Psych2AA3 – final, Nov 7 th
Cognitive development 3: Intelligence – iq testing, what you are capable of, what you are not capable of?
- Is IQ completely inherited? IQ number? Are they measuring it well? Is it 100% genetic? What do
- Intelligence testing: Binet test modern tests
- Distribution of intelligences scores; statically
- Correlates of intelligences cores; validity (do they measure what they wanted to measure?)
- Nature vs. nurture controversy
Intelligence: ability to reason abstractly, to learn from experience, and to adapt to your environmental
History of intelligence testing
- Alfred Binet: why test intelligence?
It is used as identification of children who will need academic support; children with low
intelligence => children at risk => who need help for special instructions to keep up their age
- Binet’s test (1905+): this is taken by Stanford after his death.
- Series of increasingly difficult tasks: they do several different tasks based on what their age
graded, star from easy task and increase level of task until they are not able to do the task
- If the level of intelligence kids achieved is what ‘age-level’ is, they are normal kids.
- At the age you can no longer solve task => Mental age => reflex age related tasks that you were
last able to complete.
Ex) mental age 6, your age level is 4 => you are doing great!
- Mental age vs. chronological age: if mental age = age level => good shape. If mental age < age
level => you need help
- They are not stupid, they just need slight tension
- ‘Label’ can affect teacher’s teaching very negatively. they still can be better if they are taught
- Intelligence quotient (1912): IQ = mental age/ chronological age. Compare your performance
given modern IQ test, to average performance. Above 100, your mental age is higher than
- Binet’s warning: not for rank order or person who didn’t need,, only what he wanted to identify
was who was low in performing.
Modern intelligence testing
- Stanford Binet test, WPPSI, and WISC
- WPPSI (age 2.5-7) and WISC (age 5-15): WPPSI is not good predictor of intelligence
- Verbal and non-verbal components: WISC -> 15 tasks
- 5 verbal task -> verbal comprehension index ; verbal IQ, vocabulary, words dissimilar, similar,
- 10 non-verbal scale: - Working memory index: digit spent
- Processing speed index: how quickly do different kinds of task, reaction time
- Perceptual reason index: sequence of blocks, what would next block look like?
Ex) picture completion task: what is missing?
Distribution of IQ score: 15 unit is important significant difference. Within one SD of the mean, you are
in normal. Below 2 SD, dull normal, 2 or 3 SD, retarded. Above 2SD, very superior, b 2 to 3SD, gifted
Are IQ tests valid and reliable?
Reliability: scores are stable over time. Whenever you use it, I measures same way. If your IQ
was 123, later it should be somewhere 123. IQ tests several times => about the same every time.
- R’s = 0.65 to 0.80 (correlation) – stability increases with increasing age
- BUT, some kids show large fluctuation: according to longitudinal study of new Zealand, children
who were 7 years of age who had been born in 1970s, (in same year) they took their IQ using
WISC every 2 years for 10 years and they found that the correlation was pretty high, very reliable.
HOWEVER, about 10% of children in the study showed huge shifts often it was a downward
- Those who were down shifted were mostly under situation such as divorcing parents, natural
disaster.. but they right back up at next test.
**Environmental thing happened => but you bounce back ** changes are not PERMANNET, it
may has to do something with gene
Validity: IQ should predict what it should predicts.
- Current academic performance: correlation = 4.5 – 4.6 => this correlation is very well correlated
but nor perfect. This suggest that we can predict how well you are doing in school but some with
high IQ could do worse than they should, some with low IQ could do better than they should
- Future academic performance: with IQ, we can predict how many years you are going to spend in
- Number of years in school: how many years are you going to spend in school?
Higher IQ in elementary school => higher completing high school, higher likelihood of going to
Low IQ associated with…..
- Adult illiteracy: low in IQ, this doesn’t mean that you are stupid, it possibly mean you are not
given chance to learn or had mental disability=> illiterate; it is highly correlated
- Delinquency (teens):
- Crime (adults): low IQ associate with low state and some races
MAYBE, IQ is not fair to everyone, all classes..
- Heritability of intelligence? Psych 2AA3 – Nov 8 th
Individual and group differences in intelligence
Is IQ heritable? – is it based on gene or environment or both?
- Huge political/economic debate in the U.S: if social differences in IQ is based on gene, then we
don’t need to pay for social programs that help us to improve. What’s the point?
