This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- A-Levels
- A Level Psych P3 Help
- How many marks do you think this would get? A - level psychology AQA
- Warwick or Bath for Psychology ?
- Psychology: A Student Helps
- University of leicester or Lincoln for psychology BSc?
- Bath vs York for psychology
- Leicester or Cardiff for maths?
- What is A-Level Psychology like compared to degree level?
- undergraduate psychology
- Do you recommend the degree Psychology and Neuroscience?
- Sheffield or Manchester for psychology
- AQA A level psychology papers predictions
- University of Bath for Psychology?
- alevel choices
- 2024 Aqa A level Psychology Papers
- Clearing 2024
- BSc (honours) psychology
- Aqa gcse dt nea 2024-2025
- Should you go to uni? What I think, 3 years after graduating
Cognitive development pro social reasoning.
15
Right, I thought that in cognitive development, pro-social reasoning was either the same as moral development, or it was an alternative part of the syllabus that you didn't have to learn. However, our college hasn't been taught it at all and it's been known to come up by itself in a cognitive development question.
So my question is this:
In cognitive development, what exactly is pro-social reasoning?
So my question is this:
In cognitive development, what exactly is pro-social reasoning?
Reply 1
In short Pro-Social Reasoning is a theory of moral development that considers a different aspect of morality - choosing to help others at a cost to self.
Here are some notes you should find useful. And yes the exam can ask you to specifically describe a theory of prosocial reasoning although they may be nice and give a choice (e.g. theory of moral reasoning and/or prosocial reasoning).
Eisenberg’s theory of prosocial moral development
Kohlberg’s conception of moral reasoning is prohibition oriented. In his dilemmas, one prohibition (e.g. not stealing) is pitted against another (e.g. not letting someone die). This is one type of moral situation, but not the only type, and hence Kohlberg’s theory may be limited. Eisenberg suggested a different aspect of morality that needs to be considered – how do children reason when faced with a conflict between their own needs and the needs of others, where the role of laws, rules, authority etc is minimal. Choosing to help others at cost to self is prosocial behaviour.
Role of laws etc minimal here – children punished for doing wrong, but not for failing to act in prosocial way.
Series of studies during 80s – Eisenberg presented children of different ages with hypothetical stories, in which character can help another, but at personal cost.
E.g. A girl named Mary was going to a friend’s birthday party. On her way, she saw a girl who had fallen down and hurt her leg. The girl asked Mary to go to her home and get her parents so the parents could take her to the doctor. But if Mary did run and get the girl’s parents, she would be late for the birthday party and miss the ice cream, cake and all the games. What should Mary do? Why?
Based on responses, identified 6 stages of prosocial moral reasoning:
Level 1 (hedonistic, self-focused orientation): (pre-schoolers and younger primary-schoolers) concerned with selfish pragmatic consequences rather than moral considerations. What is right is whatever is instrumental in achieving own ends/desires, e.g. ‘She shouldn’t help, because she might miss the party’. Reasoning includes direct gain to future self, future reciprocity, concern for other whom individual needs and/or likes.
Level 2 (needs of others orientation): (many pre-schoolers and primary-schoolers) expresses concern for physical, psychological, material needs of others even when these conflict with own needs, e.g. ‘She should help because the girl’s leg is hurt and she needs to go to the doctor’; expressed in simplest terms, without clear evidence of self-reflective role taking, expressions of sympathy or internalised affect (such as guilt).
Level 3 (approval and interpersonal orientation and/or stereotyped orientation): (some primary-schoolers and secondary-school students) stereotyped images of good & bad people & behaviours and/or consideration of others approval/acceptance used in justifying behaviour, e.g. ‘It’s nice to help’ or ‘Her family would think she did the right thing’.
Level 4a (self-reflective empathic orientation): (older primary-schoolers, many secondary-school students) reasoning shows evidence of reflective role taking, self-reflective sympathetic responding, concern with other’s humanness, guilt or positive affect related to consequences of one’s actions, e.g. ‘She cares about people’ or ‘She’d feel bad if she didn’t help because she’d be in pain’.
