Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/166

Click to flip

166 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Invariant sequence
Progressive age trend in the succession of phases towards this ideal.
What are Dewey's stages? Briefly describe them. What was the first change and final change to them.
1) Impulsive (Hedonic desires, basic needs- Freud’s Id)- Premoral--Preconventional.
2) Group conforming (Rules and customs- Freud's ego) - Conventional--Conventional.
3) Reflective (conscience based on principles- Freud's superego) - Self-accepted Moral Principles--Postconventional.
Preconventional
Kohlberg’s first two stages. Generally lacking is an understanding of the intangible and ideal bases for interpersonal and social norms or conventions.
Conventional
Kohlberg’s second two stages. Conforming to or internalizing social norms from others and then society as a whole.
Postconventional
Kohlberg’s last two stages. A prior-to-society social perspective that differentiates the self from the rules and expectations of others and defines moral values inn terms of self-chosen principles.
Punishment and Obedience (Heteronomous Morality-Piaget)
Kohlberg Stage 1-Following externally imposed rules (by parents and authority), not requiring justification, and an intuitive sense that immoral actions are punished because they are immoral.
Individualism and Exchange (Reciprocity as a Fact-Piaget)
Kohlberg Stage 2-Increasing realization of perspectives (can see from one other individual’s perspective), capable of coordinating those perspectives. Enlightened Self Interest: to get what you want (concern is with my welfare), give people what they want. Respect for the rights of others to pursue their own interests.
Interpersonal Conformity
Kohlberg Stage 3-Increasing sophisticated perspective taking (understanding social interaction from the perspective of the relationship between or among the individual involved). Moral conventions are on the basis of direct interactions with others e.g. mutual trust and loyalty, obligation to others, expectations to live up to.
Law and Order
Kohlberg Stage 4-Morals are from the perspective of society as a whole. Social systems define appropriate roles, rules, and relationships. Preserving social system is fundamental moral obligation. Traditional Cultures less likely to go beyond stage 3.
Social Contract
Kohlberg Stage 5-Further shift of perspective. Can evaluate social systems from a prior-to-society perspective (outside or beyond society). Laws and entire social systems can now be morally evaluated on the basis of postconventional moral principles. Most likely to develop in societies where cultures clash.
Universal Ethical Principles
Kohlberg Stage 6-Metaethical evaluation, reconstruction, and justification of stage 5 ethical principles. Outside moral philosophy, law, and theology, not evidence of reasoning at this level.
Standard Development
Piaget’s stages from 1-4. Invariant high-mixture stage sequence.
Existential Development
Kohlberg’s stages 5-6/7, starts in adolescents. Push why questions far enough. Transcends the standard moral development. Involves meta-ethical, spiritual awakening, moral principles of philosophers.
What theoretical position was Kohlberg reacting to with his theory of moral development? How did he construe his moral stages to contrast with this theoretical position? How did this differ from Piaget’s notion of moral phases? Which elements of moral development did Kohlberg imagine were variant, and which did he imagine were invariant? How did Kohlberg propose you might methodologically access the invariant element of moral development?
Kohlberg was reacting to cultural relativity, the idea that any moral is as good as another depending on the culture you are in. Kohlberg believed that there were types of moral reasoning that were better than others. Therefore, he devised his stages in a type of hierarchy. Moral reasoning became increasingly better through the stages. Piaget however chose to call the stages phases. They didn’t signify a hierarchy, neither were the phases all universal. Children generally fell into one or another stage. Kohlberg viewed socioemotional (empathic) things as variant, while the cognitive underpinnings of moral reasoning are invariant. Kohlberg suggests that to find the invariant elements one would try to find the common schemas among peoples development by studying the answers people give to moral dilemmas.
How was Kohlberg influenced by John Dewey’s moral philosophy, and how did his initial stage formulation mirror Dewey’s stages? At which stage can morality be construed as constructed.
Kohlberg was influenced by Dewey’s trichotomy of moral development as he thought philosophy and psychology could work together. Impulsive, group conforming, and reflective became preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Construction is said to begin at stage 5 or the postconventional stages or stage 3 and 4 B.
Name and describe Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. How does Kohlberg differ from Piaget in his conception of moral construction, and when moral construction begins? How does optimal match differ from moral construction?
a.Punishment and Obedience (Heteronomous Morality-Piaget): Following externally imposed rules (by parents and authority), not requiring justification, and an intuitive sense that immoral actions are punished because they are immoral.
b.Individualism and Exchange (Reciprocity as a Fact-Piaget): Increasing realization of perspectives (can see from one other individual’s perspective), capable of coordinating those perspectives. Enlightened Self Interest: to get what you want (concern is with my welfare), give people what they want. Respect for the rights of others to pursue their own interests.
c.Interpersonal Conformity: Increasing sophisticated perspective taking. Still group conforming and conventional. Moral conventions are on the basis of direct interactions with others e.g. mutual trust and loyalty, obligation to others, expectations to live up to.
d.Law and Order: Morals are from the perspective of society as a whole. Identification with authorities and internalization of community norms. Traditional Cultures less likely to go beyond stage 3.
e.Social Contract: Further shift of perspective: Can evaluate social systems from a prior-to-society perspective (outside or beyond society). Laws and entire social systems can now be morally evaluated on the basis of postconventional moral principles. Most likely to develop in societies where cultures clash.
f.Universal Ethical Principles: Meta-ethical evaluation, reconstruction, and justification of stage 5 ethical principles. Outside moral philosophy, law, and theology, not evidence of reasoning at this level.
g.K reduces construction to internalization. Piaget believes that moral construction begins in stage 3. Only stages 5 and 6 and moral types 3 and 4 B's are anything approaching construction.
h. Kohlberg uses an optimal match whereby you can choose what you want to conform or internalize but there is no transformation of morals which is key to Piaget's notion of construction. K just focuses on choosing and feeling ownership over morals.
