revision for quiz 3.docx

**LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN BABIES**   Language is specific to human beings. - No other animal uses language like we do. Even Gorillas, who share about 98% of our DNA, don't have the same language abilities. There does appear to be a critical period for language development (Lenneberg...

**LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN BABIES**   Language is specific to human beings. - No other animal uses language like we do. Even Gorillas, who share about 98% of our DNA, don't have the same language abilities. There does appear to be a critical period for language development (Lenneberg, 1967). - Language development in babies is a really lively area of research, known as developmental psycholinguistics. Let's not confuse communication with language. Human beings communicate in lots of different ways, but our primary mode of communication is spoken language. - Every human group known has a language, and their children show an extraordinarily regular developmental progression for language. - Children tend to say their first word around their first birthdays. After producing single word utterances, they start stringing words together, following grammatical rules without ever having been explicitly taught. By the time they\'re between four and five years old, children are producing utterances that are basically as long as fully fluent speakers of the language.     **KOLO THE GORILLA**   - Language is intrinsic to humans, our minds, and culture. - While there are other ways to communicate, language is unique and special to humans. - Koko, a gorilla, was trained in American Sign Language for 40 years by Penny Patterson, a developmental psychologist. - Despite intensive training, Koko's abilities are limited compared to a normal three-year-old human. - She can sign single words and combine them into simple phrases like "Koko love" and "Hungry bad." - Koko has not been able to form more complex sentences, even after decades of training. - Some believe animals could develop language if they had the right anatomy or upbringing, but there is no evidence supporting this. - No non-human animal possesses the complex language system that humans have---language is unique to humans.     **ORIGINS OF LANGUAGE IN INFANCY:**   **PART A - WHAT LANGUAGE CAN BABIES UNDERSTAND?**   - Babies begin learning language very early, even before they start speaking. - In the first year of life, babies are already picking up language through babbling, even though they aren't using recognizable words. - Babies are born with a preference for the language they will speak, showing sensitivity to the sounds, intonations, and rhythms of that language (Moon, Cooper, & Fifer, 1993). - This language awareness begins in the womb, where they start to pick up elements of the language around them. - At birth, babies are more sensitive to the sounds of languages than older children and adults, able to distinguish between sounds from different languages. - Different languages use various sounds, intonations, and phonetic distinctions to convey meaning, which babies are attuned to early on. - For example, in Chinese, different intonations of the sound "ma" can mean mother, hemp, horse, or scold. - Certain sound differences that are distinct in one language might not exist in another. For instance, English speakers can differentiate between \"b\" and \"v\" sounds, but Spanish speakers hear them as the same sound. Similarly, English speakers may struggle with sound distinctions in German, like "Leben" and "Lieben.\"   **PART B - WHAT LANGUAGE CAN BABIES UNDERSTAND**   - Babies are born with the ability to hear phonetic distinctions from all languages, but this sensitivity declines as they approach their first birthday. - As they grow, babies become less sensitive to sounds not used in their native language, tuning in to the sounds that carry meaning in the language they will speak. - Infants are sensitive to linguistic input, and adults help structure that input through \"motherese\" or infant-directed speech. - **Motherese** is characterized by slow, repetitive speech with high and low intonations, which is different from adult-directed speech. - Babies prefer motherese, and it helps them recognize word boundaries by emphasizing and repeating key words, making language easier to learn. - Repetition in infant-directed speech, combined with gestures, helps babies map words to meanings in the world around them. - Babies are naturally attuned to language from birth, and the way adults speak to them helps them begin to pick up and understand language.     **PART A - WHAT LANGUAGE CAN BABIES PRODUCE?**   - Babies start babbling from birth, making a wide variety of sounds, not just crying. - Like their ears, babies\' tongues are ready to produce every possible sound, and over the first year, they hone in on the sounds of their native language. - Early babbling sounds universal, but as babies approach their first birthday, their babbling becomes more specific to the language they are learning. - By around 10 months, the babbling begins to sound like the consonant-vowel pairings common in the language they will speak, with the first recognizable words often appearing around 12 months. - Babies learning sign language also babble, but they do so with their hands, making approximations of signs that become clearer as they approach their first birthday.       **PART B - WHAT LANGUAGE CAN BABIES PRODUCE?**   - One of the most important behaviours all babies exhibit, regardless of the language they're learning, is spontaneous pointing. - Humans point naturally, while non-human primates only point in certain captive settings and rarely in the wild. - Babies point to request something or share an experience, which is unique to humans and not observed spontaneously in other species. - Pointing is closely linked to language development; it typically precedes a baby's first word. - When babies point and say a word, like \"bottle,\" they are drawing attention to something in the world, using both gestures and language to communicate. - Once babies realize they can point, they use both pointing and language to refer to objects and experiences.   **FOUNDATIONS OF WORD LEARNING**     **How do babies make sense of language?**   - Babies learn language not just through simple association but by using sophisticated social skills. - One theory suggests that babies link words to objects by hearing the word and seeing the object (e.g., \"bottle\"), but this is often more complex in real-life situations. - Canadian psychologist Dare Baldwin\'s 1991 study showed that babies don't just associate words with what they're looking at; instead, they follow the speaker's gaze to identify the correct referent. - This behavior, known as \"joint attention,\" helps babies understand what words refer to by observing the speaker\'s focus, starting as early as 16 months. Sophisticated social skills to make sense of what they are looking at/ learning about. - Social interaction is crucial for language learning; children of deaf parents who learn sign language don't acquire spoken language from watching TV but only through direct social communication. - Simply hearing words isn't enough---babies need rich social interaction to fully learn language.       **BABYS FIRST WORDS:**   - Babies typically utter their first words around their first birthday, though it can vary significantly. - It\'s only concerning if a child isn\'t speaking by age three, at which point testing for hearing or other developmental issues is recommended. - The first word is usually a noun, often referring to something familiar in the child\'s environment, like a \"door\" or \"ball.\" - Early vocabularies are mostly nouns, with a few action words and pragmatic social phrases like \"bye-bye.\"     **ERRORS IN LANGUAGE:**   - From around one year to 18 months, children enter the one-word stage, where they mainly use single-word nouns (e.g., \"chair,\" \"doggie,\" \"car\") while pointing to objects. - During this stage, children make two notable types of referential errors:   - **Overextension Errors**: This occurs when a child uses a word for a broader category than intended. For example, a child might call a cricket ball or a light bulb \"moon,\" even though they previously used the term correctly for the moon. - **Under extension Errors**: Less common, this happens when a child applies a general word too narrowly, treating it as a proper noun (e.g., recognizing their family pet as \"dog\" but not applying the term to other dogs).   - These errors reflect children's developing understanding of language and the social context in which they learn new words.     **LANGUAGE ERRORS AND DEVELOPMENT**   - **Overextension and Under extension Errors**: Children make overextension errors (e.g., calling any round object \"moon\") due to limited vocabulary, wanting to participate in conversation despite knowing the specific reference of words. In contrast, under extension errors occur when children apply a general term too narrowly (e.g., knowing \"dog\" only for their pet and not recognizing other dogs). - **Understanding of Language**: One view suggests that until around 18 months, children don't fully grasp that words refer to specific objects, leading to both types of errors. As they learn around 50 to 75 words, their understanding improves, and they begin to manage references more accurately. - **Naming Explosion**: Between 18 to 24 months, children experience a \"naming explosion,\" rapidly acquiring vocabulary at a rate of about nine words a day, often through interactive games like asking \"What\'s that?\" This may reflect either a learned understanding of language or a biological change in the brain facilitating rapid language acquisition. - **Vocabulary Growth**: By age six, children typically have 12,000 to 14,000 words, compared to about 25,000 words for adults. The shift from simple naming to word combinations marks a significant developmental leap, showcasing a remarkable understanding of grammar with very few word order errors. - **Telegraphic Speech**: In this two- to three-word stage, children demonstrate clear comprehension of syntax, distinguishing between different word orders effectively. Following this stage, children begin to engage in more complex and continuous speech. - Word order is basically grammar       **PART A: LEARNING FROM CHILDRENS LANGUAGE ERRORS**   - **Language Acquisition at Three Years**: A three-year-old child demonstrates remarkable language fluency, having only been speaking for about two and a half years. This development is impressive given the concurrent learning of various skills such as walking, dressing, and understanding social norms. - **Regional Dialect and Fluency**: The child shows a regional dialect, indicating early exposure to specific linguistic environments. Despite her fluency, she makes some grammatical errors, which are typical at this developmental stage. - **Focus of Study**: Developmental psycholinguists often analyze children\'s utterances up to the three-word stage. Beyond this point, due to the abundance of language produced by children, researchers may shift their focus to examining language errors, which, although infrequent, provide valuable insights into the cognitive processes involved in language acquisition. - Context, and studying errors can provide a clear cognitive process of the time.       **PART B - LEARNING FROM CHILDRENS LANGAUGE ERRORS**   - **Overregularization Errors**: The girl in the video used the phrase \"blowed up,\" showcasing a common language phenomenon in young children known as overregularization errors. This occurs when children incorrectly apply grammatical rules, such as adding "-ed" to verbs. - **U-Shaped Curve**: Research shows that children\'s correct usage of past tense forms follows a U-shaped curve from ages three to eight. Initially, children correctly use past forms (e.g., "blew up"), but around age three, they begin to overregularize, saying forms like "blowed up" and "eated." These errors persist until about age eight, when they start to learn the exceptions to the rules. - **Mapping and Rule Extraction**: The hypothesis suggests that young children initially map words to their meanings without fully understanding grammatical rules. As they develop, they extract grammatical rules but overapply them. Eventually, they learn the irregular forms, leading to the decline of overregularization errors by age eight. - **Independent Learning Process**: This overregularization phenomenon is not linked to formal education but occurs naturally as children internalize language rules and exceptions, a key focus in developmental psycholinguistics.       **HOW DO CHILDREN LEARN LANGUAGE:**   **NATURE VERSUS NURTURE IN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT:**   - **Two Views on Language Learning**: There are two primary perspectives on language acquisition: the **innate view** (nature) and the **learned view** (nurture). - **Innate View (Nature)**: This perspective, attributed to Noam Chomsky in the 1960s, posits that humans are biologically predisposed to learn language. It suggests that language acquisition is coded into our genes and facilitated by a brain structure specifically designed for this purpose. The phenomenon of overregularization supports this argument, indicating that certain language development processes occur internally and naturally. - **Learned View (Nurture)**: Prior to Chomsky, the prevailing belief was that language is learned through association and social interaction. This view holds that children acquire language by imitating others and through mechanisms such as reinforcement and correction (e.g., correct utterances being understood as rewards and incorrect ones leading to misunderstandings or corrections). Key theorists like Tomasello, Strosberg, and Akhtar support this view, emphasizing that general learning mechanisms like association, imitation, and shaping are sufficient for language learning. - **Debate**: The debate between these two views centers on whether the complexity of language acquisition can be fully explained by simple associative and imitative processes or if it requires an inherent biological predisposition.       **THE NATURE VIEW IN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT:**     - **Nature vs. Nurture in Language Acquisition**: The debate revolves around whether language learning is an innate ability or a learned behavior. - **Innatism Arguments**: - **Developmental Regularity**: Innatists point to the consistent milestones in language acquisition across cultures, such as the first word emerging around 12 months and the two-word stage starting around 18 months. This suggests an inherent biological process rather than solely environmental influence. - **Poverty of the Input**: This concept argues that the linguistic input children receive is too limited to account for the complexity of language they produce. For example, a child might say \"blowed up\" even when surrounded by adults using the correct form \"blew up,\" raising questions about the source of such deviations. - **Innovative Language Use**: Research by Jean Berko Gleason demonstrated that children could generate novel forms of language. In her experiment, children labeled a fictional creature as a \"wug\" and correctly pluralized it to \"wugs\" despite never having encountered the term before. This ability to apply grammatical rules suggests that language acquisition stems from innate cognitive processes rather than learned associations or imitation. - **Conclusion**: Innatisms argue that these factors support the notion of a specialized language acquisition mechanism in the brain, enabling children to generate language creatively beyond mere imitation or social learning.     **THE NURTURE VIEW IN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT:** - **Nurture View on Language Development**: - **Complexity of Human Abilities**: Proponents argue that, while language is complex, it's part of a broader range of human capabilities. Humans can accomplish various complex tasks, suggesting that language learning fits within the general ability to learn. - **Learning Mechanisms**: According to this view, language is learned similarly to other skills, supported by continuous linguistic input and social interaction. - **Language Variation**: The existence of diverse languages worldwide challenges the idea of a genetic predisposition for a specific language structure. If language were solely innate, there would be less variation, and a universal language like Esperanto might prevail. - **Lack of Universal Grammar**: Attempts to identify a common underlying structure (universal grammar) across all languages have been unsuccessful, indicating that language acquisition may not be strictly determined by genetics. - **Impact of Environment**: - **Role of Input**: The rate of language development significantly varies based on environmental factors. Research shows that children from high socio-economic backgrounds who are read to regularly can have nearly twice the vocabulary of their peers from lower socio-economic backgrounds by age two. This suggests that the amount and quality of language exposure directly influence language acquisition. - **Ongoing Debate**: The discussion between the nature and nurture perspectives on language development remains unresolved, highlighting the complex interplay between innate abilities and environmental influences in learning language.     **PART A - CRITICAL PERIOD FOR LANGUAGE ACQUISITION:**   - **Chomsky's Theory of Innate Language Acquisition**: - **Language Acquisition Device (LAD)**: Noam Chomsky proposed that humans are born with a genetically coded device that enables rapid language learning through minimal input. This device accounts for the regular and efficient acquisition of grammatical structures, resulting in few errors within the first 18 months of life. - **Critical Period Hypothesis**: Chomsky's view includes the idea that there is a critical period for language acquisition, during which children can learn language effortlessly. This contrasts with adults, who often need formal study to learn languages. The critical period hypothesis suggests that if language input occurs during this time, language acquisition will be more successful. - **Genie Case Study**: - **Background**: Genie, a girl who suffered severe abuse and neglect, was locked in a closet and isolated from language input until the age of 13. Her father, who was abusive and psychotic, did not speak to her, limiting her exposure to language. - **Discovery and Aftermath**: After being discovered, Genie was taken to a developmental psycholinguist who aimed to teach her language. This case garnered significant media attention and became pivotal in debates about the nature of language acquisition, particularly in relation to the critical period hypothesis. - **Research Significance**: Although Genie\'s case was a case study and not a controlled experiment, it provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of early language deprivation on language learning and development.   **PART B - CRITICAL PERIOD FOR LANGUAGE ACQUISTION**   - **Susan Curtiss\'s Findings**: In her 1977 book \"Genie: Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day \'Wild Child\'\", Curtiss described Genie as sweet and communicative, but noted that her vocabulary was limited and she struggled with grammar, consistently making word order errors. This posed challenges in assessing her language development due to her unique background and severe early deprivation. - **Genie\'s Outcome**: After her language acquisition attempts, Genie faced tragic circumstances; her mother was institutionalized, her father was deceased, and she herself ended up in an institution. This outcome highlights the complexities and difficulties she faced, making her case even more poignant in discussions about language acquisition. - **Critical Period Hypothesis Evidence**: While Genie\'s case provides some support for the critical period hypothesis, confounding variables make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Other studies suggest a critical period exists, such as the difficulties deaf children of non-signing parents face if they don't learn sign language by age seven or eight, and the accents of immigrants who move after this age. - **Conclusion**: Overall, there appears to be a critical period for language acquisition, supported by both Genie\'s case and additional research. After this period, language learning becomes more challenging and the processes involved differ, reinforcing the nature view of language acquisition.        Learning Goals:   **Moral development** By completing this topic you will be able to: - Explain what moral development is. - Explain the social learning theory of moral development. - Explain and evaluate the cognitive theories of moral development. - Evaluate Kohlberg's theory of moral development and understand alternative perspectives.     INTRODUCTION:   **MORAL DEVELOPMENT:**   - **Moral Basis**: Most people operate on a moral basis, possessing a strong sense of right and wrong that they often hold firmly. This moral development is a gradual process from infancy to adulthood. - **Case Study of Immature Morality**: A recent incident involving teenagers who filmed themselves breaking iPhones in Apple Stores highlights an immature moral code. Instead of taking responsibility, they blamed Apple, reflecting a lack of moral understanding and accountability. - **Complexity of Moral Issues**: Moral dilemmas often encompass both logical and emotional aspects, and many lack clear right answers. Examples include debates around euthanasia, the death penalty, and economic redistribution, all of which require nuanced reasoning that develops over time. - **Theories of Moral Development**: There are various theories of moral development. The session will explore two primary theories: social learning theory and cognitive theory, beginning with social learning theory.       **SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT:**   - **Social Learning Theory**: This theory posits that children learn morals primarily by imitating adults. They observe both moral and immoral behaviours and are influenced by the rewards and punishments that adults provide. - **Parental Influence**: Parents play a significant role in shaping their children\'s moral development, establishing boundaries that guide their understanding of right and wrong, which can place considerable pressure on them. - **Albert Bandura\'s Study**: Bandura, a key figure in social learning theory, conducted a landmark study in 1963 using a Bobo doll---a weighted inflatable clown toy. In the experiment, children watched a film of an adult exhibiting aggressive behaviour toward the Bobo doll, such as punching and kicking it. - **Observation of Behaviour**: After viewing the film, the children were placed in a room with various toys, including the Bobo doll, and their behaviour was observed to determine if they would mimic the aggressive actions they had seen.     **BOBO DOLL EXPERIMENT EXPLAINED:**   - **Moral Development**: - Children learn morality primarily through social learning. - They imitate adults and are influenced by rewards and punishments. - Parents play a significant role in shaping children\'s moral understanding. - **Social Learning Theory**: - Proposes that children learn moral behaviour by observing adults. - **Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment (1963)**: - Children watched an adult behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll. - Children who observed aggression mimicked this behaviour, even inventing new aggressive actions. - Children not exposed to aggressive modelling did not exhibit aggressive behaviour. - **Key Findings**: - Observing violence does not reduce violent tendencies; children imitate observed behaviours. - Raises concerns about the influence of violent media (TV, video games) on child behaviour. - Highlights that children learn from what they see, regardless of whether it's moral or immoral behaviour.     **PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY:**   - **Limitations of Social Learning Theory**: - Children can sometimes display more moral behaviour than their parents, indicating other sources of moral learning. - Example: A child questions a parent\'s speeding, showing awareness of moral standards beyond parental influence. - **Developmental Changes in Moral Reasoning**: - Children's moral reasoning evolves and is not identical to adult reasoning. - Moral reasoning becomes more systematic and complex as children\'s cognitive abilities develop.       **COGNITIVE THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT:** - **Moral Dilemmas**: - The focus is on how individuals justify decisions in moral dilemmas, not just the outcomes. - **Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg**: - Both studied how children reason through moral dilemmas. - Their work is linked to children\'s cognitive development, making it a cognitive theory of moral development. - **Piaget's Stages of Moral Development**: - Piaget proposed that children progress through stages of moral development. - He assessed children's stages by presenting moral stories to analyze their reasoning. - Example Story: - Marie broke a cup while trying to reach for jam without permission. - Sue accidentally broke 15 cups while rushing to dinner. - Children are asked which girl was naughtier, highlighting their reasoning process.   **PIAGETS STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT:** **Summary of Piaget\'s Stages of Moral Development:** - **Heteronomous Morality Stage (Ages 4-8):** - **Children focus on rules and outcomes rather than intentions.** - **They believe rules have innate authority and must be followed to avoid punishment.** - **For example, they consider the number of broken cups (e.g., 15 vs. 1) to determine naughtiness, ignoring the intent behind the actions.** - **Autonomous Morality Stage (Ages 8 and Up):** - **Children begin to understand that laws are social constructs with underlying purposes.** - **They recognize that rules can be negotiable and that intent matters.** - **This stage marks the development of an internalized sense of morality, where children follow rules based on their own understanding rather than solely to avoid trouble.** Overall, Piaget\'s theory illustrates the shift in moral reasoning from a simplistic adherence to rules in childhood to a more nuanced understanding of morality in adolescence and adulthood, explaining why children and adults reason differently.     **THE STORY ABOUT JOE:** **Summary of Kohlberg\'s Moral Development Theory:** - **Kohlberg\'s Expansion on Piaget:** - Kohlberg built on Piaget\'s work, exploring moral reasoning further. - He studied 84 boys and men, aged 5 to adulthood, using moral dilemmas to assess their reasoning. - **Six Stages of Moral Development:** - Kohlberg identified six stages of moral development based on participants\' responses to dilemmas. - **Example Dilemma:** - In one scenario, a 14-year-old boy named Joe saved \$100 to attend camp but is asked by his father to give him that money for a fishing trip instead. - The dilemma questions whether Joe should refuse to give his father the money, prompting discussions about moral reasoning regarding promises, obligations, and fairness.   