Lecture 9 Developmental Psychology PDF

Topics in Developmental Psychology Morality Dr. Bahar Koymen Week 9 1  Overview  What are social norms?  Traditional view on morality  2-step model 2 ...

Topics in Developmental Psychology Morality Dr. Bahar Koymen Week 9 1  Overview  What are social norms?  Traditional view on morality  2-step model 2  What are social norms? piece paper is a of , money but we made it  Norms are a form of “social reality” valuable - prescribing people act in certain ways in certain contexts (Searle, 1995).  One must or must not do X in context Y.  As opposed to idiosyncratic behaviors or preferences. ↳ different/special irregular. made (a piece of paper) valuable so we We all already money it , stick to it& follow. 3  Kinds of social norms Domain Theory: 2 general categories (Killen, 1991; Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1998)  Moral norms: concerning the welfare of others evolved from two natural tendencies: 1) People have natural tendency to help one another (Warneken 2) & Tomasello, 2006, 2009). People avoid to harm one another (Nichols, 2004). Scomplimentate  One must help others  One should not hurt others  One should not steal 4  Kinds of social norms  Conventional norms: do not directly concern the welfare of ↓ others and have the following 3 properties (Rakoczy & Schmidt, 2013): idiosyncratic -. we cannot wear pjs to university (doesn't hurt anyone).  Rule: In this nursery, blue toys must go into blue boxes. Conventional norms are: 1) Idiosyncratic: what is wrong with putting yellow toys in blue box? 2) Agent-neutral: it is not a rule for one child but all children who go to that school should respect this rule. 3) Context-specific: this rule is only valid in this nursery. A child who does not attend this nursery is not expected to follow this rule. 5  Classic view  Children are “egocentric”, “selfish”, “amoral” (Piaget, Kohlberg, Damon) ↳ children are only following rules to avoid punishment rewards. & get 6  Domain Theory: In Piagetian tradition  By age 4, children are able to distinguish different “domains” of social norms (Smetana, 2006; Turiel, 1998).  Interview method: hypothetical scenarios in which people commit norm violations: moral (hitting someone) vs. conventional (eating while standing):  Is it ok for this child to …?  If the teacher says it is ok, is it ok for this child to …?  This child goes to a different school, is it ok for this child to…? Chitting someone) Moral norms Conventional norms min Unchangeable Changeable serin J lessnious Serious Less serious - Punishable Less punishable croreisn] Context-independent Context-dependent Cespunish) Authority-independent Authority-dependent It doesn't matter the context This is more acceptable , of the situation hitting children are likelier to 7 someone is not acceptable say yes situations , in these.  Evidence not consistent with standard view The standard view > selfbh , ego-centric -  Children begin as amoral agents, eventually bound by rules Recent  Only gradually begin to reason morally ↳ Evidence against Piaget/Kohlberg  Infants/young children show important precursors C Infants to morality: early prosociality have  Even young children show sophisticated underst anding understanding of social norms. of moral behavious kidsunderstaa ↳byage ruler. to follow these 8  Two-step model > - development Tomasello & Vaish (2012): Two key steps in the ONTOGENY of human morality  Step 1: Second-person morality before age 3 (Preference) “I don’t like to see you suffer” “I like to help you”T what  Helping, sympathy they do.  Collaboration and sharing prefer to  Step 2: Preschoolers’ norm-based morality (Agent-neutral) I - “People should not harm others” “People should help each other”  Enforcement of social norms  (Guilt and shame) everyonshould act a certain "no-one should break rules " ( way obligation, 9  Two-step model  Second-personal morality: my friends D · me & Age 1 – 3 me & you · Age 0 – 3 S focus on this in. age preferences  Norm-based (agent-neutral) morality: is RIGHT - Age 3 + this is when they start focusing on moral obligations. Tomasello, M. & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–55. Becomes sophisticated after age 3 10  Step One: Second-person morality  Infancy: 0-12-months:  Empathy  Social preferences  Ages 1-3: More “active” prosociality  Helping, sympathy  Collaboration and sharing 11  another They were more distressed when they heard · rather than when they heard themselves baby cry crying. · Newborns don't like Empathy distress. nearing other babies in Own crying Other newborn’s crying Newborn distress was significantly greater for other babies’ cries than for their own recorded crying Dondi et al. (1999) 12  Social Preferences: “Good” over “Bad”  Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom (2007): 6- and 10-month old infants prefer “good guys” (“helpers”) to “bad guys” (“hinderers”): Infants prefer helpers · to · Winderserefer helpersto neutral. Infants ↳ · prefer neutral this circle to hinderers. do not help s goaltoofclimb up is hinder. or the hill. which  - “Helpers” to “Hinderers” was a · There hinderer & the were square “Helpers” to “Neutral” objects the helper.  