Aggression, Altruism, and Moral Development

Aggression, Altruism, and Moral Development

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGGRESSION
Any form of behavior intended to injure or harm a living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment Hostile aggression – goal is to harm a victim Instrumental aggression – harming another is a means to some other end

Origins of Aggression in Infancy Instrumental aggression present by end of first year Conflicts over possessions Declines in second year as sharing becomes more common

Developmental Trends in Aggression 2–3 years, physical retaliation begins 3–5, physical aggression declines, but is replaced by verbal aggression For most children, physical aggression is normal, but relatively rare by middle childhood Decline is in instrumental aggression Hostile aggression increases slightly

Sex Differences By 2 ½–3, males more physically and verbally aggressive than females Due to rougher play with parents More negative parental reaction to aggressive behaviors of daughters Gender-typing of toys Females are more relationally aggressive (covert aggression)

From Aggression to Antisocial Conduct Overt aggression declines from middle childhood through adolescence Relational aggression in females increases Indirect aggression in males increases

VIDEO: Relational Aggression

Is Aggression a Stable Attribute? Yes for many individuals Aggressive toddlers likely to be aggressive 5-year-olds Aggression between 3 and 10 predicts aggression and antisocial behavior later in life

Figure Aggression in childhood predicts criminal behavior in adulthood for both males and females. From “Stability of Aggression over Time and Generations,” by L. R. Huesmann, L. D. Eron, M. M. Lefkowitz, & L. O. Walder, 1984, Developmental Psychology, 20, p Copyright © by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.

Individual Differences in Aggressive Behavior Few individuals are highly aggressive 10–15% of classmates are abused by bullies Proactive aggressors Aggression will produce tangible benefits; enhances self-esteem Reactive aggressors Hostile, retaliatory aggression; wary of others

Dodge’s Social Information-Processing Theory of Aggression Encoding social cues Interpretation of social cues Formulates a goal to resolve situation Generates possible strategies Evaluates strategies for achieving goal Selects response Enacts response

Figure 13.2 Dodge’s social information-processing model of the steps children take when deciding how to respond to harmdoing or other social problems. The boy whose creation is destroyed by another boy’s nudging the table must first encode and interpret the social cues (i.e., did he mean it or was it accidental?) and then proceed through the remaining steps to formulate a response to this harmdoing. Adapted from “A Review and Reformulation of Social Information Processing Mechanisms in Children’s Social Adjustment,” by N. R. Crick & K. A. Dodge, 1994, Psychological Bulletin, 115, p Copyright © 1994 by the American Psychological Association. Adopted by permission.

Reactive aggressors are likely to develop a hostile attribution bias Attribute ambiguous situations as serious and react aggressively Proactive aggressors – plan an aggressive response to achieve an instrumental goal Expect positive outcomes Feel capable of dominating others

Figure A social-cognitive model of the reactive aggressor’s biased attributions about ambiguous harmdoing and their behavioral outcomes.

Perpetrators and Victims of Peer Aggression 17% of students were bullied 19% reported bullying others Boys more likely to be physically bullied Girls more likely to be verbally or psychologically bullied Bullying most common in 6th–8th grades Bullies more likely to use drugs

Habitual bullies – disliked by peers Chronic victims – generally disliked Passive victims – withdrawn, weak, but do not invite aggression Overprotective mothers Provocative victims – irritate peers, fight back unsuccessfully Physically abused at home

Popularity and Aggression Popularity Being well known and accepted by other children Having high status attributes Highly desirable possessions Being liked is not part of the definition Popular children use aggression to maintain status

Cultural and Subcultural Influences on Aggression Differences between cultures are evident Lower SES – more aggression Due to child-rearing differences Physical punishment is higher in low SES families – modeling aggression Difficulty monitoring children

Coercive Home Environments: Breeding Grounds for Aggression Parental Conflict and Children’s Aggression Home conflict increases aggression Parental detachment and withdrawal from conflict is most negative Parents are emotionally unavailable

Families as Social Systems Coercive home environments Families of aggressive children focused on interactions that stopped irritation Negative reinforcement Ignore prosocial behavior Use coercive tactics to deal with misconduct

Methods of Controlling Aggression in Young Children Creating Nonaggressive Environments Remove aggressive toys Provide enough space for play Provide enough toys to reduce competition for scarce resources