Describe the moral “regression” that Kohlberg discovered in his longitudinal research. How did he initially accommodate this regression? What did Eliot Turiel suggest this “regression” actually represented? What is Stage 4 1/2 and, what conflict does it represent? What is the implication of achieving stage 4 1/2 for attaining higher moral stages?
When testing college students Kohlberg found what seemed to be a moral regression back to stage 2. Initially accepted it as an ego-development-related regression. Eliot suggested it was actually much more sophisticated. Therefore Kohlberg changed these stage 2ers as being in stage 4 1/2. Stage 41/2 is essentially comprised of a principled relativistic worldview and represents a conflict between subjective views that should result in disequilibration. Therefore achieving stage 4 ½ means that is will necessarily provoke diseqilibration and lead to stage 5.
How common were the ‘Postconventional’ Kolhbergian stages in his longitudinal sample? What sort of ‘ethical’ questions are ‘Existential’ stages of moral development imagined to address?
None of the adolescents reached stage 5, only 13% of adults did. None reached stage 6. Existential stages reflect why questions e.g. why live.
Cognitive moral motivation
Reciprocity, disequilibratium.
Affective moral motivation
Empathy.
Universal Ethical Principles
Kohlberg Stage 6-Metaethical evaluation, reconstruction, and justification of stage 5 ethical principles. Outside moral philosophy, law, and theology, not evidence of reasoning at this level.
Optimal Match
Adolescent notices a discrepancy between their own moral reasoning, and more sophisticated, culturally preexisting modes of moral reasoning. Then the adolescent actively chooses to adopt a more sophisticated cultural moral schema that is different to the earlier stage. Not simply internalizing but choosing to do so. Reduces construction to internalization.
Cross-sectional
Study different cohorts of participants e.g. at ages 10, 12, 15.
Longitudinal
Study the same participants over a long period of time.
What theoretical position was Kohlberg reacting to with his theory of moral development? How did he construe his moral stages to contrast with this theoretical position? How did this differ from Piaget’s notion of moral phases? Which elements of moral development did Kohlberg imagine were variant, and which did he imagine were invariant? How did Kohlberg propose you might methodologically access the invariant element of moral development?
Kohlberg was reacting to cultural relativity, the idea that any moral is as good as another depending on the culture you are in. Kohlberg believed that there were types of moral reasoning that were better than others. Therefore, he devised his stages in a type of hierarchy. Moral reasoning became increasingly better through the stages. Piaget however chose to call the stages phases. They didn’t signify a hierarchy, neither were the phases all universal. Children generally fell into one or another stage. Kohlberg however viewed standard development (stage 1-4) as invariant, where there were clearly defined moral stages that a child would fall in. Existential development (stages 5 to 7) is variant and involves a meta-ethical, spiritual awakening. Kohlberg suggests that to find the invariant stages one would try to find the common schemas among peoples development by giving them moral dilemmas and study the structure of reasoning employed to resolve them.
How was Kohlberg influenced by John Dewey’s moral philosophy, and how did his initial stage formulation mirror Dewey’s stages? At which stage can morality be construed as constructed.
Kohlberg was influenced by Dewey’s trichotomy of moral development as he thought philosophy and psychology could work together. Impulsive, group conforming, and reflective became preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Construction is said to begin at stage 5 or the postconventional stages or stage 3 and 4 B.
Name and describe Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. How does Kohlberg differ from Piaget in his conception of moral construction, and when moral construction begins? How does optimal match differ from moral construction?
a.Punishment and Obedience (Heteronomous Morality-Piaget): Following externally imposed rules (by parents and authority), not requiring justification, and an intuitive sense that immoral actions are punished because they are immoral.
b.Individualism and Exchange (Reciprocity as a Fact-Piaget): Increasing realization of perspectives (can see from one other individual’s perspective), capable of coordinating those perspectives. Enlightened Self Interest: to get what you want (concern is with my welfare), give people what they want. Respect for the rights of others to pursue their own interests.
c.Interpersonal Conformity: Increasing sophisticated perspective taking. Still group conforming and conventional. Moral conventions are on the basis of direct interactions with others e.g. mutual trust and loyalty, obligation to others, expectations to live up to.
d.Law and Order: Morals are from the perspective of society as a whole. Identification with authorities and internalization of community norms. Traditional Cultures less likely to go beyond stage 3.
e.Social Contract: Further shift of perspective: Can evaluate social systems from a prior-to-society perspective (outside or beyond society). Laws and entire social systems can now be morally evaluated on the basis of postconventional moral principles. Most likely to develop in societies where cultures clash.
f.Universal Ethical Principles: Meta-ethical evaluation, reconstruction, and justification of stage 5 ethical principles. Outside moral philosophy, law, and theology, not evidence of reasoning at this level.
g.K reduces construction to internalization. Piaget believes that moral construction begins in stage 3, whereas only K's stages 5 and 6 and moral type 3 and 4 B's are anything remotely approaching construction. Kohlberg uses an optimal match
h.Optimal Match where you can choose what you want to conform or internalize but nothing is transformed which is a key aspect of Piaget's construction.