- If IQ depends to some extent on experience, then social programs must be instituted.
- Bell curve, book : racial differences, based on gene => no point instituting program to deal with it
- What do the data support?
- Data supporting heritability of IQ: behavioral genetic
- Data supporting environmental factors: reaction range (20-25 IQ points)
- Group differences in IQ; low social class(social class), not white(race), not men (gender)
Behavioral genetics evidence 1
- Families, concordance rate, genetic similarity
- MZTogetehr=> almost perfect score. Not only gene, also their environment is very similar
- MZApart=> they are significantly different => slightly less similar, less concordance rate, but
still high IQ score
- DZTogether => goes down little bit more, but still high heritability
- Siblings together => 50% or slightly less.
- Adoptive sibs at same environment => less similar
- Strong genetic component in intelligence, but ALSO, different amount of given environmental
sharing also plays a role. 50% vs 50% is reasonable
Behavioral genetics evidence 2
Adaptive child is more similar to bio parents than adoptive parents; concordance rate = 0.3
- In younger kids, their IQ is closer to adaptive parents than biological BUT
- As they get into adult hood => follow biological parents
Parents have affect but gene have bigger affect
But concordance with adoptive children and bio parents only 0.3. => not really predicting
Shows environmental factor does matter at the beginning of life but genetic affects later in
Gene-experience interactions: The reaction range - genotype for given type, now, there are several inches
taller or shorter based on your environment
- Environment does affect our range of possibility
- Range within we can express phenotypically our genotype - We are genetically encoded to a certain degree of intelligence but they are going to be exhibited
based on environment
- 20 to 25 IQ points = reaction range
- Evidence of the reaction range
Rat (non-human) Human
- Cooper&Zuber (1950): - effects of enriched environments on IQ
- maze bright vs. maze dull rats: raise them - in normal environments, enrichment has
in different environment => maze dull very little effect on IQ: being reared in
rats raised in enriched environment and super rich environment really did little to
maze bright raised in impoverished IQ.
environment => dull rat was able to - in impoverished environments,
perform just as well as maze bright enrichment raises IQ
- what is normal environment? Positive
interactions, getting enough food,
attending school programs
- What factors might get kids to bottom of reaction range?
- Three things: social class and race=> huge predictor. Gender (not often)
1. Social economic status
- Huge predictor of intellectual functioning everywhere
- Low social economic status => scored almost SD lower on IQ (10 to 15 points) than middle class.
Only low social class alone
Ex) grade1 => consistence in adulthood?
- WHY? Cumulative risk: the more of things you accumulate, higher risk of bad outcome(affected
by negative way) => lower your IQ
maternal mental health
head of hold occupation (occupation that keep kids away often)
5+ children (lots of siblings),
life events (moving, illness, divorce, => big impact),
belonging to minority group
- Cumulative Risk (Sameroff et al., 1993): the more risk factors you have lower your Verbal IQ.
If you have 1 risk factor => 115 (normal)
If you have 7+ => below normal range; 80- 85 (- 2SD)
- If you were from poor family, slope is more steeper than if you were from normal family
- Just living in normal => give protective factors from the risks
When you are impoverished, you are more likely to have high cumulative risk and negative effect
- When you are from middle class family => even you do have some cumulative risk, you can
escape, you can get out - We can take them from impoverished environment, then put them into environment without risk
factors => if they become as smart as everyone then its ‘environment’, if not look at gene
Effects of adoption into WMC (white middle class) family– Scarr & Weinberg, 1976)
- Black child is adopted to white middle class family
- Risk factors you are worried about will really decrease and raise their IQ?
National average for black is approximately 85 which is very low, and for white is above 100.
All adopted kids (no matter what age they are adopted) => it’s gone to normal, blacks gone
up to whole SD and white gone to slightly higher (why huge leap in blacks? => because they
were in poor environment, so when they were raised in normal environment, their IQ
improves much higher than white)
Early adopted kids (first couple of years in their life) => even higher IQ for both blacks and
white but bigger jump for blacks
SES and Maternal behavior: mom’s response to baby’s vocalizations differs across social class
- In lower class family, mom tend to not respond to babies vocalizations, so therefore babies don’t
learn to stop vocalizing and listen when mom is talking. WHY? If you are in lower class family
situation, you don’t have health insurance, or you have many children to support, so you are tired
=> not responding
- But responding is important factor of cognitive development
- Respond => Better intellectual
- Being in low social academic status => intellectual style is not optimized
Mom’s involvement with kids differs across social class and educational level: low social =>
lucky to have high school degree, that no afford to university=> low educational level
- Talking with kids: higher SES mom have more time to talk to their kids => complex manner =>
lot more give and take => interacting in intellectual way
- Reading to kids: highly educated mom are more likely to read books to kids => big predictor of
how their kids will develop cognitively
- Interest in academic achievement: highly educated mom are more interested in kid’s education,
more likely to seat down and help them to do homework, enhance intellectual development
- Other interactions: energy?