Level 4b (transitional level): (minority of secondary-school age and older) justifications involve internalised values, norms, duties, responsibilities, or need to protect rights & dignity of others, but not clearly or strongly stated, e.g. ‘It’s just something she’s learnt and feels’.
Level 5 (strongly internalised stage): (very small minority of secondary-school students, no primary schoolers) internalised values norms etc much more strongly stated. Additional justifications include desire to honour obligations, improve conditions of society, belief in dignity, rights, equality, maintain self-respect by living up to one’s values/norms, e.g. ‘She’d feel a responsibility to help others in need’ or ‘She’d feel bad if she didn’t help because she’d know she didn’t live up to her values’.
Key element of the theory involves distinguishing between personal distress and empathetic concern. Personal distress alone does not lead to prosocial behaviour – Caplan & Hay (1989), 3-5 year olds often very upset by another child’s distress, but rarely offered to help. This needs empathetic concern to develop, which hinges on the development of the ability to adopt another’s perspective.
Evaluation:
Eisenberg (1996) – children almost never said they would help to avoid punishment or through blind obedience to authority – as expected, since children seldom punished for not acting in prosocial way, often punished for wrong-doing. So – different reasoning to that found with prohibition-oriented moral reasoning, supporting the idea that Eisenberg’s theory incorporates aspects of moral development left out by Kohlberg’s.
Other-oriented reasoning occurs earlier here, compared to predictions of Kohlberg. It seems that such moral reasoning can occur earlier than he said, if it is in a prosocial context, again indicating that Eisenberg’s theory helps to incorporate aspects of morality neglected by Kohlberg.
Involves empathy, sympathy, guilt etc, i.e. includes affective dimension, which was lacking in Kohlberg’s theory. Emotions are being seen as the basis for moral development.
Contrary to Kohlberg, individuals might revert back to lower level reasoning from higher. This was particularly likely when choosing not to help.
Evidence for the importance of perspective taking comes from Chalmers & Townsend (1990) – socially maladjusted girls who received training in role taking skills became more concerned about the need of others than their peers who received no training – shows that prosocial behaviour increases with the ability to take the perspective of others, as suggested by Eisenberg.
Empathy thought by Eisenberg to develop during level 4, at around 12 year of age. However, there is evidence that empathy may influence prosocial behaviour earlier: Zahn-Waxler et al (1979) – children between the ages of 18 – 30 months showed obvious concern when seeing other children in distress; these children had mothers who emphasised the distress their behaviour caused if they hurt another child (e.g. don’t hit Mary; you’ve upset her and made her cry’). This suggests that the development of empathy may occur earlier than Eisenberg suggested if mothers adopt a particular approach with their children.
A positive implication of the theory is that it can be adapted to provide advice for parents about how to raise helpful and altruistic children – e.g. emphasising the consequences of an action, and modelling prosocial behaviour.
There do seems to be cultural limitations: studies in Germany, Poland, Italy found changes from hedonistic reasoning to needs oriented reasoning, as predicted by Eisenberg, suggesting that the theory can be applied cross-culturally. However, studies of kibbutz-reared Israeli children were found to provide reasons based on communal values; this is likely to be due to the effect of being brought up in a collectivist culture. This indicates that Eisenberg’s theory may not be universal.
Methodology: the dilemmas used by Eisenberg are simpler for younger children to understand than those used by both Piaget and Kohlberg, and thus there is less of a criticism to be made that the results are due to misunderstandings. This strengthens the support for Eisenberg’s theory.
Overall, though, the theory does not necessarily contradict Kohlberg – the stages are roughly similar to those identified by Kohlberg, and so Eisenberg’s theory could be seen as adding a dimension that was initially neglected, rather than replacing it entirely.
Hope that helped!
Here are some notes you should find useful. And yes the exam can ask you to specifically describe a theory of prosocial reasoning although they may be nice and give a choice (e.g. theory of moral reasoning and/or prosocial reasoning).