This framework emphasizes the complexity of moral decision-making as individuals progress through different stages of understanding.       **SHOULD JOE GIVE HIS FATHER THE MONEY?**   **Summary of the Discussion on Joe\'s Dilemma:** - **Common Perspective:\ **Most people believe Joe should not give his father the money since his father broke a promise, which is deemed unfair. Joe fulfilled his part of the bargain, while his father did not. - **Counterargument:\ **Some might argue that giving the money could be a way for Joe to contribute to the household, acknowledging the support he receives (like housing and education). This view frames the action as fair reciprocity. - **Kohlberg\'s Focus:\ **The key interest for Kohlberg is not whether the answers are right or wrong, but the reasoning behind those decisions. He emphasizes the importance of being able to articulate one\'s moral reasoning. - **Age Consideration:\ **The moral implications may change if Joe were 18, as his financial situation and the value of \$100 could differ. This highlights the complexity of moral reasoning and the varying rationales that influence decisions. - **Complexity of Moral Reasoning:\ **Both children and adults often operate on instinct rather than fully analyzing potential moral outcomes. Understanding the nuances of moral reasoning takes time and experience.       **KOLBERGS\'S FIRST FOUR STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT:** **Summary of Kohlberg\'s Levels of Morality:** - **Three Levels of Morality:** - **Preconventional Morality: Comprises two stages where children focus on avoiding punishment (Stage 1) and recognizing their own desires (Stage 2).** - ***Stage 1:* Children may argue Joe should give the money to avoid punishment, demonstrating egocentric reasoning based on external laws.** - ***Stage 2:* Children acknowledge Joe\'s right to keep his money, emphasizing fairness but still maintaining a self-centred viewpoint.** - **Conventional Morality:** This level is typically reached in adolescence or early adulthood, with two additional stages. - ***Stage 3:* Children argue against Joe giving the money, recognizing the importance of hard work and the promises made by his father. This reflects a growing understanding of social relationships.** - ***Stage 4:* Responses become more complex, with children reasoning about societal principles, such as respect for property and communal rights. They begin to consider broader societal implications and expectations.** Kohlberg\'s framework illustrates a progression from egocentric to more socially oriented moral reasoning as children mature, emphasizing the development of interpersonal and societal perspectives.       **KOLHBERG\'S ADDITIONAL TWO STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT:**   - **Postconventional Morality:** - **Comprises two stages, but not everyone reaches them; they represent a minority of adults.** - **These stages are seen as universal morals that apply across cultures, reflecting a \"prior-to-society\" perspective.** - **Stage 5:** - **Reasoning includes the idea that individuals have the right to property as long as it doesn\'t infringe on others\' rights. This perspective emphasizes fundamental human rights applicable globally.** - **Stage 6:** - **Represents morality guided by personal conscience, independent of societal expectations. This is often associated with moral leaders like Gandhi or Mother Teresa.** - **Developmental Progression:** - **Kohlberg's stages are linear, but individuals can access reasoning from multiple stages at different times.** - **Research shows that moral reasoning evolves with age: children start with egocentric reasoning (Stages 1 and 2), transition to interpersonal reasoning (Stage 3) during adolescence, and begin to adopt societal and rights-based reasoning (Stage 4) in early adulthood.** - **Graph Analysis:** - **The graph illustrates a developmental trend: younger individuals predominantly use egocentric reasoning, while older individuals shift towards principles and broader societal considerations.** - **Although Stage 5 reasoning increases slightly in adulthood, it remains limited in the overall population.** Overall, Kohlberg's theory outlines a developmental trajectory in moral reasoning, moving from self-centred perspectives to a more complex understanding of societal and ethical principles.         **CAROL GILLIGAN\'S APPROACH TO MORAL DEVELOPMENT:**   **Summary of Limitations in Kohlberg\'s Theory:** - **Gender Bias:** - **Kohlberg\'s study focused solely on boys and men, leading to challenges regarding the applicability of his findings across genders. This limitation sparked research into gender differences in moral reasoning.** - **Modern Approaches:** - **Recent studies have explored specific domains of moral reasoning and the influence of parental roles on children\'s moral understanding.** - **Carol Gilligan\'s Challenge:** - **A former student of Kohlberg, Gilligan conducted her own study with both men and women. She found that women often reasoned at Stage 3, focusing on personal relationships and sacrifices, while men tended to reason at Stage 4, emphasizing rights and societal order.