Developmental Psychology: Theories of Moral Development - Assignment Example

Theories of Moral Development The field of developmental psychology is full of interesting topics for research and discussion, perhaps one of the most interesting being that of moral development in children. When and how do children acquire a conscience that will guide them to make morally responsible decisions throughout their life span? First of all, what is conscience? Spohn (2000) quotes a definition provided by Sidney Callahan: “conscience is a personal, self-conscious activity integrating reason, emotion, and will in self-committed decisions about right and wrong, good and evil.” Spohn himself quips that conscience is “that still small voice that makes you feel smaller still.” He designates two types of conscience – anterior and subsequent. Subsequent conscience is used when a person reflects upon an action. Anterior conscience is the process of making a moral decision, and is the focus of the development of morality in child psychology. The goal of moral consciousness is empathy toward others. This is observed in reactive attitudes as experienced in the first-, second-, or third-person (Dwyer, 2003). The first-person response is a person’s feelings about their own behavior, for example guilt at feeling ill-will toward others. The second-person response is the projection of feeling upon another in reaction for their treatment toward the individual, for example feeling anger at someone who has deliberately done the individual an injustice. The third-person response is a reaction to another’s treatment of a third party, for example, admiration of a third party for going out of his or her way to offer assistance to another. Moral consciousness also deals with recognizing when to apply judgment to others. For example, being able to determine that a dish was broken on accident or intentionally, and showing the appropriate response. Another example is the ability to recognize the inability of certain others, for instance babies or mentally impaired individuals, to be held accountable for their actions. In order to distinguish between all of these situations, and others not mentioned, certain skills are required. These include the ability to fact-find, to reflect upon past situations and apply lessons learned to current situations, the ability to recognize consequences of actions, flexibility in ascribing motives to actions (Spohn, 2000). Several theories have been used to describe how children acquire these skills, the most popular being Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, Piaget’s Cognitive Development Theory, and Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development. Social Learning Theory centers on the idea that children learn through modeling of adult behavior. The central theme of promoting positive moral development is the behavior of the parents as both models of appropriate behavior and enforcers of the same. Positive behavior is positively reinforced through rewards and praise, while negative behavior is negatively reinforced through the withdrawal of something valued by the child (no TV, time-out, etc.). Consistency is also central in that children respond best to models who are caring, competent, and “practice what they preach” (ehlt.flinders.edu.au). Cognitive Development Theory focuses on the child’s ability to reason based upon their general thinking abilities. Piaget is probably the most well-known in this area for his studies of the morality of children. Through research involving analyzing the responses of children to moral dilemmas and their use of rules in game playing, he developed a stage-theory to describe the level of moral development form childhood through adolescence. The stage that they are in will determine the child’s behavior when presented with a moral dilemma. To summarize, children evolve in three stages where they advance from playing for pure enjoyment with no recognition of rules, to a rigid morality in which rules are inflexible, to a realistic outlook where it is recognized that rules can be manipulated depending upon the specific situation. For example, they recognize the distinction between accidental and intentional behaviors and that the same result will call for different acts (forgiveness or punishment). Of course, each stage has sub-stages which will vary in number depending upon the source referencing Piaget’s findings. Like most of Freud’s research, his theories regarding moral development focus on psychosexual development. He, too, developed stages during which conflicts and fixations must be addressed. These are simplified in Table 1. Table 1: Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development Age Stage Characteristics Birth to 16 months Oral Id is developed Behaviors include sucking and biting Conflict: biting v. fear of punishment 6 months to 4 years Anal Ego develops Superego begins to develop Behaviors include expulsion/retention Conflict brings frustration 3 years to 6-7 years Phallic Ego continues developing Superego is developed Behaviors include localized pleasure to external genital areas Conflict: Oedipal behavior begins 6 to 12 years Latency Period of repression with little sexual activity Conflicts of cruelty and aggression 12 + years Genital Adoption of adult behaviors Resolution of conflicts at previous stages Information retrieved from http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/DLiT/2000/KESPres/home/htm The Id, Ego and Superego compete for control in regulating moral behaviors. The Id is the most primitive part of the mind, according to Freud. It is concerned only with pleasure, is the source of dreams, wishes and fantasies, and operates under principles of sex and aggression. The Ego is reality-based and relies on secondary thought processes in an attempt to be rational. This part of the mind is where problem-solving skills are generated. The Superego regulates the Id and the Ego by keeping the individual in conformity with societal norms. This part of the mind highly values societal status quo and the necessity of rules. According to Freud’s theory, this is where the Conscience (identifying with punishment) and the Ego Ideal (identifying with praise) are located. No matter what theory is referenced, empathy is (although not mentioned directly) a central part of moral development. A child cannot be expected to learn moral responsibility if he or she is not taught to empathize with the feelings of others. Such empathic responses can be seen in children as early as the first year in such acts as helping, comforting and sharing (Dwyer, 2003). Dwyer supports this claim citing research from others documenting that young children – even toddlers – recognize and attempt to conform to standards. Dwyer states that “well over fifty studies show that even toddlers… discern a difference between moral and conventional rules” and that preschoolers have the ability to distinguish morality such as stealing from non-compliance to non-moral norms, such as wearing pajamas to school. Three reasons are given to explain the differentiation between such rules. The first is the children’s initial response to a moral transgression is more likely to be physical (such as hitting a child who has pushed another) than towards a non-moral violation. Verbal responses also differ based upon the rule being violated. When a child observes another wearing his or her pajamas to school, the observer is more likely to be concerned with the social consequences of introducing disorder to the environment and refer to the adult in charge as far as how to act. Lastly, when a child has been informed that the adult in charge has changed the rules, he or she will still distinguish inherently right from wrong. In the case of a peer wearing pajamas to school, if the teacher has OK’d this behavior the other children may frown upon it, but the behavior will be accepted. However, if the teacher has given permission to steal an eraser, the other children will nevertheless impose moral judgment upon the thief (Dwyer 2003). When moral development, minus any mental abnormalities, does not progress to the point of empathy or the recognition of social norms, the result is psychopathology (Dwyer, 2003). Psychopaths are not exempt from responsibility for their actions as would a mentally impaired person; they simply do not care about the rules or about the impact of their actions upon others. This abnormal development is of particular importance to researchers because the psychopath does not fall into any ascribable category. He or she is not insane, so there is no prescription of medications or institutionalization to recommend. This person is also considered not responsible for his or her actions, thereby making punishment ineffective. Can the psychopathic personality be identified in childhood and averted? Recent studies show some results “that ‘fledging’ psychopaths score low on empathy and fail to mark the moral/conventional domain distinction in the same way that non-psychopathic children do” (Dwyer, 2003). It is too early to determine if there is a correlation and the findings are too immature to suggest other courses of study, but identification of such personality traits in children may suggest ways to intercede in the child’s moral development and facilitate more positive behaviors in adolescence and adulthood. References Dwyer, S. (2003). Moral Development and Moral Responsibility.The Monist (86) 2:181+. Spohn, W. (2000). Conscience and Moral Development. Theological Studies (61) 1:122+. Unknown Author. Accessed 12 May 2007 at Read More