Developmental Psychology I: - PDF document

Psychology 2200 Developmental Psychology I: Fundamentals Moral Reasoning learning objectives describe Kohlberg픀s claims about the changes in stage of moral reasoning that do and do not happen review a longitudinal study that presents evidence that ⠀mostly) supports Kohlberg픀s claims explain the effects of adults modelling different stage reasoning on the moral reasoning of children describe the phenomenon of 툀moral dumbfounding팀 and explain how it challenges the claim that reasoning causes moral judgments review a study that shows that intuition/emotion inßuences moral judgments 1 2 3 4 5 model predictions 1. progress 2. stagnate 3. no regress 4. no skipping stages of moral reasoning !"#$%&'⠀⤀*+,-./,*%('0-./# 1%(2$&3'4.0-%50⤀*3'6'7&,8$&'9:;;= �?'@A,⠀/&$*'%*/'%/⤀⠀$0@$*-0 BC$'%**.%('DEF0 $%@A'G$&0⤀*'@%*'5⤀⠀⠀⤀H'⤀*$'⤀5' !"#$%&'()$*+ ')5' @A%*+$',*'0-%+$ 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 stage year 1 2 3 4 5 year 1 2 3 4 5 year 1 2 3 4 5 year 7 0 32 25 results test of stage sequence child픀s moral stage intervention: modelling child픀s moral stage post-test pre-test aim : induce moral stage change in child through modelling child watches two adults ⠀actors⤀ arguing about a moral dilemma child did not participate in the discussion random assignment to one of four conditions : adults픀 reasoning is 1. -1 stage ⠀lower): 툀 regression 팀 condition 2. same stage: 툀 control 팀 condition 3. +1 stage ⠀higher): 툀 ZPD 팀 condition 4. +2 stages ⠀higher): 툀 skip 팀 condition intervention Walker (1982) N = 50 children 0 25 50 75 100 -1 0 +1 +2 percent of children stage change regression control ZPD skip modelling style 5 6 7 8 regression condition failed to induce regression in stage. meaning: ca滕t go backwards model supported ZPD condition succeeded in inducing 1 stage of progress progress happens model supported skip condition induced only 1 stage of progress progress happens one stage at a time model supported summary how do people make moral judgments? like a judge consider both sides think carefully reason through evidence then reach a judgment Kohlberg like a lawyer argue for one side judgment decided already reason afterwards to convince others Haidt Julie and Mark, who are brother and sister, are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have sex ? Why? A. OK B. wrong discuss the righteous mind intuition/ emotion reasoning mush! yeah줠 right준 rider = reasoning (thinks it픀s in control) elephant = intuition/emotion (is actually in control) 9 10 11 12 hypnotized disgust Wheatley & Haidt ⠀2005) participants either got hypnotized to feel disgusted when they hear a particular word or control condition results: moral judgments became more severe in disgust condition implication: emotion inßuences moral judgment 0 20 40 60 80 100 control disgust induced not at all morally wrong extremely morally wrong social intuitionist model ⠀Haidt, 2001) intuition 툀yuck!Ó judgment 툀wrong⇓ reasoning 툀umm...