** - **Gilligan argued that these differences reflect a cooperative orientation (often seen in women) versus a justice orientation (often seen in men).** - **Implications of Findings:** - **Gilligan\'s work suggests that Kohlberg may have overestimated the importance of his stages by not considering different types of moral reasoning, indicating that moral reasoning varies across individuals rather than adhering strictly to a linear progression.** Overall, Gilligan\'s critique highlights the need for a more inclusive understanding of moral development that accounts for gender differences and varying moral perspectives.       **MORAL RULES VERSUS SOCIAL CONVENTIONAL RULES:** - **Moral Rules vs. Social Conventions:** - **Moral rules are universal principles concerning harm, welfare, and fairness (e.g., killing, hurting others, and stealing are universally condemned).** - **Social conventions are subjective and arbitrary rules that govern social order and organization (e.g., driving rules, dress codes). These conventions do not necessarily reflect moral principles and are not vital to morality.** - **Universality of Morality:** - **Moral standards are generally consistent across cultures, while social conventions can vary significantly. For instance, the moral imperative against harming others is upheld universally, irrespective of cultural background.** - **Intersection of Morality and Social Conventions:** - **Although moral issues and social conventions are distinct, they can overlap. For example, social conventions like queuing can serve moral purposes by promoting fairness, as they ensure that those who have waited longest are served first.** Overall, while moral rules are based on universal ethical principles, social conventions are more flexible and can sometimes align with moral considerations, particularly in promoting fairness and social order.     **DO CHILDREN UNDERSTAND MORAL VERSUS SOCIAL CONVENTION RULES?**     **Understanding Morality vs. Social Conventions in Children** - **Interview with a Four-Year-Old Girl:** - **Moral Issue: The girl observed a boy named John hit another boy too hard.** - **Experimenter\'s Questions:** - **Observation: \"Did you see what happened?\"** - **Response: \"Yes, they were playing and John hit him too hard.\"** - **Rule Inquiry: \"Is that something you\'re supposed to do or not supposed to do?\"** - **Response: \"Not so hard to hurt.\"** - **Rule Existence: \"Is there a rule about that?\"** - **Response: \"Yes.\"** - **What if No Rule? \"What if there was no rule about hitting hard? Would it be alright to do it then?\"** - **Response: \"No.\"** - **Reasoning: \"Why not?\"** - **Response: \"Because he could get hurt and start to cry.\"** - **Conclusion: The girl understands that hitting is wrong even without a specific rule, indicating an inherent sense of morality.** - **Social Conventional Issue:** - **The girl watched another child get in trouble for being noisy.** - **Experimenter\'s Questions:** - **Observation: \"Did you see what happened?\"** - **Response: \"Yes, they were noisy.\"** - **Rule Inquiry: \"Is that something you\'re supposed to do or not supposed to do?\"** - **Response: \"Not do.\"** - **Rule Existence: \"Is there a rule about that?\"** - **Response: \"Yes, we have to be quiet.\"** - **What if No Rule? \"What if there were no rule? Would it be alright to do then?\"** - **Response: \"Yes.\"** - **Reasoning: \"Why?\"** - **Response: \"Because there is no rule.\"** - **Conclusion: The girl distinguishes that without a rule, being noisy is acceptable, reflecting her understanding of social conventions.** - **Key Insights:** - **Moral vs. Conventional Understanding:** - **Children at a young age (e.g., four) can differentiate between moral issues (e.g., hitting) that are inherently wrong and social conventions (e.g., noise) that are acceptable if rules are absent.** - **Challenge to Piaget and Kohlberg:** - **This ability contradicts the theories of Piaget and Kohlberg, who suggested that children\'s moral reasoning develops in stages and may not recognize such distinctions at a young age.** **Conclusion** Even at four years old, children demonstrate an emerging understanding of morality and social conventions, showing that some actions are wrong regardless of rules, while others depend on established guidelines.       **THE ROLE OF PARENTS:**   **The Influence of Parental Discipline on Children\'s Morality** - **Theories of Morality:** - **Some theories focus on children\'s observations and highlight the role of adults, particularly parents, as crucial models for moral development.** - **Harsh Physical Discipline:** - **Defined as administering physical discipline three or more times a week for various transgressions.** - **Common belief: Harsh discipline will create upstanding moral citizens.** - **The kind of modelling of the Bandrua Bobo Model** - **Consequences of Harsh Discipline:** - **Linked to increased hostility and aggression in children.** - **Similar to findings from the Bandura Bobo Doll Study, where children modeled aggressive behaviors observed in adults.** - **Impact on Moral Development:** - **Harsh physical discipline does not alter children's moral reasoning or moral development.** - **Primarily teaches children to exhibit hostility and aggression rather than developing moral understanding.