Eisenberg’s theory of prosocial moral development
Kohlberg’s conception of moral reasoning is prohibition oriented. In his dilemmas, one prohibition (e.g. not stealing) is pitted against another (e.g. not letting someone die). This is one type of moral situation, but not the only type, and hence Kohlberg’s theory may be limited. Eisenberg suggested a different aspect of morality that needs to be considered – how do children reason when faced with a conflict between their own needs and the needs of others, where the role of laws, rules, authority etc is minimal. Choosing to help others at cost to self is prosocial behaviour.
Role of laws etc minimal here – children punished for doing wrong, but not for failing to act in prosocial way.
Series of studies during 80s – Eisenberg presented children of different ages with hypothetical stories, in which character can help another, but at personal cost.
E.g. A girl named Mary was going to a friend’s birthday party. On her way, she saw a girl who had fallen down and hurt her leg. The girl asked Mary to go to her home and get her parents so the parents could take her to the doctor. But if Mary did run and get the girl’s parents, she would be late for the birthday party and miss the ice cream, cake and all the games. What should Mary do? Why?
Based on responses, identified 6 stages of prosocial moral reasoning:
Level 1 (hedonistic, self-focused orientation): (pre-schoolers and younger primary-schoolers) concerned with selfish pragmatic consequences rather than moral considerations. What is right is whatever is instrumental in achieving own ends/desires, e.g. ‘She shouldn’t help, because she might miss the party’. Reasoning includes direct gain to future self, future reciprocity, concern for other whom individual needs and/or likes.
Level 2 (needs of others orientation): (many pre-schoolers and primary-schoolers) expresses concern for physical, psychological, material needs of others even when these conflict with own needs, e.g. ‘She should help because the girl’s leg is hurt and she needs to go to the doctor’; expressed in simplest terms, without clear evidence of self-reflective role taking, expressions of sympathy or internalised affect (such as guilt).
Level 3 (approval and interpersonal orientation and/or stereotyped orientation): (some primary-schoolers and secondary-school students) stereotyped images of good & bad people & behaviours and/or consideration of others approval/acceptance used in justifying behaviour, e.g. ‘It’s nice to help’ or ‘Her family would think she did the right thing’.
Level 4a (self-reflective empathic orientation): (older primary-schoolers, many secondary-school students) reasoning shows evidence of reflective role taking, self-reflective sympathetic responding, concern with other’s humanness, guilt or positive affect related to consequences of one’s actions, e.g. ‘She cares about people’ or ‘She’d feel bad if she didn’t help because she’d be in pain’.
Level 4b (transitional level): (minority of secondary-school age and older) justifications involve internalised values, norms, duties, responsibilities, or need to protect rights & dignity of others, but not clearly or strongly stated, e.g. ‘It’s just something she’s learnt and feels’.
Level 5 (strongly internalised stage): (very small minority of secondary-school students, no primary schoolers) internalised values norms etc much more strongly stated. Additional justifications include desire to honour obligations, improve conditions of society, belief in dignity, rights, equality, maintain self-respect by living up to one’s values/norms, e.g. ‘She’d feel a responsibility to help others in need’ or ‘She’d feel bad if she didn’t help because she’d know she didn’t live up to her values’.
Key element of the theory involves distinguishing between personal distress and empathetic concern. Personal distress alone does not lead to prosocial behaviour – Caplan & Hay (1989), 3-5 year olds often very upset by another child’s distress, but rarely offered to help. This needs empathetic concern to develop, which hinges on the development of the ability to adopt another’s perspective.
Evaluation:
Eisenberg (1996) – children almost never said they would help to avoid punishment or through blind obedience to authority – as expected, since children seldom punished for not acting in prosocial way, often punished for wrong-doing. So – different reasoning to that found with prohibition-oriented moral reasoning, supporting the idea that Eisenberg’s theory incorporates aspects of moral development left out by Kohlberg’s.
Other-oriented reasoning occurs earlier here, compared to predictions of Kohlberg. It seems that such moral reasoning can occur earlier than he said, if it is in a prosocial context, again indicating that Eisenberg’s theory helps to incorporate aspects of morality neglected by Kohlberg.