What is the difference between Kohlberg’s stages 3A and 3B, and 4A and 4B? What cognitive capacity did Kohlberg believe was responsible for reasoning from A or B?
Alongside caring for friends and living up to interpersonal expectations (stage 3A) came concerns for mutual good faith or understanding and for universalized caring (stage 3B). Alongside concerns with fixed responsibilities or authority and the givens of the law (stage 4A) came ideal responsibility to contribute to a better society and with moral law (stage 4B). Different cognitive capacity between A and B thinking is that A is internalized moral reasoning and B is constructed moral reasoning but still at the conventional level.
How common were the ‘Postconventional’ Kolhbergian stages in his longitudinal sample? What sort of ‘ethical’ questions are ‘Existential’ stages of moral development imagined to address?
None of the adolescents reached stage 5, only 13% of adults did. None reached stage 6. Existential stages reflect why questions e.g. why live.
Cognitive moral motivation
Reciprocity, disequilibratium.
Affective moral motivation
Empathy.
Empathy
Sharing the perceived emotions of others.
Bystander situation
Biological normal, cognitively competent people will help other people in distress if no one else is around.
Prosocial behavior
Actions directed to benefit others without anticipating anything in return.
Moral self-regulation
Inner conflict and resources for autonomous resolution of moral dilemma. Results in prosocial behavior.
Moral self-reward
Feel good when done the right thing. Results in prosocial behavior.
Immature modes of empathic arousal
a.Nonverbal (just seeing it) Seen during first year of childhood when superficial, here-and-now, and face-to-face mediate emotional arousal upon social behavior.
b.Mimicry-Classical conditioning-Direct Association.
Mature modes of empathic arousal
a.Verbal/symbolic (reading, hearing) Connects with the life situation of another individual or group, leading to decline of egocentric bias.
b.Mediated Association-Social Perspective Taking.
Involuntary mimicry
Mode 1 (immature modes of empathic arousal). A reflex of child that mimics facial/vocal/posture expressions and triggers affect in child. Infant feels what others feel but just by mimicry.
Classical conditioning
Mode 2 (immature modes of empathic arousal). An immediate and involuntary learned response from other’s emotional expression to affect of infant.
Empathic trigger
An event or situation that triggers an empathic arousal.
Direct association
Mode 3 (immature modes of empathic arousal). Empathy is triggered by directing viewing someone else’s plight and associating it to a similar plight that happened to the self.
Mediated association
Mode 4 (mature modes of empathic arousal) Empathy is triggered via mediation such as a book, which reduces impact of empathy felt.
Symbolic proxy
Distancing from the face-to-face emotional representation to other sources such as a book.
Psychological distance
As a result of symbolic proxy, also leads to psychological distance, less intense empathic arousal.
Social Perspective taking
Mode 5 (mature modes of empathic arousal). Taking on another’s perspective. Other focused-How they feel in that situation. Self-focused-How you would feel in that situation.
Self-focused
Thinking about how you would feel in the given situation. Can lead to egoistic drift.
Other-focused
Thinking about how they feel in the given situation. Not as distressing.
Egoistic drift
Observer becomes lost in egoistic concerns and the image of the victim that initiated the role-taking process skips out of focus and fades away.
Empathic development
Empathic arousal and increasing decentration result in empathic development.
Immature empathic stages
a.Stage 0-Newborn Reactive Cry.
b.Stage 1-Egocentric Empathic Distress.
c.Stage 2-Quasi-Egocentric Distress.
Mature empathic stages
a.Stage 3-Empthic Distress in Response to the Situation of Another.
b.Stage 4-Broader (Beyond the immediate situation) Empathic Distress.
Newborn reactive cry
Stage 0 (immature empathic stages). Crying when other babies cry. Think you are the same global entity as the other baby, so they cry means you are crying.
Egocentric empathic distress
Stage 1 (immature empathic stages). Less automatic reaction and beginning of emotional self-regulation. Starting to notice diff between self and other. When see other in distress, try to relive own distress-egocentric.
Quasi-egocentric empathic distress
Stage 2 (immature empathic stages) Advancement in self-other distinction. Witnessing others distress engage in behavior to relieve their stress by giving them things that would relive own distress e.g. a toy.
Egocentric projection
Ones’ own inner state and needs is projected onto others.
Veridical empathic distress
Provoked by understanding of other’s inner life and situation. Complete self-decentration; understand others have needs you don’t.
Sympathy
Wanting to alleviate another’s distress.
Immature egoistic distress
Don’t discriminate your distress from another’s distress when helping others to reduce your empathic arousal.
Mature egoistic distress
Your discriminate your distress from others distress, but in the end you help others to reduce your own negative empathic arousal.
Empathic distress in response to the situation of another
Stage 3 (mature empathic stages). Understanding the causes, consequences, and correlates (also person’s history) of other’s emotions allows for more subtle and complex empathic arousal. Understand that people can have mixed emotions and can control emotions.
Broader (Beyond the Immediate Situation) Empathic Distress
Stage 4 (mature empathic stages). Begins in adolescents. Empathic arousal is in response to others arousal placed in context of others past and future. Also can be in response to the situation of a group of people e.g. minority group.
Internal causal attribution
When seeing a victim, attributing their plight as their fault will reduce empathic distress.
External causal attribution
When seeing a victim, attributing their plight to someone else’s fault increases empathic distress.
Actor/observer bias
Attribute others behaviors to internal causes, but own behaviors to external causes.