triangle was  “Neutral” objects to “ Hinderers”Babies touched the helping 2nd -3rd Shape (triangle) more  Helpers – Neutral objects – Hinderers because it was portrayed as the good guy. http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/05/04/magazine/1247467772000/can-babies-tell-right-from-wrong.html 13 Methodological differences  Indirect measures are used with younger children (infants): touching one object over another, preferential looking. a the prefer the object over other one.  Ages 1-3: Active behavioral paradigms (directly dealing with “moral behavior or sentiments”)  Helping, sympathy  Collaboration and sharing 14 Active Helping at age 1 and 2: (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006) (Warneken, Chen, & Tomasello, 2006) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-eU5xZW7cU 15  Active helping at age 1-2 (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006)  Children read the intentions/goals of individuals and determine whether that individual needs help or not. the door for the They help open adultor  Children help others to achieve their goals. grab object  “He wants to open the door but his hands are not free” for them. when ↑ hand an adultis holdingthenset need help).  When adults are in the exact same situation but make it clear that he is not interested in opening the cabinet, children do not help. L children don't help when  Control conditions realise an adult doesn't They help. wantneed any 16  Motivation for helping: Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation?  Intrinsic motivation: One does things because it feels nice and right  Extrinsic motivation: One does things because of external rewards (e.g., praise, money) 17 Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation? Hepach, Vaish, & Tomasello (2012)  Pupil dilation: indicating distress distressing larger at - pupils get  Adult needs help: events -  “Help” condition:  Children’s distress is reduced  The child helps the adult (reduced pupil dilation)  “No-Help” condition: -neutral/innate  Children’s distress remained  No one helps the adult  “Other-help” condition  Children’s distress is reduced  Some else helps the adult (reduced pupil dilation) As long as the adult received help, regardless of by whom, children’s distress was reduced others help , childrens distress When they can help or when is reduced (reduced dialation (small). large. 18 When no one helps - child distress remained  Intrinsic or extrinsic motivation? Hepach, R., Vaish, A., & Tomasello, M. (2017). Child Development  What if the child causes the harm himself and someone else helps the “victim” before the child? When they caused the harm, they want to ↳  help themselves! to be when the child causes harm , they want. adult the one to help the 19  Selective helping Will 3-year-olds help one of the following people or a neutral person? Children avoided to help these two  Harmful person: destroys someone’s picture conditions! with  Helpful person: helps someone (people bad intentions)  Neutral person: does not help or harm anyone  Intended but failed to harm  Accidental harm I do disguise children action? intentions but not the children pay attention to harm they cause. Vaish, A., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children selectively avoid helping people with harmful intentions. Child Development, 81 (6), 1661–1669. 20  Helping comes naturally  Early emergence  Ineffectiveness of encouragement & rewards western > - not just  Cross-culturally similar in infants culture.  Rootedness in sympathetic emotions ↳ like when infants  Cognitively flexible don't like hearing cry other babies. ↳ children will only help if they feel needs it. like the adult 21  to be helpful to others. taught Children aren't “Naturally”  As opposed to “culturally” (Tomasello, 1999)  Does not mean independent of social experience, but only not taught or imitated  And only at early ages; once kids are helping, socialization can then “shape” it 22  Collaboration  What about children worked together with a peer and earned something together. (each put equal effort).  One child gets lucky (e.g., get more rewards than the partner)  Will children notice the “unfairness”? Will they make things “fair” by sharing? ↳ Do they treat their ? partners as equal  Towards Step 2 – sense of fairness and deservingness emerging  Seeing my partner as “equal”  If we put same effort, we should get the same rewards. 23  Collaborating and sharing  2- to 3-year-olds  Unequal distribution of resources: 1 vs. 3 collaborated together marbles r) They shared equally. they when ,  Collaboration  Children shared the marbles equally  Parallel Work  Children did not share the marbles ↳ when they worked separately ↓ they didn't share equally. Hamann et al. (2011). Nature. 24 Collaborating and sharing: Experimental condition 25 Hamann et al. (2011). Nature.  Summary  Early prosocial morality based on second-personal interactions and relationships [0-3 years of age].  Helping and concern about other individuals emerges early and comes naturally.  Children are motivated to collaborate and consider their partners as equal.  “Natural” morality becomes increasingly flexible.  Morality begins in dyadic interactions without group norms.  Second-personal! ↳ medyou. 