Eliminating the Payoffs for Aggression Teach that aggression does not result in desired outcome Incompatible-response technique Ignore aggressive behaviors – eliminates reward of attention Time out technique Reinforce prosocial actions

Social-Cognitive Interventions Use with older children and adolescents Can teach individuals to Regulate anger Increase empathizing with others, taking their perspectives; reduces hostile attributions Generate nonaggressive solutions to conflict

ALTRUISM: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROSOCIAL SELF
Concern for the welfare of others that is expressed through prosocial behavior Prosocial behavior Any action intended to benefit another

Origins of Altruism 12- to 18-month-olds offer toys to peers Toddlers can express sympathy Verbally rebuking children and physically punishing them reduces compassion Discipline based on affective explanation increases compassion

Developmental Trends in Altruism 2–3-year-olds show sympathy/compassion Rarely engage in spontaneous acts of self-sacrifice; but did during pretend play 4–6-year-olds – more real helping acts, fewer during pretend play

Sex Differences in Altruism Girls are more likely to be helpful, generous, and compassionate than boys (small difference) Boys more interested in looking good or attaining status over others

Social-Cognitive and Affective Contributions to Altruism Children with well developed role-taking skills are more helpful Prosocial moral reasoning Preschoolers’ tend to be self-serving Older adolescents are much more responsive to the needs of others

Empathy: An Important Affective Contributor to Altruism Empathy – person’s ability to experience the emotions of other people. Personal/self-oriented distress can lead to ignoring others in need Sympathetic empathetic arousal – concern for distressed others increases altruism

Socialization of Empathy Model empathetic concern Rely on affectively oriented forms of discipline Use of positive facial expressions when modeling sympathy

Age Trends in the Empathy-Altruism Relationship Little relationship between empathy and altruism among preschool and young grade school children Stronger for older individuals (7–9) Need to understand why others are distressed Need to suppress own distress

The Felt-Responsibility Hypothesis Sympathetic empathetic arousal causes one to reflect on altruistic lessons Result is assuming personal responsibility for aiding a person in distress

Cultural and Social Influences on Altruism Cultural Influences Altruism more common in less industrialized societies Assigning chores improves altruism in Western societies More common in collectivist societies

Table 13.1 Prosocial Behavior in Six Cultures: Percentages of Children in Each Culture Who Scored above the Median Altruism Score for the Cross-Cultural Sample as a Whole. SOURCE: Based on Whiting & Whiting, 1975.

Social Influences Reinforcing Altruism Verbal reinforcement increases altruism Tangible rewards decreases altruism Practicing and Preaching Altruism Altruistic modeling is also important

Who Raises Altruistic Children? Altruistic parents Parents who discipline children in ways that encourage children to accept personal responsibility for the harm they caused Urge a helpful response to the victim

MORAL DEVELOPMENT: AFFECTIVE, COGNITIVE, AND BEHAVIORAL COMPONENTS
Morality Distinguish right from wrong Act on that distinction Experience pride in virtuous conduct; shame over acts that violate standards Internalization of standards is vital

Table 13.2 Six Dimensions of Character That Define Moral Maturity for Canadian Adults. Source: From L. J. Walker & R. C. Pitts, 1998, “Naturalistic Conceptions of Moral Maturity,” Developmental Psychology, 34, p Copyright © 1998 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted with permission.

How Developmentalists Look at Morality Affective component Emotional, consists of feelings Cognitive component How we conceptualize right and wrong and make behavioral decisions Behavioral component The actual behavior when we experience a moral situation

The Affective Component Toddlers involved in mutually responsive relationships with parents develop Committed compliance Motivation to comply with rules Sensitivity to parent’s emotional signals of right and wrong Beginning of internalization Insensitive parenting produces situational compliance

The Cognitive Component Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development Studied respect for rules and conceptions of justice The Premoral Period Preschool age – little concern for, or awareness of, rules

Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development (continued) Heteronomous Morality 5–10 years old – strong respect for rules; they cannot be altered Actions are judged by consequences, not intent Believe in punishment for its own sake (expiatory punishment) Immanent justice – violations of social rules will be punished

Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development (continued) Autonomous Morality Ages 10 or 11, rules are arbitrary agreements that can be changed Rules can be violated to help others Intent is now important in determining right and wrong Favor reciprocal punishments – tailored to the transgression Imminent justice is not accurate

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Used dilemmas requiring choice between obeying rules or disobeying rules while serving a human need Focus was on rationale used to justify decision Stages are in an invariant sequence

Table 13.3 Examples of Responses to the Heinz Dilemma at Each of Kohlberg’s Levels and Stages.