o Parents with high SES confounded with education level are more likely to read with kids
and this is important to intellectual experience for kids. PSYCH 2AA3 – Nov 12 th
- Low social stats => low intelligence
- Mom is primary care giver; spending most time with baby
- ‘maternal behavior’ –
- Low class mom less likely to stop for baby’s vocalizing and pay attention =>affect performance
in school, iQ test, ..
- Low status => Low educational level => low intellectual complement
- Talking with kids => more diverse vocabulary, grammar,
Reading to kids => big predictor of later in elementary school, reading achievement and general
IQ. Also, teaching and learning experiences – more common, more educated mom is
- % kids read to daily => higher social class, higher education, =>
- In lower class household, hard to find time for mom to read to their kids
- Other interaction: energy?
- In a zone of proximal development, bring them up to a place
- Interest in academic achievement: educated mom is more interested in their kid’s education
More on mechanism
- Is it possible to avoid effects of class on IQ?
- Emotionally responsive parenting: it takes time and energy, difficult for moms in low SES
- Avoid being punitive(avoid being yell at kids): in low SES, It is easy to fall into cycle of being
too punitive because you don’t have time for it.
- Avoid restricting child’s experience of the world (everyday experience): being very restrictive to
your kids and not really want to explain things and not giving them room is not optimal cognitive
development. Let them intellectually free
- One thing you can’t do anything about… ‘RACE’
- Race differences in IQ: IQ scores differ across races
- Black vs. white/ Asians vs. white
- Asians 3 to 6 points higher than white
- White is 10 points higher than blacks
- It’s all about ‘reaction range’
- Environmental condition: Asian mom and dad are more interested in education rather than while
- Race and SES: being in impoverish => not getting pre-natal care
Ex) Sucking on lead paint => leads to cognitive neurological damage
Even low in birth weight => account for poor performances across races - Race and achievement motivation: blacks are less motivated about achievement than whites.
They don’t care. This has to do something with STEREOTYPE THREAT
- Stereotype threat: raise your arousal level => your performance drops
- Stereotype is going to threaten you and make your performance drop
- ‘fear’ of stereotype => negatively affect your ability
- Ex) girls who is reminded about gender => did poor on math task
Research (Steele, 1990s+):
- IV is races; instructions (game vs. intelligence test)
- DV is performance – what percentage they get correct?
Told a game and have a fun: no matter what their races are, no significant difference
Told this is intelligence test: made them nervous and upset=> black, but not white they
showed significant difference
- As soon as they are about stereotype their performance decrease significantly
- Differences in intellectual attainment go away when stereotype threat is removed: at least, they go
away in Stanford University
- A genetic difference seems unlikely as a main cause for this race difference: Gene is not involved
in race difference, the effect is probably mostly due to nurture such as SES
- Men are wiser than women?
- No big difference in general intellectual ability, BUT
- There are some gender differences: girls> boys on verbal. Boys> girls on numerical and spatial
- It is very small differences but it is significant!
Neurodevelopment: Pre-natal events predict brain structures in more male type than female type
ways. Even very young males brain, somewhat better organized (spatial tasks), for verbal tasks,
females are more organized in some verbal functional area.
Environmental differences: boys are given different types of experiences, therefore their brain
develop somewhat different ways. ‘Beliefs’ of parents that children’s ability=> Parent’s
expectation – ex) my little boy might good at architect.
- Their prediction actually affect their achievement
Ex) Teacher/parent’s – perception about children’s math test
- Girls doing well on math test => they think girls work hard
- Boys doing well on math test => they think they are talented
- Good evidence for both genetic and environmental effects on intelligence:
- Family/adoption studies => strongly gene - Reaction range => pretty wide reaction range (20 -25pont) are responding to environmental
- Data on group differences suggest that environmental factors can alter expression of genotype:
- SES and cumulative risk, race/gender and stereotype threat PSYCH 2AA3 – Nov 14 th
Self-understanding – how do we come to know who we are, what we are?
- What is self? Cognitive development of self
- What is self-understanding? Our cognitive, mental representation of itself; roles we play socially,
=> these roles help you understand who you are (personal identity)
- Developmental course of self-understanding
1. Self-understanding in infancy
Problem: we can’t ask them, how do we know what they know about themselves?
- What would self-understanding look like in a pre-verbal infant?
- self – recognition (mirror): you as defined unit
Mirror technique research (Brooks-Gunn): originally used in non-human consciousness
research => violating appearance of chimpanzees - if you violate their concept of appearance
by dot or mark on their face => do they recognize it as themselves?
Dolphins elephant can also recognize when they were violated with mark on the face
Results when used in human self-recognition research? Does nose touching increases?
Baseline (no mirror)
9-12 mos: unlikely to touch their nose
15-18 mos: significant increase but less than half of baby nose touching
21-24 mos: vast majority of baby touched their nose. ‘this suppose not to be here, why is it
First step of Self-understanding => recognizing something does not belong to them; this
shouldn’t be here!
Babies fail to recognize self: 12 month old baby failed. About 20 months of age recognizes
themselves; but ages are little bit off for human.
- Piagetian stage? – sub-stage 6; motor ability, mental representation, object, problem solving and
2. Self-understanding in early childhood – we can interview kids; how do they describe themselves?
- Activities-oriented: focus on activity they engage in, what kinds of toys do they like, games they
- Concrete(external): I know ABC, I live in a big house – nothing abstract, very concrete
- Very physical and material: comparing themselves with other people, based on physical material
than internal characteristics
Ex) physical - I am different from Jenifer because I have brown hair and she has blond hair
Ex2) material - I am different because I have bicycle - Also very centered: you are either nice, shy, out-going, but you never little bit of this and little bit
of that => lack of conservation of personality in essence, no ability to maintain someone’s
representation. They are very tighten to the present in characteristics.
- Unrealistically positive: actual self – what you can do, what you are like, your ideal self is
‘ideally’ what you can do. They tend to describe themselves as ideally. Inability to understand
between ideal and actual.
Ex) I am never scared, I am always nice
- Piagetian stage? Pre-operational; lack of ability to understand, lack of ability to conserve
3. Self-understanding in middle to late childhood
- Shift to toward to more internal characteristics: describing yourself in terms of personal traits,
less likely to name physical characteristics
Ex) I am smart, popular => I am sometimes lose my temper but I am good at not worrying most
of time (abstract)
- Spontaneous use of social references and social comparisons: I am catholic => talk about groups
they belong to => diminish egocentrism away; they understand themselves by recognizing social
group they belong to
- Become really realistic: they know difference between actual vs. ideal selves; much more realistic
- Piagetian stage? Beyond pre-operation stage => ‘concrete-operational stage’
4. Self- understanding in Adolescence
- Now you really want to know, you are very interested in knowing yourself
- More abstract: ‘I am human being, I don’t know who I am’ – she is being more abstract
- Fluctuations in self-understanding: inconsistencies; they find out something they didn’t know
- Self – conscious: pre-occupation with self-understanding; now you really care who you are
- Increased ability to distinguish btw actual and ideal selves: can hold multiple ideal selves, what
we can possibly be in the future? => help you to form identity. Based on what I can do, what can
I be? Addition of possible selves
- Eventual integration into whole concept of self : leads to concept of solid self => identify
- Still there are some fluctuation; ex) divorce can destroy you identify,
- Piagetian stage? Concrete-operation
- Development of self-understanding progresses as cognitive development progresses; we are not
born able to recognize the self, or knowing who we are, we slowly learn these things with
- Way we think our selves, objects they parallel one another
- Parallels development of understanding of others – same progression applies to ability to describe
and understand other people th
PSYCH 2AA3 – Nov 15
Understanding others – social-cognitive development
- How does our interaction with others change as we get older?
Ties to cognitive development
- Therefore, developmental course shows changes in focus from..
- Outer to inner: what is most obvious to salient
- Observation to inference: What can be observed to what can be inferred?
- Definite (sure of yourself) to qualified perspective: I am always nice => sometimes I am nice
- Egocentric viewpoint to General view point: self-centered view => world view
- Object and people are not same thing
People are not objects! How are people different from object?