㿓 reasoning intuition judgment Three Principles 1. Intuitive Primacy ⠀but not dictatorship) 2. Morality is more than care and fairness 3. The conservative advantage TheNewSynthesisin MoralPsychology JonathanHaidt Peopleareselfish,yetmorallymotivated.Moralityisuniversal,yetculturallyvariable.Such apparentcontradictionsaredissolvingasresearchfrommanydisciplinesconvergesonafew sharedprinciples,includingtheimportanceofmoralintuitions,thesociallyfunctional(rather thantruth-seeking⤀natureofmoralthinking,andthecoevolutionofmoralmindswithcultural practicesandinstitutionsthatcreatediversemoralcommunities.Iproposeafourthprinciple toguidefutureresearch:Moralityisaboutmorethanharmandfairness.Moreresearchis neededonthecollectiveandreligiouspartsofthemoraldomain,suchasloyalty,authority, andspiritualpurity. I fyoueverbecomeacontestantonanun- usuallyeruditequizshow,andyouareasked toexplainhumanbehaviorintwoseconds orless,youmightwanttosay self-interest. Afterall,economicmodelsthatassumeonlya motiveforself-interestperformreasonablywell. However,ifyouhavetimetogiveamore nuancedanswer,youshouldalsodiscussthe moralmotivesaddressedinTable1.Try answeringthosequestionsnow.Ifyourtotal forcolumnBishigherthanyourtotalforcolumn A,thencongratulations,youare Homomoralis ,not Homoeconomicus .Youhavesocialmotivations beyonddirectself-interest,andthelatestresearch inmoralpsychologycanhelpexplainwhy. In1975,E.O.Wilson⠀ 1 )predictedthat ethicswouldsoonbeincorporatedintothe new synthesis ofsociobiology.Twopsychological theoriesofhisdaywereethicalbehaviorism (valuesarelearnedbyreinforcement)andthe cognitive-developmentaltheoryofLawrence Kohlberg(socialexperienceshelpchildren constructanincreasinglyadequateunderstand- ingofjustice).Wilsonbelievedthatthesetwo theorieswouldsoonmergewithresearchonthe hypothalamic-limbicsystem,whichhethought supportedthemoralemotions,toprovidea comprehensiveaccountoftheoriginsand mechanismsofmorality. Asitturnedout,Wilsongottheingredients wrong.Ethicalbehaviorismfadedwithbehav- iorism.Kohlberg sapproachdidgrowtodomi- natemoralpsychologyforthenext15years,but becauseKohlbergfocusedonconsciousverbal reasoning,Kohlbergianpsychologyforgedits interdisciplinarylinkswithphilosophyandedu- cation,ratherthanwithbiologyasWilsonhad hoped.Andfinally,thehypothalamuswasfound toplaylittleroleinmoraljudgment. Despitetheseerrorsindetail,Wilsongotthe bigpictureright.Thesynthesisbeganinthe 1990swithanewsetofingredients,andithas transformedthestudyofmoralitytoday.Wilson wasalsorightthatthekeylinkbetweenthe socialandnaturalscienceswasthestudyof emotionandthe emotivecenters ofthebrain. Aquantitativeanalysisofthepublication databaseinpsychologyshowsthatresearchon moralityandemotiongrewsteadilyinthe1980s and1990s(relativetoothertopics),andthen grewveryrapidlyinthepast5years⠀fig.S1). InthisReview,Isuggestthatthekeyfactor thatcatalyzedthenewsynthesiswasthe affectiverevolution ofthe1980s thein- creaseinresearchonemotionthatfollowedthe cognitiverevolution ofthe1960sand1970s.I describethreeprinciples,eachmorethan100 yearsold,thatwererevivedduringtheaffective revolution.Eachprinciplelinkstogetherinsights fromseveralfields,particularlysocialpsychol- ogy,neuroscience,andevolutionarytheory.I concludewithafourthprinciplethatIbelieve willbethenextstepinthesynthesis. Principle1:IntuitivePrimacy (butNotDictatorship) Kohlbergthoughtofchildrenasbuddingmoral philosophers,andhestudiedtheirreasoningas theystruggledwithmoraldilemmas(e.g.,Should amanstealadrugtosavehiswife slife?