluster one personal development

knowledge. In order for service learning to be effective, students should have choices in selecting activities and opportunities to reflect on their experiences in ways that help them prepare for, be successful in, and learn from those experiences (e.g., through journals or papers). Schools can reinforce the beneficial effects of service learning by offering some sort of acknowledgment and honoring of students’ contributions or of the student-community partnership (holding a party to celebrate a job well done, awarding certificates of appreciation, providing community-sponsored scholarships).

4. Curriculum: The moral curriculum should not be separated from academic content, but rather the two should be connected and intertwined within the classroom and school:

n History lessons and classic literature typically include moral dilemmas, as do current events in social studies classes.

n Characters within an academic unit can be discussed from a moral standpoint (e.g., Martin

Luther King Jr., Huckleberry Finn, Rosa Parks).

n Visual displays can be provided in classrooms to increase awareness of moral issues such as encouraging charitable behavior, a positive attitude, and an awareness of environmental concerns.

5. Challenging the Status Quo: Students should be not only allowed but encouraged to challenge standards and social conventions in order to further their perspective-taking skills and advance their level of moral reasoning. Many times, ambiguity in situations can be used as an example of a moral dilemma, with students asked to provide information from various perspectives. Discussion of moral dilemmas within classrooms was a central component of Kohlberg’s school program to advance cognitive moral reasoning, Just Community (Kohlberg, 1975; McDonough, 2005).

6. School-based interventions: School-based programs that include extensive teacher training can facilitate moral development. Many of these programs include role playing to encourage perspective-taking skills (Gibbs, 1991) as well as rehearsing prosocial solutions to moral issues, including modifying children’s social cognitive deficits and decreasing the likelihood of aggression (Guerra et al., 2007).

>><<

Development of social competence: See page 49.

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 88 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 88 10/9/08 8:28:06 AM

10/9/08 8:28:06 AM

key concepts 89

Summary

Explain how thinking or reasoning about moral issues becomes more sophisticated over time, and identify any gender differences in moral reasoning. Both Piaget and Kohlberg described stages of moral reasoning that become less reliant on the consequences of behavior and external authorities (family, law) and more heavily based on personal, internal views of right and wrong. Although initially women were considered to have lower levels of moral reasoning or different orientations with respect to moral reasoning, empirical evidence does not support gender differences in cognitive-developmental moral reasoning.

Describe the importance of perspective taking and empathy to prosocial behavior, and identify any gender differences that exist in prosocial behaviors. Prosocial behavior is voluntary behavior intended to benefit others by helping or sharing that increases throughout childhood and adolescence. The ability to understand another person’s situation or psychological state (perspective taking), such as their emotions (empathy), is important to the display of prosocial behaviors. Perspective taking and empathy develop gradually throughout childhood and adolescence. Girls are more likely than boys to use prosocial behaviors, particularly in relationships. This gender difference may be due in part to expectations for girls to have more empathy than boys.

Describe the cognitive deficits that may explain why some individuals are more likely than other individuals to use aggression. Several theoretical models, supported by empirical data, suggest that aggressive individuals have cognitive deficits that increase their chances of using aggression. Cognitive deficits may include blaming the victim, minimizing the seriousness of the aggressive act, or believing that the aggression was justified because the other person was hostile first. In addition, aggressive individuals may not view aggression as harming others but simply as breaking a rule.

Explain how families, peers, and schools contribute to the moral development of children and adolescents. Families are considered important in two ways:
(1) Parents can use specific parenting strategies to promote moral development, and (2) siblings can advance moral development during pretend play and by modeling prosocial behavior. Most theories of moral development emphasize the importance of peer interaction for advancing moral reasoning in children. Finally, schools can promote moral development through the climate of the classroom; the discipline used; the curriculum, including moral issues and service learning; opportunities for students to debate moral dilemmas; and school-based programs to decrease aggression.

Key Concepts

caring orientation conventional level

(of moral reasoning) egocentrism empathy empathy-based guilt

hostile attributional bias justice orientation morality of cooperation moral realism moral reasoning perspective taking

postconventional level

(of moral reasoning) preconventional level

(of moral reasoning) prosocial behavior sociomoral developmental delay

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 89 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 89 10/9/08 8:28:08 AM

10/9/08 8:28:08 AM

90 case studies: reflect and evaluate

Case Studies: Refl ect and Evaluate

Early Childhood: “Cry Baby”

These questions refer to the case study on page 22.

1. According to Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental moral theory, what stage does Zada appear to be in given her comments about sharing?

2. What examples of prosocial behavior are given in the case? Does the gender of the child displaying the prosocial behavior surprise you, based on current research?

3. How do Eddy and Linda attempt to increase perspective taking and empathy in their students?

4. Based on Tyler’s aggressive behavior and current level of thinking, what types of cognitive deficits might follow?

5. What other strategies can teachers use at this age to foster moral development?

Elementary School: “Team”

These questions refer to the case study on page 24.

1. Based on the interactions between students in the case study, speculate on the children’s level of moral reasoning, according to Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental moral theory.

2. How does Rocío attempt to promote moral development in her students?
3. What specific examples of perspective taking and empathy are given by Rocío?

4. Bill’s response to Zach implies at least two cognitive deficits in his moral thinking. What statements are related to those specific deficits?

5. How might family factors play a role in the moral development of Bill? Of Kashi? Of Patricia?

Middle School: “Basketball Star”

These questions refer to the case study on page 26.

1. According to Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental moral theory, what stage of moral development does Sara appear to be in based on her behavior and her comments? What stage of moral reasoning might Jill and Sierra be in?

2. Based on Tyrone’s recollection of Mark, what stage of moral reasoning might Mark have been in, according to Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental moral theory?

3. What examples of prosocial behavior among the students are presented in the case?

4. Explain how Sara uses her perspective-taking skills. How would you rate Darla’s perspective-taking skills, based on Selman’s theory and Darla’s age?

5. Why might Mark blame others and downplay his own behaviors?

High School: “Steal, Cheat, and Fight”

These questions refer to the case study on page 28.

1. Based on the combination of responses, in which stage of moral development would Kohlberg most likely place these students?

2. According to Mr. Cargill, a number of skills would be necessary to eliminate these disruptive behaviors and replace them with more prosocial behaviors. Based on the information presented in the module, what skills should be promoted among these students to increase their prosocial behaviors?

3. Into which social-cognitive domain does Ms. May’s evaluation of the students’ behaviors fall? How might this influence her opinion of the seriousness of the behaviors?

4. Mr. Cargill describes Jimmy. What theories might explain Jimmy’s aggressive behavior?

5. Ms. May believes the problem lies within the authority and discipline of the school. Assuming that she is correct and many teachers do let students get away with these behaviors, what can be done? How might knowledge of parenting strategies be used within the school system to foster moral development?

,

,

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 90 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 90 10/9/08 8:28:10 AM

10/9/08 8:28:10 AM

boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 91 boh7850x_CL1Mod5.p076-091.indd 91 10/9/08 8:28:11 AM

10/9/08 8:28:11 AM