- Objects don’t talk to you
- Objects don’t express emotion
- You have to think a lot more how to interact with people than object
- Three basic differences between people and objects
1) Interactivity: can’t interact with objects
2) Intentionality: its mental life, its own,
3) Social scripts: rules for behavior and discussion in certain situation; ex) apologize when
people do something wrong
Describing others: how do we describe other people?
Three step Model – developmental model
- Descriptions focus on…
1) External features (up to ages 6-8)
- Hair color, relative height, gender, races, they much focus on external
- No conservation of personality => inability to think any sophisticated traits
2) Internal features (beginning ages 7-8)
- Focus on motivation and personality (traits)
- Conservation of personality => someone is mean now, maybe mean to most situation; you can
generalize someone’s personality to other situation
3) Qualifiers and inferences (beginning in teen years)
- Getting into a lot more detail
- ‘seems’ ‘but he might not’
Others research support? (Barenboim, 1981)
- Three people are given description (passage of quotation describing someone) to rate their ages.
- 1) behaviors and other external features: how do they look like - 2) traits and other internal features
- 3) Qualifiers and inferences
Behaviors: 6-8 year olds, peek in 8 year old
Traits: 6-16 years old (pre-teen), peek in 14 years old and upward trend from 8 year old
Qualifiers: 10-16 years old. But still less common than description of traits. Why? We are
lazy to put our effort on it.
Summary so far
- Children’s descriptions of others shift in the same way as do descriptions of themselves (it’s
parallel to cognitive development)
- What about understanding of others’ emotional state? Does our ability to read others’ feelings
change with age?
Understanding other’s emotions
- Critical to development of positive social relationships
- How can we deduce other’s emotions?
o body/facial signals
o understanding of social context
o Theory of mind
- Gradual developmental course; develop slowly over childhood
Empathy: able to put your self emotionally in their shoes; understand what they are feeling
- Empathy: picking up on other person’s emotional state and matching it.
- Sympathy: picking up on other emotional state but not matching it. Instead, feel a sense of
compassion. Growing out of field of empathy. Requires more sophistication.
Hoffman’s four-stage model of empathy development
1) Global empathy (first year or two; young infants): non-specific ability to match strong emotions
of others around you. They really then experience their emotions as if it was their own ex) new
born babies all cry together
2) Egocentric empathy (1year and a half or 2): still matching emotions but seems to understand this
feeling isn’t yours. You want to seek comfort for the person who is actually feeling the emotions
but your solution is egocentric. Ex) get your mom when your friend hurt
3) Empathy for another’s current situation (elementary school age) => less egocentric; very
thoughtful help. Current situation is making them feel bad, starting to feel sympathy and not
Feeling exactly and you just feel bad for them, little less strongly. Ex) now you get their mom,
not yours (non-egocentric)
4) Empathy for another’s general condition => sympathy (condition). You are distressed by
someone’s emotion but not matching it => not taking into consideration; have general and
abstract understanding where your sympathy is best placed. ex) something bad happened but they
have a good life, => some sympathy but not feel awful for them, unless their entire life sucks Individual differences in empathic response
Nature – presenting them with situations -> MZ twins are more similar in degree of responding
compared to DZ, sociopaths(lack empathy) => since birth, biological disposition => Some
suggestion of genetic component
- Nurture – Children reared by empathic parents have higher empathy than parents who don’t do
that. Warm mom => tends to warm child
Understanding Social behaviors
- Conventional vs. moral rules: breaking rules by age 6 to 8, they understand rules
o Conventional Rules: wearing uniform for school, waiting for traffic (you follow these
rule for specific group for example, you don’t need to ask for going washroom at home)
o Moral Rules: much more universal, you have do it everywhere. Ex) you should not
punch someone, hurt others
- Breaking moral rules => far worse than breaking conventional rules; I really should not hurt
other people but sometime don’t wear tie for school
- Intentional vs. unintentional transgression:
o Young kids understand role of intent when assessing own behaviors; (2year old: break
plates => I didn’t mean to. They get ‘intent’ is important) Psych 2AA3 – Nov 19 th
Understanding social behaviors
- Conventional (very restricted to certain cultures or situation) vs. moral rules = don’t run in the
hall in school vs. don’t hurt people
- Far worse to break moral rules than conventional rules
- Intention vs. unintentional transgressions: doing something bad intentionally or unintentionally;
its ‘intent’ – accidental or intent to kill people
o Young kids understand role of intent when assessing own behavior – they think they are
worse person if then hurt someone even they didn’t mean to
o Young kids sort of understand role of intent when assessing others’ behavior – they kind
of understand but don’t completely get it (Nelson, 1980)
Nelson, 1980: recruited 3 years old kids and they listen to the story of July and Tommy
- 2IVs: intent vs. no intent, harm vs. no harm
- Story 1 => Tommy is imagining July catches the ball so he throws ball to July. Consequences is
either ball bounces July’s head or July doesn’t get hurt (no intent condition)
- Story 2 => Tommy is imagining throwing ball to July will bounces her head, so he throws ball,
and either ball bounces July’s head or July doesn’t get hurt (intent condition)
- DV: goodness of Tommy? – they were asked to rate Tommy’s goodness
No harm (July is not harmed) + not intended: high rating of goodness of Tommy
No harm + intended: there is understanding of intending to harm is not good.
Harm (July is harmed) + not intended: they still understand harm intent; you didn’t intent to
harm but still less goodness. Even if Tommy was not intended to hurt July, Tommy is less
Harm + intended: Tommy is very bad, intended to hurt July and also consequences
- **Intent doesn’t exactly override consequences – as you can see in no intent to hurt July
(expecting July to catch a ball) condition, but less goodness with bad outcomes.
- Bad intent – make you worse person, but still ‘consequences’ matters.
- 3 year old and 5 year old don’t really get this YET
- THEY put emphasis on outcome
- Social-cognitive development runs parallel with cognitive development
- Descriptions of self and others are intertwined
- Children’s understanding of self and others depends on their level of cognitive development;
concreteness vs. abstraction and theory of mind
- They are started to understand social situation quite early; rules by age 7-8, intent by age 3 (not
completely but seems to understand) Moral development: determining level of moral reasoning
What is moral?
Overview: three main approaches to moral development
1) Psychoanalytic (Freud):
- Role of the moral emotions (shame, guilt, pride)
- Freud: moral develops due to capacity of self-punishment
- Erikson: moral develops due to positive component (such as reward)
- Role of reinforcements and punishments
- Skinner, Bandura – learning behavior/social learning behavior
3) Cognitive developmental-ist:
- Role of moral reasoning (thinking about situation and you choose which one is right things to do
bad things to do?
Moral emotions: 1) Psychoanalytic Approach
- Superego is developed at end of phallic stage (by age 5) – identify with same sex parents,
- Two components:
o conscience (good boys and good girls do not do bad thing) => guilt; we don’t like feeling
guilty, so our superego prevent us from feeling guilt
o Ego ideal: ethical, principle (list of things what good boys and good girls do) => if you
don’t’ listen to your superego, ‘shame’
Ex) you are in store, you are starving but no money = ‘id tell you to steal candy bar’ => stealing
candy bar will make you feel guilty
- Erikson adds PRIDE to this: if you don’t steal it, you will feel ‘pride’. you must be motivated by
reward as emotional; we learn to be moral actor by reward ‘it is all about our emotional state’
Moral behavior: 2) Behaviorist Approach
- Behavior is what you can observe and measure!
- Moral behaviors are the result of operant conditioning experiences
o Rewards and punishments (Skinnerian approach): We behave morally to avoid punishment
and get reward. We are taught through experience; rewards and punishments
- More on punishment:
o Inappropriate punishments teach the wrong lesson: how you punish is very important.
Ex) if you spank him (who stored candy bar) in front of people, what will kid learn? => ‘I
should not steal it in front of mom’
o BUT punishment is still effective if you use it appropriately: Not scary way, in effective way
Ex) Mom send kid back to store with stolen candy bar => ‘I stored this candy bar from you
and I am really sorry, it was wrong.’ – They are getting pushed but it’s not scary.
- Vicarious rewards and punishment: o Internal processes by Bandura’s social-learning theory approach(is stealing milk bad too?):
you only learn based on what happens to you in any given situation. But, also you could learn
without learning personally by watching someone is rewarded by helping someone else or
punished by doing something bad.
Ex) if you saw someone is rewarded by helping someone else, you will know it is probably good
thing, so you learn it.