Just world hypothesis
The belief that good things happen to good peoples, and bad things happen to bad people.
Empathic anger
Causes of another’s distress are attributed to another’s aggression, not the victims fault but the other persons and now direct anger toward them.
Transgression guilt
Causes of another’s distress is attributed to one’s own actions, I did something wrong.
Bystander guilt
Causes of another’s distress are attributed to one’s own inactions, I could have helped but I didn’t.
Empathic overarousal
Postoptimal empathic distress provoked egoistic shift and prompts avoidance of suffering.
Empathic bias
We are predisposed to empathic arousal in response to the distress of certain others.
Familiarity bias
Increased empathic arousal provoked by familiar or similar others like self.
Here-and-now bias
Increased empathic arousal provoked by distressed persons who are immediately present.
Reframing
Overcoming familiarity bias by framing outgroup as ingroup.
Defensive distraction
Taking a break or removing self from the situation, avoidance.
Self-efficacy
Can help, have the power to help.
Habituation
Get used to plight of people in need e.g. commercials of starving babies.
Moral principles
Allow us to decenter from the salient features of the victim’s plight and respond with more appropriate empathic distress. Can reduce or increase empathic overarousal. Moral principles lack motive force, when combined with empathy has affective power.
Hot cognitions
Cool cognitions (thoughts or memories) combined with hot empathic emotional arousal.
Justice principle
Balancing needs and resources equally (joined with disiquilibration and/or empathic anger).
Caring principle
People should always help others in need (joined with empathy).
Induction
Parent’s messages that highlight others perspective, point out the others distress, and make it clear child’s actions caused it.
What are the three elements of moral development does Hoffman theorize lead to prosocial behavior? How do they reflect Freud’s three personality structures?
The three elements of moral development are a biologically based predispositions (empathy), mediated by cognition (enrich the empathic disposition), and shaped through socialization (proper learning environment, but can’t turn it off through bad socialization) can lead to prosocial behavior. Biologically based predisposition is the Id. The cognitive mediator is the Ego. And the socialization that shapes it is the Superego.
What would be the evolutionary and functional basis for empathy? What is the evidence that empathy may be an innate biological predisposition?
There are two main evolutionary functional bases for empathy. The first is if the recipient is not genetically related, that person would have to reciprocate your help in the future for such an act to be selected for. Must benefit you in some way to help. The second way is that the person you help is genetically related to you and then your helping will mean your genes in them are successful as result of your helping. Evidence is found by the fact that empathy is universal. Babies and other animals display primitive prosocial behaviors that don’t have advanced cognitive mechanisms. Also found through neurological studies.
Name and describe the immature modes of empathic arousal. What aspects of empathic arousal generally characterizes these modes? Name and describe the mature modes of empathic arousal. What aspects of empathic arousal generally characterizes these modes? What role does metacognition play in these mature modes of arousal?
a.The empathetic arousal that characterizes the immature stages is relatively superficial, simple, passive, and here-and-now.
i.Involuntary Mimicry is a reflex of child that mimics facial/vocal/posture expressions and triggers affect in child. Infant feels what others feel but just by mimicry.
ii.Classical Conditioning is an immediate and involuntary learned response from other’s emotional expression to affect of infant.
iii.Direct Association is empathy from associating a directly observed tragedy to something that happened to the self, an accident that happens to another child can arouse memories of that happening to me and then I feel empathy.
b.The empathetic arousal that characterizes the mature moral stages is a deeper emotional connection with others.
i.Mediated Association is empathy by association experienced through a medium such as a book. Taking a step back from face-to-face of the victim. Results in empathy becoming less intense.
ii.Social Perspective Taking is imagining oneself in the other person’s place.
c.Metacognition allows us to expand empathy, to more possible sources, and focus empathy, not constantly overaroused from any source of empathy.
Which two empathic and cognitive factors interact to constitute empathic moral development? What are the immature stages of empathic development, and which empathic and cognitive factors generally characterize them? What are the mature stages of moral development, and which empathic and cognitive factors generally characterize them?
a.Empathic arousal and decentration result in empathic moral development.
b.Immature:
c.Stage 0-Newborn Reactive Cry is crying when other babies cry. Think you are the same global entity as the other baby, so they cry means you are crying.
d.Stage 1-Egocentric Empathic Distress is less automatic and beginning of emotional self-regulation. Starting to notice diff between self and other. When see other in distress, try to relive own distress-egocentric.
e.Stage 2-Quasi-Egocentric Empathic Distress is advancement in self-other distinction. Witnessing others distress engage in behavior to relieve their stress by giving them things that would relive own distress e.g. a toy.
f.Mature:
g.Stage 3-Empathic Distress in Response to the Situation of Another is essentially understanding the causes, consequences, and correlates (also persons history) of other’s emotions allows for more subtle and complex empathic arousal. Understand that people can have mixed emotions and can control emotions.
h.Stage 4-Broader (Beyond the Immature Situation) Empathic Distress begins in adolescents. Empathic arousal is in response to others arousal placed in context of others past and future. Also can be in response to the situation of a group of people e.g. minority group.