26  Two-step model Tomasello & Vaish (2012): Two key steps in the ONTOGENY of human morality  Step 1: Second-person morality before age 3 (Preference) “I don’t like to see you suffer” “I like to help you”  Helping, sympathy  Collaboration and sharing  Step 2: Preschoolers’ norm-based morality (Agent-neutral) “People should not harm others” “People should help each other”  Enforcement of social norms  (Guilt and shame) 27  How can full-fledged morality be investigated? se  How do young children make moral judgments? they ?  Evaluation of an action as right or wrong - wat is righeng Do children have normative expectations? expense   Do they enforce norms on others? ↳ Dochildren  Do young children appreciate generality of norms? ↓   Do they enforce norms as an unaffected - > observer? Impersonal perspective (“We/one should do X”) tirdesorenter - harm. 12 I am not the victim a I observe someone doing shouldn't Do I act on it ? Do I tell person they the be doing it ? 28  Limitations of moral judgment studies  Interview method relies on verbal ability, hypothetical thinking, counterfactual reasoning.  Cannot observe young children.  Is moral judgment enough?  I might know what is wrong or bad but may not act on this knowledge?  Moral judgment in action:  Do children enforce norms on others?  Do young children appreciate generality of norms?  Do they enforce norms as an unaffected observer?  Do they have an impersonal perspective (“One should do X”)? 29  Moral judgment in action  Experimental studies  How do children react when they witness norm violations? (Rakoczy, Warneken, & Tomasello, 2008).  2- and 3-year-olds were taught a novel game called “daxing”. Then children witness puppet playing the game wrong.  3-year-olds intervened using “normative” - language.  “No you shouldn’t do that.”  “No that is not how it goes.” they it told them how should be done.  “One has to put it there.” 30 Norm enforcement in peer interactions friend their ↓ dog when S, a - Köymen et al (2014) 31  Norm enforcement in peer interactions animal. · child A learnt the colour game 3- and 5-year-olds. ↑ -Child B learnt the game  Incompatible condition: conflicting rules  Child A: Hedgehogs here, ducks there J eer conflicting  Child B: Green ones here, yellow ones there  Compatible condition: same rules  Child A: Green ones here, yellow ones there  Hedgehogs here, ducks there Child B: Hedgehogs here, ducks there James Green ones here, yellow ones there Köymen et al (2014) 32 Incompatible Context: 3-year olds Köymen et al (2014) 33 Incompatible Context: 3-year olds Köymen et al (2014) 34  Normative Conflict  Both 3- and 5-year-olds protested and corrected their peers’ actions  “No that is not how it goes. You have to put the yellow ones there”  It took 3-year-olds much longer to resolve the conflict and agree one a rule than 5-year-olds. - rules can be changedittable.  What the peer is suggesting is a “reasonable” alternative.  3-year-olds did not realize that the experimenter was the reason for disagreement.  The normative understanding gets more flexible in later preschool years. Köymen et al (2014) 35  Is norm enforcement universal? Kanngiesser at al., (2021)  5- to 8-year-old children from eight highly diverse societies enforced conventional norms (i.e., game rules) when they observed a peer who apparently broke them.  Germany, Argentina (2 samples), Kenya (2 samples), Namibia, India, Bolivia  Style of enforcement varied across societies.  Imperative protest vs normative protest & ↳some cultures were imperative protest. some were normative protest  Third-party enforcement of conventional norms appears to be a human universal that is expressed in culturally variable ways. 36  Intervention against moral norm violations Property rights: “Mine!”  Rossano, Rakoczy, & Tomasello (2011): 2- and 3-year-olds.  An actor took away and threw away objects belonging to  himself,  the child  a third party.  Both 2- and 3-year-olds protested frequently when their own object was involved.  Only 3-year-old children stood up for the property rights of a third party. ↳ ea for 3 olds Year stood upor 37 there.  So why do children transgress? law. ↳ Violate a Possible reasons: (break rules) 1. Don’t know it’s wrong (failure of knowledge) 2. Didn’t consider that it would hurt someone else (failure of empathy/perspective- taking/theory of mind) 3. Knew it was wrong or would hurt someone but did it anyway (failure of inhibition) 38  Do other species have norms?  Understanding of norms  Social groups of chimpanzees: when there is food in the middle, the dominant chimp eats everything (Melis et al., 2006). ↳Chimpanzees do not norms because  Is this “routine” a norm? have they know they  Perhaps respect for the alpha male? would get Punished if they ate before the  Dominance! dominant chimp.  Subordinate chimps let alpha male to eat everything out of respect but out of fear.- they have respect & fear for  Chimps do not have this “collective” the dominant understanding. chimp. 39  Chimpanzees Melis et al. (2006). Animal Behavior. 40  Summary  Contrary to the traditional views, young children are not amoral agents.  By age 3, young children display sophisticated understanding of morality.  They intervene to third-party norm violations, when they are the observer and unaffected by the transgression  In their interventions they use “normative” protests highlighting “obligation” and “agent-neutrality”:  Everybody playing this game has to follow these rules.  This agent-neutral understanding of norms paves the way to larger social contracts and social institutions: marriage, laws, etc. 41