** - **Parental Influence:** - **While harsh discipline doesn\'t effectively change moral reasoning, parents still play a significant role in shaping children\'s moral thoughts, interactions, and behaviors in moral situations.** **Conclusion** The approach of harsh physical discipline may lead to negative behavioral outcomes, such as aggression, without fostering positive moral reasoning in children. Parents significantly influence their children\'s morality, but the method of discipline employed can have detrimental effects.     **Parenting Styles and Their Influence on Children\'s Moral Reasoning** - **Research Background:** - **Diana Baumrind began studying parenting styles in 1967 to understand their impact on children\'s moral reasoning.** - **Axes of Parenting Styles:** - **Vertical Axis: Sensitivity and Interest in the Child** - **High Sensitivity: Parents consider the child\'s feelings and perspectives and engage in discussions.** - **Low Sensitivity: Parents do not communicate or pay attention to the child\'s thoughts and feelings.** - **Horizontal Axis: Control and Expectations of Children\'s Behavior** - **Low Control: Parents allow poor behavior and have low expectations for academic and social conduct.** - **High Control: Parents actively manage behavior, set high academic standards, and expect politeness.** - **Four Distinct Parenting Styles:** - **Neglectful Parenting:** - **Low control and low sensitivity.** - **Parents do not correct misbehavior and have low expectations for learning.** - **Indulgent Parenting:** - **Low control but high sensitivity.** - **Parents have low expectations for behavior and learning but fulfill the child\'s desires.** - **Authoritarian Parenting:** - **High control but low sensitivity.** - **Parents have high expectations for learning and behavior but are not concerned about the child\'s feelings; often use physical correction.** - **Authoritative Parenting:** - **High control and high sensitivity.** - **Parents monitor behavior closely, set high expectations, and consider the child\'s feelings, engaging in discussions.** **Conclusion** Baumrind\'s model categorizes parenting styles based on sensitivity and control, highlighting how these styles influence children\'s moral reasoning and behavior. Authoritative parenting, characterized by a balance of control and sensitivity, is generally seen as the most beneficial for children\'s moral development.   **Parenting Styles and Children\'s Moral Development** - **Correlations Between Parenting Styles and Moral Development:** - **Authoritarian Parents:** - **High control, low interest, and low sensitivity.** - **Utilize a punishment and reward orientation.** - **Children tend to adopt a similar simplistic moral reasoning, falling into lower stages of moral development according to Piaget and Kohlberg.** - **Indulgent and Neglectful Parents:** - **Tend to raise children who lack social responsibility.** - **These children often do not feel the need to contribute to their social groups and may struggle with authority.** - **Authoritative Parents:** - **High control coupled with high sensitivity.** - **Children are generally socially responsible and altruistic.** - **Reasons for Differences in Moral Reasoning:** - **Sensitivity and Communication:** - **Authoritative parents discuss moral issues with their children, helping them understand the implications of their actions.** - **Example: If a child takes a toy, an authoritative parent would explain the feelings involved and encourage returning it.** - **Correction and control**   - **Authoritarian Approach:** - Often involves yelling or physical punishment without explaining the moral implications. - This approach reinforces a focus on punishment and reward, lacking depth in moral understanding. **Cultural Variations**: - Observations primarily based on Western cultures, where authoritative parenting is more common. - In Eastern cultures, authoritarian parenting is more prevalent and can be equally effective. - Both parenting styles can yield socially responsible children, depending on cultural context. - The effectiveness of a parenting style may depend on how well it aligns with cultural values and expectations.   - Patterns vary depending on different cultures, impacting parenting styles. **Conclusion** While different parenting styles have distinct influences on children\'s moral development, the context of culture plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of these styles. It's not that any single style is inherently better or worse; rather, the fit between parenting style, culture, and the child's needs is key to fostering moral reasoning and social responsibility.   FIND OUT MORE:     **Find out more** - [Moral development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_development) - [Bending iPhones](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2773956/Now-kids-bending-iPhones-Apple-stores-15-year-old-boys-stress-test-6-Plus-break-process.html) - [Social learning theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory) - [Albert Bandura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Bandura) - [Bobo doll experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment) - [Lawrence Kohlberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg) - [Jean Piaget](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget) - [Carol Gilligan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Gilligan) - [Diana Baumrind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Baumrind)   *From \*