Moral reasoning: 3) Cognitive approach
- Process of making judgments about the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of specific acts
- Depends on cognitive development: our cognitive development will predict how we reason about
what is right or wrong. Are we still egocentric?
o centering(too much to care about),
o abstract thought
- Piaget’s model of moral reasoning (read textbook):
o ‘Intent’- took certain amount of judgment => means more than outcomes.
Ex) tell kids two little boys story: one boy broke 15 cups to help mom vs. one cup try to
steal a cookie. Who is worse person?
Under age 10: person who broke 15 cups is worse person => still for them, ‘outcome’
Once they are older than 10, they understand a person who broke 1 cup intentionally is a bad
o Breakability of rules: if you believe certain rules can be broken, then you are able to do
Children who are relatively young (Under age10) think any rule can’t be broken, => very
rigid when it comes to judgment
- Ex) asking 6 year old whether we can change marble => ‘ no you absolutely cant’
- Kohlberg’s model of moral development: he published first version of his model of moral
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development:
- Basic methodology (idea) => present subjects with moral dilemmas and ask them for their
opinions and responses towards given scenarios which something morally happens.
Ex) moral dilemma ‘The Heinz Dilemma’: Heinz needed one drug to save his wife, but it costs
$20000 which is 10 times what the drug cost to make. It is just small drug. He only got $10000, so he
asked to sell it for cheaper price, but he didn’t. So he went into the store and stole the drug. Was he
wrong? What if it was stranger who need drug, not his wife?
Based on their answers, code their response according to 3 different levels of moral reasoning
Outline: Three levels of moral reasoning described by Kohlberg
1) Pre-conventional (Conforming to other groups)
2) conventional (conforming to other group) 3) Post- conventional: you’ve gone abstract. I have my own concept of what will be moral. What
you wish better Psych 2AA3 – Nov 21 st
- Kohlberg describes 3 levels; pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional
- Each level has 2 stages – each stages shows a more cognitively and morally advanced way of
thinking about moral dilemmas
Level 1: pre-conventional morality
- Moral judgments are based on consequences to self: very centered motivation, what is
consequence of behavior for me? Will I get punished?
Stage1: punishment and obedience orientation
- Things that get us punished are bad, if I punished, I won’t do it
- Things that do not get us punished are good
- Older people must be obeyed
Ex) ‘it’s bad to steal something, it is against law, so I will get punished. You think it’s BAD to
steal something because you will get punished, this is not morally representing
Heinz dilemma: ‘even the drug is expensive, it is small, so you can still it and not
Stage 2(elementary school grade5-6) : emphasis on self-interest orientation
- Things that make us feel good are good (and vice versa)
- If it feels good, it is moral, if it feels bad, it immoral
- It’s fair (moral) to reciprocate both good and bad acts
Ex) if someone does something good for you, you should reciprocate. If something does bad to
you, you can do something bad to them and it is okay. => You don’t care about other person at all,
you only care about your self
Heinz dilemma: ‘his wife will reciprocate someday, so he is okay to steal it’ ‘he should
steal it because he needs to pay a lot for her funeral’ ‘he should steal it because he is
going spend a whole life alone. It is all about self-interest. What will I get if I do that?
- If not helping getting something good, then he doesn’t need to help
Level2: conventional morality
- Moral judgments are now based on membership in some reference group
- Reference group can be any number of different group; can be appeared in family, church,
Stage 3: interpersonal relationships
- Concern for other people who have some sort of relationship
- Motivation determines morality
- Caring people who matters to you
- As long as you do no matter right or wrong, if it’s based on love.. it’s okay
- The Heinz dilemma: ‘he was right to steal the drug because he loves his wife’ ‘His intention was
good because he wanted to save someone who loves’ ‘ drug should be punished, it was charging
Stage 4: maintaining social order – getting lot bigger - Concern for society as whole, (your country) – if there is law, you have to follow because society
will fall apart if you don’t follow law.
- Cultural-level obedience determined morality
The Heinz dilemma: ‘he must be punished, he is not allowed to steal it in any social
situation’ ‘ he is going to destroy society’ ‘Everyone who breaks law must be punished’
- **Reference group is different from stage 3: it is big society. Stage 4 is more collective and stage
3 is more individualistic
Level3: post-conventional morality
- Very few people achieve this
- There is something larger than rules of society: sometimes I don’t agree with society’s law, => go
beyond your culture to change. I do have my own law
Stage 5: individual rights orientation
- Concern for basic individual rights leads to questioning of conventional rules
- BUT democratic pro