How does cognition operate to mediate empathy? In what ways does cognition mediate empathy? How does this mediation guide empathic affects? What are the limitations and biases of empathy that may impede prosocial behavior, and how might they be overcome?
a.Cognition mediates/transforms/shapes biologically innate empathic arousal into sympathy and prosocial behavior through inferences and attribution. Cognition does so through expanding, focusing, and stabilizing empathy. For example, attributing the source of someone’s distress to external causes, increases empathic arousal and sympathy and can cause empathic anger toward the cause of another’s distress. Attributing the source of someone’s distress to internal causes eliminates sympathy. The limitations are Empathic Overaousal when one feels overly distressed and may lead to egoistic drift where one avoids the sufferer. The Biases are Familiarity/Similarity boas where one is more empathically provoked by similar others or Here-and-Now bias where empathic distress is provoked by trigger that is immediately present. Can be overcome by pitting one against another. Overarousal can be reduced by distraction, moral principles, and feeling like one can help. Here-and-now can overcome familiarity bias e.g. by looking at suffering child in Africa. Familiarity bias can be overcome by framing outgroup as ingroup.
How does socialization shape empathy, and what role do adult inductions play? How does Hoffman understand ‘constructed’ or ‘internalized’ moral norms in adolescence?
The conflicting emotions or egoistic biases can override empathy. Socializing children helps perspective taking through eliciting and cultivating empathy and transgression guilt. Adults induct messages that require child to notice others perspective and harm the child may have caused. Hoffman understands moral norms to be constrcuted in the sense that they are chosen and transformed somehow. It does sound as though Hoffman is reducing constructed to internalization, but what is important is that adolescents feel as though their morals are their own making.
prosocial behavior
Actions directed to benefit others without anticipating anything in return.
helper altruists
Feel empathy towards and seeks to alleviate the distress of people they are helping.
reformer altruists
Seek to correct social justice.
balancing
Within Moral type B of more mature adolescents, reciprocal perspective taking.
universalizing
Within Moral type B of more mature adolescents, apply principles to everyone.
conscience
Within Moral type B of more mature adolescents, internal moral impetus.
field independence
Able to tell a core injustice or wrong in a situation despite the fact that there are distortions or distracting influences of the social groups/field.
veridical moral perception
Can see through social pressures to underlying, universal moral ideals e.g. justice and care.
moral self schema
Those for which morality are highly relevant to their self-schema are highly schematic; those for which morality is irrelevant to their self-schema are aschematic.
ego strength
The ability to persevere in prosocial actions.
No Self Unity
The individual in question isn’t the same person; one body houses entirely different minds.
Many Selves
Individual can be thought of as one person, but that one self have many competing desires.
Dual Selves
Can be thought of as one person; one conscious desire which is mostly in control.
Singular Self
One person, one desire manifesting itself differently in different situations.
What does Hoffman claim is the only motivational force that can initiate prosocial behavior? How does Gibbs evaluate this view, and what two motivations does he suggest in his alternative account? What role does affect play in Gibbs’ alternative account?
Hoffman thinks only empathy can provoke prosocial behavior. Gibb’s believes this account is wrongly reductionistic. We also need to consider cognition as a motivation. Therefore thinks cognitive primacy and affective primacy are both evolved in motivating. However, empathic affect and cognitive affect (disequilibrium) are just two types of affects which sounds similar to Hoffman that empathy is the only motivational force.
There are many more individual differences with respect to moral judgments among adolescents than among older children. In which respects do judgments differ within adolescence, and why is this so?
In adolescents emerges the capacity to mature, however not all adolescents develop morals at the same time. Therefore there is a Moral type A and B. Moral Type A is more immature and embedded in existing social arrangements of what friends and parents want. Moral type B is more mature, where a balance has arisen between individuals and individuals and societies needs.
How does moral self-relevance begin in adolescence, and how does it function to provide a “meta-primary source of moral motivation”?
Adolescents become aware that moral schema and self-schema might not be well integrated and begin to integrate them e.g. I am moral, when I act immorally this creates cognitive dissonance which motivates one to take moral action to right the wrong. Cognitive dissonance Theory is therefore a meta-primary source for moral motivation, a subset of empathy.
What Eriksonian aspect of adolescent self-concept development were Proulx et al. (in press) addressing with their research? How did the questions in their interview protocol address this aspect of self-concept, and for whom were adolescents asked to make related self-concept judgments? What were the four self-concept categories into which adolescent self-concept judgments were coded? Categories 2-4 represent variations of which two dimensions of selfhood? What was the general developmental trajectory for Canadian and Mauritian adolescents with regards to self concept judgments made for their own self? Which category of self-concept judgment predominated with Canadian young adults?
Erikson’s idea of self-unity, we behave in different, often contradictory ways in different contexts, so how are we the same across time. Show adolescents how they can be different in different situations, as well as show Jekyll and Hyde story of being different in different situations and then ask how they are the same and J and H is the same. Answers could fall into 1) no self unity, 2) Many selves, 3) Dual Selves, 4) Single Self. 2-4 were variations of unified and disunified selfhood. General developmental trajectory was seeing the self as increasingly differentiated and dependent on the context as you grow e.g. motive from stage 4 to stage 2. Canadian young adults were predominantly differentiated and context dependent stage 2.
Harter (1992) and Fromm (1941) provide two general explanations for the adolescent developmental trajectory described by Proulx et al. What are these two accounts, and how did Proulx et al. change their interview protocol re locus of control to address these accounts? What are the different predictions that Harter’s explanation and Fromm’s explanation would make concerning the developmental trajectory of how adolescents would answer these questions? Which explanation was supported by Proulx et al.’s findings?
Harter explains that there is an increasing awareness of attribute/context interaction. Fromm explains that it is like an escape from freedom, external locus of control/giving up freedom. Therefore Proulx et al. changed interview to question and code for internal or external attribution. Harter and Fromm’s explanation would predict that the growing awareness of context and giving up freedom would mean that good and bad behaviors would be increasingly described as context dependent. However, Proux el al. found that it isn’t a universal increase in context dependent accounts. Good behaviors were context free or internally motivated. Bad behaviors were externally motivated.
developmental delay
The persistence of immature morality (egocentric bias and superficial moral judgment—self, temporal, spatial) into adolescence and adulthood.
self-serving cognitive distortions
Nonaccurate or nonveridical self-centered schemas for perceiving events that facilitate aggression and other antisocial behavior.
social skill deficiencies
Do not know what specific steps in a social conflict will result in the conflicts being solved.
primary cognitive distortion
Primary self-serving cognitive distortion which is defined as self-serving schemas. Schemas that are concerned only with one’s own views, expectations, needs, rights, feelings, and so forth right now to the extent that other’s views and even your own in the future are scarcely considered or are disregarded altogether. Their rights override others. Generally misconceive self as the victim and victim as the offender.
self-centered worldview
See the world with only your needs, desires, rights, as important which is a great risk factor for antisocial behavior. When someone wrongs them, they are the victim because of their elevated egocentrism and lash out
proactive aggression
Grandiose from a sense of superiority. The individual sees and treats others as weaker being who should not dare to interfere and who can be manipulated or controlled through violence; aggression is part of basic approach to life. Rights are supreme and confidently impose them on others. After aggression feels triumphant.
reactive aggression
Vulnerable from a sense of potential inadequacy. The individual views the world mainly as a place where people do not adequately respect (and may adequately seek to humiliate) him; he becomes violence prone when he see threat or insult. Nobody recognizes his rights and reacts with anger and violence when others reject him or do not show him respect. Can feel good about actions or shame or guilt; capacity for empathy.
With proactive offenders what is triumphant equilibration?
With proactive offenders, when their self-schema are challenged, thus creating disequilibration, act with aggression to keep schema in tact (assimilate), not accommodate the challenge. After aggression feel triumphant.
vindicating equilibration
With reactive offenders, when their self-schema is challenged (by someone not respecting their inflated ego), creating disequilibration, react with aggression to keep schema in tact (assimilate), not accommodate the challenge (maybe I am not great). After aggression feel right. Can also feel empathic distress. Capacity for guilt.
secondary cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortions (used primarily by reactive offender because they have capacity for empathy) that protect the offender against certain types of psychological stress that tend to be generated by his harm to others. Include blaming others, assuming the worst, and minimizing/mislabeling. They permit one to disengage one’s unfair, harmful conduct from one’s evaluation of the self.
blaming others
Displacing responsibility or blame for their aggression/harmful actions onto some other person or circumstance. Comes from self-centered sense of entitlement, become the victim and the other the offender. She was asking for it.
assuming the worst
Needlessly attributing hostile intentions to others, considering a worst-case scenario for a social situation as if it were inevitable, or assuming that improvement is impossible in own and others behavior e.g. she hates me I know it, she’s trying to kill me. Can function as rationalization for violence against the victim. Often involves overgeneralization e.g. everyone steals, why not me?
aggressogenic overgeneralization
Exaggerated other blaming.
depressogenic overgeneralization
Exaggerated self blaming.
minimalizing/mislabeling
Depicting antisocial behavior as causing no real harm or as being acceptable or even admirable, or referring to others with belittling or dehumanizing labels e.g. she enjoyed being raped or the enemy are vermin.
social skills
Balanced and constructive behavior in difficult interpersonal situations e.g. youth that calmly and sincerely offer clarification or apologize to an angry accuser. Doing so by taking angry accusers perspective and own into account, what best for both.
What general centration does Gibbs cite as underlying all antisocial behaviors and judgments? How does this centration manifest itself in moral developmental delay? How does it manifest in the primary cognitive distortion, and the related proactive and reactive aggression?
a.Egocentric bias or self centration.
b.Manifests mainly in the reasons or justifications for moral decisions or value e.g. at stage 2 reasoning (tit for tat), keep a promise to someone because you might need something from them in the future. Don’t steal because you might get caught.
c.When egocentric bias persists through childhood, tends to tern into a primary self-serving cognitive distortion which is defined as self-serving schemas. Schemas that are concerned only with one’s own views, expectations, needs, rights, feelings, and so forth right now to the extent that other’s views and even your own in the future are scarcely considered or are disregarded altogether.
d.Inflated self-esteem, egocentrism at its maximum, means will act to challenges of his inflated ego in either a proactive or reactive way. Proactive aggression is feeling a sense of superiority. The individual sees and treats others as weaker being who should not dare to interfere and who can be manipulated or controlled through violence; aggression is part of basic approach to life. Rights are supreme and confidently impose them on others. After aggression feels triumphant. Reactive aggression is vulnerable from a sense of potential inadequacy. The individual views the world mainly as a place where people do not adequately respect (and may adequately seek to humiliate) him; he becomes violence prone when he see threat or insult. Nobody recognizes his rights and reacts with anger and violence when others reject him or do not show him respect. Can feel good about actions or shame or guilt; capacity for empathy.
What role does ‘justice’ play in the schema responsible for the primary cognitive distortion? How does disequilibrium arise from violations of this ‘justice’ schema, and how do the secondary cognitive distortions operate to deal with this disequilibrium?
a.The role of justice in the schema for primary cognitive distortion is essential self-serving justice. Justice is what serves their needs. If they want something, justice would be to get it. If someone challenges their ego, justice would be to punish them.
b.Disequilibration arises when challenges to his self-centered justice e.g. Someone doesn’t give him what he wants, this violates his justice, that he should get everything he wants, and challenges his schema that he is the best leading to disequilibration (possibly empathetic distress from harming others).
c.Secondary cognitive distortions are cognitive distortions that protect the offender from feeling the empathetic distress which could allow for change. Disequilibration might arise when feeling empathetic distress after hurting someone (why do I feel bad when I got what I wanted). The distress could potentially allow for prospective taking, which is something the self-centered worldview tries to avoid, this using strategies such as blaming others to lower distress and keep schema in tact.
How is ‘Blaming Others’ similar to Proulx et al.’s Self-Unity Categories 2 and 3? What does the developmental trajectory uncovered by Proulx et al. suggest about how ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ this cognitive distortion may be among adolescents?
Blaming others is a way to keep self one unit, that bad action wasn’t me that was their fault. I am actually amazing all around. Seeing and wanting to see self as one Unit. Very common!
According to Gibbs’ conceptualization of social skills, which social skills are antisocial adolescents lacking and how does this result in antisocial behavior?
Lacking in understanding of multiple perspectives and respect as well as lacking in ability to engage in constructive social problem solving in conflict resolution situation.
a.Results in submission to negative peer pressure.
b.Aggressive in the face of provocation.
Ego identity
Sameness and continuity of synthesized tripartite identity 1) Biology 2) social group 3) Unique personal history.
Biology
Body or physical component of identity.
Social group
Values, roles, cultural milieu component of identity.
Personal history
Your life, everything you experienced up to this point component of identity.
Synchronic unity
Sameness across contexts.
Diachronic unity
Sameness over time.
Ego synthesis
Identity formed by a type of construction, voluntarily retaining some interjected values and roles and discarding others. Becomes more then the sum of its parts because it’s constructed or put together.
Identity formation
Results from adolescent crisis, needs to be some sort of questioning of introjections, and made different/your own.
Epigenesis
One item develops from another in space and time, adolescent identity formation transcends childhood introjections but develops out of its parts.
Optimal sense of identity
Evolves an assured sense of direction-feeling at home in one’s body, and a sense of knowing where one is going; and a sense of commitment-to work roles, values, sexual orientation. Commitment should be flexible strength.
Direction
Feeling comfortable in one’s body and knowing where one is going is important for an optimal sense of identity.
Commitment
Being committed to work, values, sexual orientation in a flexible yet strong manner is important for optimal sense of identity.
Identity Achieved
One of James Marcia's adolescent identities. Successful identity formation following a period of crisis/questioning own schema from parents. Can still go back to moratorium.
Moratorium
One of James Marcia's adolescent identities. Mid identity crisis, no identity formation or come out of identity achieved back to moratorium.
Foreclosed
One of James Marcia's adolescent identities. Introjected identity, but no crisis or identity formation. When questioned it seems achieved but pushing deeper causes anger and the façade to shatter like glass.
Diffused
One of James Marcia's adolescent identities. No identity, no attempt at identity formation. Carefree and possibly server psychopathology.
Adaptive regression
a. Identity achieved back to moratorium but only for a brief period (possibly because very anxiety provoking) and back to identity achieved again.
How was it that Erikson believed one could come to understand the nature of ego identity? What are the three components of ego identity? In which two ways must they be experienced as coherent? How does ego identity manifest consciously and unconsciously?
Believed come to understand identity through its absence or loss. Ego identity is made up from Biology, Social Group, and Unique personal History. Must be coherent across contexts (synchronic Unity) and over time (Diachronic Unity). Unconscious in the sense that sameness and continuity are taken for granted and unconscious. And Conscious that when it is lost or challenged, we engage to restore it.
According to Erikson, what form does identity take in childhood? How does it manifest and how is it structured? What form does identity take in adolescence? How does it manifest and how is it structured? What two questions must be answered by the completion of the adolescent identity formation process? Which two aspects of identity are present when one has achieved an optimal sense of identity?
Identity is introjected in childhood. Identity manifests through an epigenensis, constructed from the introjected foundation, building something more then the sum of its parts. In adolescents identity is ideally constructed by voluntarily retaining some values/roles and discarding others via and ego synthesis. Two Q's are "who am I," and "who do others think I am?" To achieve an optimal sense of identity, ideally one should feel comfortable in one’s body and possess a sense of direction as well as commitment to work, values, sexual orientation in a flexible yet strong way.
Describe Erikson’s proposed life stages up to and including adolescence. Describe the normative bipolar conflicts that arise in each stage, the traits or capacities that should result from the resolution of these conflicts, and how the resolution of these conflicts laid the foundation for successive stages.
a.Infancy is trust vs. mistrust where if the infant experiences the world as generally responsive and helpful will develop capacity for hope.
b.(2-3 years) Autonomy vs. Shame. With the capacity of hope, a child will ideally feel able to express his or her will without global fear of failure and rejections.
c.(4-5 years) Initiative vs. Guilt where the will can become goal directed and the child realizes he or she can become something and develops purpose.
d.(6-12 years) Industry vs. Inferiority where purpose directs child to find his or her special skills and talents and ideally develop competence.
e.Adolescents Identity vs. Confusion where competence allows for commitment/fidelity to constructed ideological worldview, the essence of identity.
Which aspect of Erikson’s conception of identity was the focus of Marcia’s conceptualization of identity status? What are Marcia’s four identity statuses, and how do they manifest the presence or absence of this aspect? How do these statuses compare in terms of anxiety, attachment style, and epistemological stance? What is the general longitudinal developmental trajectory of these identity statuses?
a.Marcia’s conceptualization of identity status is based on commitment and non-commitment from Erikson’s idea of degrees of commitment between identity and role confusion.
b.Identity Achievement is successful formation of identity which evolves commitment to own worldview. Secure attachment style with low anxiety levels. Operate from more sophisticated epistemological stance-multi-subjectivist.
c.Moratorium is a mid identity crisis or loss of former identity which evolves trying to find commitments. Insecure attachment style, generally quite anxious, primarily relativistic stance.
d.Foreclosure is introjected identity and no crisis or identity formation, commitments are superficial and not justifiable, just introjected. Most insecure attachment style, not usually anxious, and objectivist epistemological stance.
e.Diffusion is no identity or attempt to achieve one which means there are no commitments, just don’t care. Avoidant attachment style, indefinable epistemological stance, no anxiety.
f.The general direction is from diffused and foreclosure to moratorium and identity achieved. Identity achieved can go back to moratorium in an adaptive regression.
Backwards referring
Continuity of the self over time, looking back on own life and cultural history and being part of that identity.
Forward anticipating
Continuity of the self over time, looking forward in time and securing our own and yet unrealized future.
Essentialist
(1 of 2 strategies for maintaining self over time)Some part of the self endures through time, despite other changes.
Simple Inclusion
(Essentialist level 1) You are the same because of one physical part of your body hasn’t changed.
Topological
(Essentialist level 2) Change is merely a facade; acknowledge change but actually not there.
Epigenetic
(Essentialist level 3) The present was always there in the past, just laying in wait for proper time to emerge. Seed of continuity has always been there.
Frankly Essentialist
(Essentialist level 4) The present is a phenotypic change on an unchanged genotype, same inside but outside changes.
Theory Based
(Essentialist level 5) Identity is a bracketed or temporarily held theory of the self.
Narrative
(1 of 2 strategies for maintaining self over time) Change is there, but some sort of story links things together.
Episodic
(Narrative level 1) Story of self as a simple chronology e.g. life is one thing after another, change is ok.
Picaresque
(Narrative level 2) Knights (good) & Rogues (Bad). Story of person is the same because they are either good or bad.
Causal
(Narrative level 3) Story is linked by causal relationship. The present is an effect of the past which is the cause.
(Frankly) Narrative
(Narrative level 4) Continuity is supplied by a discoverable plot, a purposeful through line. Story of a goal.
Interpretive
(Narrative level 5) The re-story of one’s life. Same as level 5 of essentialist. Temporary and theoretical
According to Chandler, what two constitutive conditions must be present for selves and cultures to remain recognizable? How might these conditions appear to be at odds with one another? What are the two directions of continuity for selves and cultures? How might the continuity of selves be related to the continuity of cultures?
Both must constantly change, yet at the same time somehow remain the same. Both are essentially the opposite of one another so how can something be both things at the same time. How does something stay the same when it changes? Backwards referring and forward anticipating. You and your culture have a history, untimely you are somewhat a product and part of your culture and you feel that when you die you will somewhat live on in your culture. So have to be able to identify with self and culture over time.
What are the two general strategies for maintaining a sense of self-continuity? What are the five increasingly sophisticated levels of each of these strategies? What age ranges and cognitive stages are associated with differing Essentialist levels? What cross-cultural differences are associated with these self-continuity warranting strategies?
The Narrative (change is there, but some sort of story links things together) and Essentialist (some part of the self endures through time, despite other changes) Account. Narrative: 1) Episodic, 2) Picaresque, 3) Causal, 4) (Frankly) Narrative, and 5) Interpretive. Essentialist: 1) Simple Inclusion, 2) Topological, 3) Epigenetic, 4) Frankly Essentialist, and 5) Theory Based. In the Essentialist levels move from level 1 in grade 1 to level 5 in University. Move from level 1 and 2 in Preoperational to level 5 in Formal operational. Aboriginals had strong pull to narrative account. Non-aboriginals had strong pull to essentialist account.
What does Chandler hypothesize is the relationship between self-continuity and suicide in adolescence? How did the findings of his study involving suicidal and non-suicidal adolescents support this hypothesis?
a.Chandler et al. hypothesized that suicidal adolescents would be in a transitional moment were they are presently without any self-continuity as apposed to non-suicidal adolescents.
b.They found that suicidal adolescents are in fact those who are unsuccessful in own persistence (self-continuity) and whose communities are unsuccessful in problem of persistence (cultural-continuity).
Given the proposed relationships between self and cultural continuity, and self-continuity and adolescent suicide, what is the implication for native peoples in British Columbia? What becomes clear when you examine adolescent suicide rates among native adolescents in relation to census district and native band? What are nine factors whose presence/absence appear to be correlated with rates of suicide among native adolescents? What are these factors imagined to represent, and what is their hypothesized relation to suicide rates in native communities?
a.Aboriginal suicide is related to the success of own and community’s ability to solve the problem of persistence over time. Not all communities have equal rates of suicide, some are very high and some have very low rates.
b.Self-government.
c.Land claims.
d.Education.
e.Health services.
f.Police/Fire services.
g.Cultural facilities.
h.Knowledge of Aboriginal languages.
i.Women in government.
j.Child protection services.
k.The factors represent the ability of the community to preserve their heritage culture and the more of these 9 factors are present, the lower the suicide rates become.