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Level 1: Preconventional Morality Stage 1: Punishment-and-Obedience Orientation Goodness or badness depends on consequences of act – bad acts are punished Stage 2: Naïve Hedonism Conform to rules to gain rewards

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Level 2: Conventional Morality Stage 3: “Good Boy” or “Good Girl” Orientation Moral behavior pleases, helps, or is approved of by others Stage 4: Social-Order-Maintaining Morality Right conforms to legal authority; rules maintain social order

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Level 3: Postconventional (or Principled) Morality Stage 5: The Social-Contract Orientation Laws should express will of majority, and further human welfare; if not, challenge them Stage 6: Morality of Individual Principles of Conscience Individual abstract moral guidelines that transcend laws Rare (a hypothetical construct) No longer measured

Support for Kohlberg’s Theory Are Kohlberg’s Stages an Invariant Sequence? Individuals do proceed through stages in order Stages are not skipped Stage 3 or 4 is highest level for most people

Cognitive Prerequisites for Moral Growth Role taking skills necessary but not sufficient for conventional reasoning Formal operations are necessary but not sufficient for postconventional morality

Evidence for Kohlberg’s Social-Experience Hypothesis Parental and Peer Influences Support for peer influences, especially transitive interactions Parents contribute more than Kohlberg thought if they presented their reasoning in supportive ways

Advanced Education, higher level of moral reasoning Contributes to cognitive growth Exposes students to diverse moral perspectives Cultural Influences Complex, diverse, democratic societies stimulate moral development

Criticisms of Kohlberg’s Approach Is Kohlberg’s Theory Culturally Biased? Some aspects of moral development vary among societies Cultural beliefs define morality and justice Is Kohlberg’s Theory Gender Biased? Morality of justice for males, versus morality of caring for females Not supported by research

Does Kohlberg Underestimate Young Children? Yes, as his focus was on legalistic concepts Did not examine distributive justice

The Behavioral Component How Consistent are Moral Conduct and Moral Character? Recent research shows that moral behaviors of a particular kind are reasonably consistent Moral behaviors of different kinds are less consistent (doctrine of specificity)

Learning to Resist Temptation Reinforcement as a Determinant of Moral Conduct Children generally comply with wishes of a warm, socially reinforcing adult. Praise is also important

The Role of Punishment in Establishing Moral Prohibitions Investigating Resistance to Temptation Punishment should be firm Administered immediately and consistently by a warm disciplinarian Reasons for not performing the act should be provided

Explaining the Effects of Cognitive Rationales Reasoning can result in internal attributions (guilt, harm self-image) Punishment can lead to external attributions – avoid punishment Obey when authority figures are present, not in their absence

Moral Self-Concept Training Teach children to avoid temptations based on internal attributions. Social Modeling Influences on Moral Behavior Children learn from watching others, if they know the other is resisting the temptation to violate a rule

Who Raises Children Who Are Morally Mature? Love withdrawal and power assertion Did not promote moral growth Induction – explaining why a behavior is wrong and how it should be changed Fostered moral emotions, reasoning, and behavior

Table 13.4 Relationship Between Parents’ Use of Three Disciplinary Strategies and Children’s Moral Development. Source: Adapted from “Contributions of Parents and Peers to Children’s Moral Socialization,” by G. H. Brody & D. R. Shaffer, 1982, Developmental Review, 2, Copyright © 1982 by Academic Press, Inc. Adapted by permission.

A Child’s-Eye View of Discipline Children and adolescents preferred induction 4–9-year-olds favored any discipline to a permissive attitude Research needed on role of culture/SES Role of children in influencing the type of discipline

Aggression, Altruism, and Moral Development

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Aggression, Altruism, and Moral Development"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Aggression, Altruism, and Moral Development

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Aggression, Altruism, and Moral Development"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback