пятница, 1 марта 2019 г.
An Outline and Evaluation of Moral Development Through
An Outline and Evaluation of Moral Development by means of Pi geezerhoodts surmise and the Social Learning Theory Piaget (1932) developed a major conjecture based on babyrens cognitive methodology when approaching point slighton situations using the game of marbles and good stories/dilemmas to evaluate the cleanisticistic development a kidskin. In his evaluation he categorised fryren into ternion stages of honourable development i. e. pre-moral (0-5yrs), Moral Realism (5-8/9yrs), Moral Relativism (+9yrs).Concluding that children under quintet didnt consider moral reasoning Piaget concentrated on the ii latter stages. Piaget believed these stages be innate, they occur naturally unaccompanied through cognitive development leave a child begin to move from moral authenticism to moral relativism. Moral realism is when a child has a heteronomous moral perspective with uni of lateral respect showing unconditional subjection to adults. They atomic number 18 egocentric and their moral judgement is based on consequences and intentions be not considered, with penalty being expiatory and usually unjustifiably severe.When a child reaches the stage of moral relativism, they capture an autonomous moral viewpoint, they realize mutual respect and that rules ar made through accessible agreement. They are able to recognise that t here(predicate) is a grey area amongst right and wrong and their moral decisions are based on intentions kind of than consequences. Punishment is reciprocal i. e. shows balance between severity of the crime and the punishment received. He noted the importance of a childs loving environment and their interaction without an authority figure e. . in the school playground, here they learn to negotiate conflict and will start to commiserate declaration/compromise. According to Wright (1971) Piagets theory is supposed to show how a childs applicatory moral development occurs however the evidence in fact was based on theoreti cal morality. Piaget linked this through the concept of conscious realization e. g. children can talk using the correct grammar foresightful before they realize that in that location are rules that govern grammar.Implying that a childs practical morality shapes their theoretical morality an adults moral shape wont affect but will only uphold and guide a childs theoretical morality consume up with their practical morality. Armsby (1971) suggests schoolboyish children understand intention and show sentiency to avoid damaging valued items, older children engender it easier to differentiate the likeness between intention and damage. Piagets stories confounds intentions and consequences, when approached separately Constanzo et al. 1973) strengthened that with adult animadversion six year olds judged on consequence regardless of intention but with adult approval they as with older children will consider intentions. Notably, social consequences are related to parental tendencie s as children generally will have more experience in dealing with ill-intended acts. To support Piagets theory, Kruger (1992, cited in Gross, 1996) tested conflict resolution amongst children with and without an authoritarian figures involvement by free them two moral dilemmas and questioning them afterwards.The children who had been paired with an adult had less real insight, needinessing moral reasoning beca work they had given way to the adults understanding. When questioned afterwards, they had a less sophisticated stance-point than the children who had been paired together, showing the advantages attributable to egalitarian active discussion. As Piagets investigations were only based on a small add up of subjects, whereas Jose Linaza (1984) interviewed several hundred children in relation to a number of games participants were from England and Spain, some(prenominal) boys and girls.He re-affirmed Piagets findings but found that depending on the games complexity this determin ed what age certain stages become more apparent, anformer(a) notable finding was in that location was no difference between the English and the Spanish children. Turiel (1998) critics Piagets methods regarding the moral dilemma questions used as a child would find it difficult to be morally judgemental because of the drastic difference in consequence. i. e. fifteen cups versus one cup, thus tempting the child to ignore intention.Rule et el. (1974) shows that young children understand the difference in intention, particularly dependant on whether the act is pro-social or hostile i. e. if an aggressive act is in defence of another or not. Bandura, McDonald. (1963) doubted Piagets theory in particular the concept of stages by explaining moral judgement through social information theory, generally children replicated the models demeanour counterbalance if their reasoning differed.As social learning theory involves the key factors attention, retention, reproduction and penury and c hildren are said to be able to imitate others behaviour through observational learning, since moral behaviour can be spy and imitated there will be a definite link between SLT and moral development. Bandura et al(1961, cited in Haralambos & Rice, 2002) Bobo Dolls studies on SLT were criticised due to the artificial conditions i. e. he subjects were not geographically selected at random thus pre conditioning could have influenced results and because of the nature of the Bobo Dolls (they sprung rachis when struck) the children could then have perceived the aggression the models showed towards the dolls as a game. Therefore, the direct to have an understanding for the aggression was lacking and since the children observed no vicarious punishment (verbal or physical) they would have no need to make a judgement, they didnt have some(prenominal) reason to dissuade them from per operateing the behaviour.Interestingly, Langer (1975) replicating Banduras try out concluded that his techn iques confused the children. After viewing the model half of the childrens moral judgements remained the same and when they did change their explanations didnt. When a child is trying to form identification they will associate with and imitate/model themselves on other peoples behaviour/mannerisms. Though this is not confined needs and exclusively to parents as other family members, siblings in particular together with peers will play a significant part in a childs behaviour.A child may imitate a complete unknown quantitys behaviour especially if vicarious reinforcement is shown as the child then has the motivation to imitate this particular behaviour. Children may imitate behaviour without the insight to make a moral judgement. Notably, Hoffmans research observed that age dependant children are more likely to imitate a role models deviant behaviour rather than the models compliant behaviour, this emphasises a lack of moral development. (1970, cited in Bukatko & Daehler, 1998) Gru sec et. l (1978) focused on whether or not a child would imitate a models good behaviour (donating/giving) with or without verbal educational activity. What is shown in her results was that through observing, the majority of children, even without verbal instruction imitated the models behaviour. Nelson (1980) found that children as young as the age of three are able to make intentional based decisions regardless of consequence as long as information on intentions is made clear. Observational learning and principles of reinforcement can not adequately explain all aspects of moral development as a childs cognitive processes are not fully explored.As explained by Turiel (1983) in this study, children who receive punishment besides late for non-compliant behaviour seems to show a leniency towards deviant behaviour, the late timing mentioned only seems to confuse the children, once again showing a lack of understanding/judgement. Insightfully, the above-mentioned studies on moral deve lopment confirm clearly that children even from a very young age imitate other peoples behaviour and whether they understand the intentions or consequences of any particular behaviour is questionable especially at a young age.The concept of conscious realisation is a cognitive process which would only develop depending on the moral influences of a childs socialization, wound up attachments, level of education and life experience. Bibliography Armsby, R. (1971) A re-examination of the development of moral judgements in children. Child Development, 42, 1242-1248 Bandura, A. & McDonald, F. J. (1963). Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in do childrens moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(3),274-281. Bukatko, D. & Daehler, M. W. (1998).Child Development A thematic Approach. New York Houghton Mifflin. p. 410. Costanzo, P. , Coie, J. , Grumet, J. , & Farnill, D. (1973). A re-examination of the effects of intent and consequence on childr ens moral judgements. Child Development, 44(1), 154-161. Gross, R. (1996) Psychology The Science of Mind and Behaviour. capital of the United Kingdom Houghton & Stoughton. p. 696. Grusec, J. E. , Kuczynski, L. , Rushton, J. P. , & Simutis, Z. M. (1978). Modelling, direct instruction, and attributions effect on altruism. Developmental Psychology, 14, 5157. Haralambos, M. A. & Rice, D. (ed) (2002).Psychology in Focus, Ormskirk Causeway Press. p. 316-317. Langer, J. (1975). Disequilibrium as a source of development. In P. Mussen, J. Langer, & M. Covington (Eds. ), Trends and issues in developmental psychological science (pp. 22-37). New York Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Linaza, J. (1984). Piagets marbles the study childrens games and their knowledge of rules. Oxford Review of Education, 10, 271-4. Nelson, S. A. (1980). Factors influencing young childrens use of motives and outcomes as moral criteria. Child Development, 51, 823-829. Piaget, J. (1952), Moral Judgement of a Child, London Routledge and K.Paul Rule, B. G. , Nesdale, A. R. , McAra, J. R. (1974) Childrens Reaction to the Information about the Intentions Underlying an Aggressive act upon Child Development, 45(3) pp 794-798 Turiel, E. (1983)The Development of Social Knowledge Morality and Convention. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, Turiel, E. (1998) Moral development, in W. Damon (Ed. ),Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th Edition, Volume 3 N. Eisenberg (Ed. ), Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, pp. 863-932 (New York Wiley). Wright, D. (1971). The psychology of moral behavior. Middlesex, England Penguin Books.