⤀.Butin recentyears,theimportanceofmoralreasoning hasbeenquestionedassocialpsychologistshave increasinglyembracedaversionofthe affective primacy principle,articulatedinthe1890sby WilhelmWundtandgreatlyexpandedin1980by RobertZajonc⠀ 2 ).Zajoncreviewedevidencethat thehumanmindiscomposedofanancient, automatic,andveryfastaffectivesystemanda phylogeneticallynewer,slower,andmotivation- allyweakercognitivesystem.Zajonc sbasic pointwasthatbrainsarealwaysandautomatically evaluatingeverythingt heyperceive,andthat higher-levelhumanthinkingispreceded,per- meated,andinfluencedbyaffectivereactions ⠀simplefeelingsoflikeanddislike⤀whichpush usgently⠀ornotsogently⤀towardapproachor avoidance. Evolutionaryapproachestomoralitygeneral- lysuggestaffectiveprimacy.Mostproposethat thebuildingblocksofhumanmoralityare emotional⠀ 3 , 4 ⤨e.g.,sympathyinresponseto suffering,angeratnonreciprocators,affectionfor kinandallies)andthatsomeearlyformsofthese buildingblockswerealreadyinplacebeforethe hominidlinesplitofffromthatof Pan 5to7 millionyearsago⠀ 5 ).Languageandtheabilityto engageinconsciousmoralreasoningcamemuch later,perhapsonlyinthepast100thousandyears, soitisimplausiblethattheneuralmechanisms thatcontrolhumanjudgmentandbehaviorwere suddenlyrewiredtohandcontroloftheorganism overtothisnewdeliberativefaculty. Social-psychologicalresearchstronglysup- portsZajonc sclaimsaboutthespeedand ubiquityofaffectivereactions⠀ 6 ).However, manyhaveobjectedtothecontrastof affect and cognition, whichseemstoimplythat affectivereactionsdon tinvolveinformation processingorcomputationofanykind.Zajonc didnotsaythat,buttoavoidambiguityIhave drawnontheworkofBargh⠀ 7 )toarguethatthe mostusefulcontrastformoralpsychologyis betweentwokindsofcognition:moralintuition andmoralreasoning⠀ 8 ).Moralintuitionrefersto fast,automatic,and(usually)affect-ladenpro- cessesinwhichanevaluativefeelingofgood-bad orlike-dislike(abouttheactionsorcharacter ofaperson⤀appearsinconsciousnesswithout anyawarenessofhavinggonethroughstepsof search,weighingevidence,orinferringaconclu- sion.Moralreasoning,incontrast,isacontrolled and cooler (lessaffective)process;itiscon- sciousmentalactivitythatconsistsoftransform- inginformationaboutpeopleandtheiractionsin ordertoreachamoraljudgmentordecision. Myattempttoillustratethenewsynthesisin moralpsychologyistheSocialIntuitionistModel 8 ),whichbeginswiththeintuitiveprimacy principle.Whenwethinkaboutstickingapin intoachild shand,orwehearastoryabouta personslappingherfather,mostofushavean automaticintuitivereactionthatincludesaflash ofnegativeaffect.Weoftenengageinconscious verbalreasoningtoo,butthiscontrolledprocess canoccuronlyafterthefirstautomaticprocess hasrun,anditisofteninfluencedbytheinitial moralintuition.Moralreasoning,whenitoc- curs,isusuallyapost-hocprocessinwhichwe searchforevidencetosupportourinitialintuitive reaction. Evidencethatthissequenceofeventsisthe standardordefaultsequencecomesfromstudies indicatingthat⠀i)peoplehavenearlyinstant implicitreactionstoscenesorstoriesofmoral violations⠀ 9 );⠀ii⤀affectivereactionsareusually goodpredictorsofmoraljudgmentsandbehav- iors⠀ 10 , 11 );⠀iii)manipulatingemotionalreac- tions,suchasthroughhypnosis,canaltermoral judgments⠀ 12 );and⠀iv)peoplecansometimes be morallydumbfounded theycanknow intuitivelythatsomethingiswrong,evenwhen theycannotexplainwhy⠀ 8 , 13 ).Furthermore, studiesofeverydayreasoning⠀ 14 )demonstrate thatpeoplegenerallybeginreasoningbysetting outtoconfirmtheirinitialhypothesis.They rarelyseekdisconfirmingevidence,andare quitegoodatfindingsupportforwhateverthey wanttobelieve⠀ 15 ). DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofVirginia,Char- lottesville,VA22904,USA.E-mail:haidt@virginia.edu 18MAY2007VOL316 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 998 REVIEWS on November 7, 2012 www.sciencemag.org Downloaded from 2007 13 14 15