Involves empathy, sympathy, guilt etc, i.e. includes affective dimension, which was lacking in Kohlberg’s theory. Emotions are being seen as the basis for moral development.
Contrary to Kohlberg, individuals might revert back to lower level reasoning from higher. This was particularly likely when choosing not to help.
Evidence for the importance of perspective taking comes from Chalmers & Townsend (1990) – socially maladjusted girls who received training in role taking skills became more concerned about the need of others than their peers who received no training – shows that prosocial behaviour increases with the ability to take the perspective of others, as suggested by Eisenberg.
Empathy thought by Eisenberg to develop during level 4, at around 12 year of age. However, there is evidence that empathy may influence prosocial behaviour earlier: Zahn-Waxler et al (1979) – children between the ages of 18 – 30 months showed obvious concern when seeing other children in distress; these children had mothers who emphasised the distress their behaviour caused if they hurt another child (e.g. don’t hit Mary; you’ve upset her and made her cry’). This suggests that the development of empathy may occur earlier than Eisenberg suggested if mothers adopt a particular approach with their children.
A positive implication of the theory is that it can be adapted to provide advice for parents about how to raise helpful and altruistic children – e.g. emphasising the consequences of an action, and modelling prosocial behaviour.
There do seems to be cultural limitations: studies in Germany, Poland, Italy found changes from hedonistic reasoning to needs oriented reasoning, as predicted by Eisenberg, suggesting that the theory can be applied cross-culturally. However, studies of kibbutz-reared Israeli children were found to provide reasons based on communal values; this is likely to be due to the effect of being brought up in a collectivist culture. This indicates that Eisenberg’s theory may not be universal.
Methodology: the dilemmas used by Eisenberg are simpler for younger children to understand than those used by both Piaget and Kohlberg, and thus there is less of a criticism to be made that the results are due to misunderstandings. This strengthens the support for Eisenberg’s theory.
Overall, though, the theory does not necessarily contradict Kohlberg – the stages are roughly similar to those identified by Kohlberg, and so Eisenberg’s theory could be seen as adding a dimension that was initially neglected, rather than replacing it entirely.
Hope that helped!
Reply 2
If there is a God that question won't come up!
Reply 3
yellow96
OP
15
Waster
If there is a God that question won't come up!
Agreed. Unfortunately, I'm fairly convinced that there isn't.
Someone's bloody drilling outside my house so I can't concentrate and I keep getting up to come on here.. Christ I'm gonna fail.
Reply 4
I started revising pro-social/moral development today. This morning. Oh dear.
I've covered everything now though so that's good. However, I just feel like once I've got all the studies for one topic in my head, I forget everything for topics before that! It's like my head can only hold so much information LOL
I know that's not really true but it feels like it sometimes!
I've covered everything now though so that's good. However, I just feel like once I've got all the studies for one topic in my head, I forget everything for topics before that! It's like my head can only hold so much information LOL
I know that's not really true but it feels like it sometimes!
Reply 5
yellow96
OP
15
I just needed to know the basics of it so I can wing it if it happens to come up. I'm relying heavily on predictions for this exam, so if I **** up royally, I can just work harder for PYA5. Thanks btw 88dr11.
Related discussions
- A-Levels
- A Level Psych P3 Help
- How many marks do you think this would get? A - level psychology AQA
- Warwick or Bath for Psychology ?
- Psychology: A Student Helps
- University of leicester or Lincoln for psychology BSc?
- Bath vs York for psychology
- Leicester or Cardiff for maths?
- What is A-Level Psychology like compared to degree level?
- undergraduate psychology
- Do you recommend the degree Psychology and Neuroscience?
- Sheffield or Manchester for psychology
- AQA A level psychology papers predictions
- University of Bath for Psychology?
- alevel choices
- 2024 Aqa A level Psychology Papers
- Clearing 2024
- BSc (honours) psychology
- Aqa gcse dt nea 2024-2025
- Should you go to uni? What I think, 3 years after graduating
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
aqa alevel psychology 16 markers that haven’t come upLast reply 2 months ago
Psychology A Level OCR Paper 1 - help me mark this question please ðŸ™
