Outline last time:
- Sex vs. gender
- Gender socialization theory
- Evo-devo theory (CAH, 5-ARD)
- Sex differences
- Naturalistic fallacy
- Toy preferences
- Spatial ability
No readings included from the past exams, just this ones stuff
John Q trailer
Question: Is john Q a good person? Is he a bad person? Are his actions wrong?
- People feel conflicted about this: one part says he has this moral part, the other
part is saying "wait he's breaking the law". Your head can't come to an agreement;
few people can come to an immediate decision whether he's immediately right or
- Moral psychology
Piaget was first to really write about this
Piaget and Moral Development
- Moral development is also stage like
- In many ways the developments parallel the cognitive development theory we've
talked about, conforms to his theory of cognitive development
- Rational process; reason-based process. Children are little scientists, collecting
data and reasoning about what's good/ what's wrong
- For Piaget there are really 2 key steps;
- Stage 1(< 7 years old): stage of constraint of morality
- (Child treats rules as fairly rigid things, rules aren't flexible- Piaget saw this
because the child cant think correctly yet, haven’t entered concrete
operational yet, rules are like objects/ things, Piaget also felt that kids saw
rules as rigid because kids are neither in a physical or social standing to
- Child is focused on consequences; consequences determine whether an
action is good or bad (kid who breaks more plates is worse)
- Translational Period (7-10 years old): kids start to realize that rules aren’t rigid,
they start interacting with peers and the conversations become bi-directional and
they're actually engaging with the other person. They begin to understand that rules
can be changed.
- Kids are running their own "social experiments" and they learn rules can be
changed; they switch from a consequence based moral psychology to "intention determines whether an action is good or bad" (the kid who breaks
the plates on purpose is worse than the kid who did it by accident)
- Stage 2: Autonomous Morality (>10 years): many rules are basically social
- Sense of fairness, morality comes into play, rules can be bent, and sense of
rules is more contextual and fair
Social Evaluation in Rants (Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007)
Q: do infants categorize, evaluate, and have preferences about "good" vs. "bad"
Method: Helping- hinder display
Video link posted
Baby sees 1 of 2 little videos, you see a hill and theres a ball with eyes- if you put
eyes on these balls (even adults), they think of them as sort of "people", you see the
ball try to get up the hill and he cant do it on his own, in one condition a triangle
(with eyes) comes and helps the ball up the hill, in the hindering condition you see a
square with eyes and he pushes the ball down the hill instead. You let the child pick
either the triangle or the square. The idea is that if they are making choices and they
have a preference they should systematically choose the triangle. If they haven’t
been affected or made any choices then it wont matter.
- Experiment 1: measuring % of children choosing triangle or square (2 groups,
6mo and 10mo. Both ages systematically prefer the helper. This is the "animate"
experiment because of the eyes, ran a second experiment to determine that no other
variables affected kids decisions (took off eyes- inanimate experiment)
- Experiment 2: eyes taken off, now you see even choosing in both age groups. Their
preference goes away. They're not categorizing these things as "good guys" or "bad
guys", these things have to be perceived as "agents" that could have intentions in
order to characterize as good or bad.
Is it the kids thinking the triangle is a good guy? Thinking the square is the bad guy?
Is it both?
Another experiment where theres another shape which is neutral- if they are
processing they should categorize the "good guy" and preferable, the neutral and in
between, and the bad guy as not prefera