10.4 Moral Development

Emotional regulation, moral development, and the emergence of empathy are intertwined, as “morality is multifaceted and includes affective, cognitive, and behavioral components” (Smetana, 2013). Thus moral development is evident in many of the topics already discussed.

Rough-and-tumble play, for instance, teaches children not to hurt their playmates. Concern for helping other people is also apparent in sociodramatic play, especially the rescue fantasies and caregiving routines that are commonly acted out. Children learn to take turns and to share—and they believe it unfair when another child does not do so (Utendale & Hastings, 2011).

Children develop increasingly complex moral values, judgments, and behaviors as they mature. Social bonds and theory of mind provide the foundation for more advanced moral action. [Lifespan Link: Development of social bonds is discussed in Chapter 7 and theory of mind in Chapter 9.] Piaget thought that moral development began when children learned games with rules, which he connected with concrete operational thought at about age 7 (Piaget, 1932/1997).

We now know that Piaget was mistaken: Both games with rules and moral development are evident much earlier. Some precursors of morality appear in infancy (Narvaez & Lapsley, 2009). With maturation and adult guidance, children develop guilt (as Erikson explained) and self-control. That helps them behave in ethical ways (Kochanska et al., 2009; Konner, 2010).

Nature and Nurture

Many parents, teachers, and other adults consider children’s “good” behavior more important than any other advancement already described in previous chapters (physical strength, motor skills, intelligence, language, etc.). Perhaps for this reason, debate rages over how children internalize standards, develop virtues, and avoid vices. Scholars in many social sciences hold conflicting perspectives—nature versus nurture again.

The nature perspective suggests that morality is genetic, an outgrowth of natural bonding, attachment, and cognitive maturation. That would explain why young children help and defend their parents, no matter what the parents do, and punish other children who violate moral rules. Even infants have a sense of what is fair and not, expecting adults to reward effort (Sloane et al., 2012).

Morality, if defined as behavior that helps others without immediate reward to oneself, may be in our DNA. According to evolutionary theory, humans protect, cooperate, and even sacrifice for one another because our bodies are defenseless and vulnerable to weather, strangers, and wild animals. To survive, people need to rely on other people, and from that need springs a moral sense (Dunning, 2011). Hormones, specifically oxytocin, that are produced by the body, may naturally push people toward trusting and loving each other (Zak, 2012).

296

The nurture perspective contends that culture is crucial to the development of morality. That would explain why young children emulate people who follow the rules of their community, even if the actual behavior is not innately good or bad. Although children understand the intellectual difference between morality and custom, some children believe that people who eat raw fish, or hamburgers, or bacon, or dogs are immoral (Turiel, 2002).

Developmentalists distinguish between ethical behavior (seeking not to harm others) and conventional behavior (seeking to follow norms), but that distinction is not always apparent. Consider gun use, abortion, the death penalty, disobeying an elder, stealing food—all considered immoral in some cultures, conventional in others, and a moral right (not wrong) in some communities under particular circumstances.

Both nature and nurture are always influential in standards of conduct, and the interaction between the two is crucial—and well worth discussion and debate. Beyond that truism, specifics cannot be settled here. However, we can explore two moral issues that arise from age 2 to age 6: children’s aggression and adults’ disciplinary practices. Nature and nurture are evident in both.

Empathy and Antipathy

empathy The ability to understand the emotions and concerns of another person, especially when they differ from one’s own.

antipathy Feelings of dislike or even hatred for another person.

Moral emotions are evident as children play with one another. With increasing social experiences and decreasing egocentrism, children develop empathy, an understanding of other people’s feelings and concerns, and antipathy, a feeling of dislike or even hatred.

Prosocial Behavior

prosocial behavior Actions that are helpful and kind but are of no obvious benefit to oneself.

Scientists studying young humans and other primates report spontaneous efforts to help others who are hurt, crying, or in need of help: That is evidence of empathy and compassion, which then lead to prosocial behavior—extending helpfulness and kindness without any obvious benefit to oneself (Warneken & Tomasello, 2009).

Expressing concern, offering to share, and including a shy child in a game or conversation are examples of prosocial behavior among young children. Jack, age 3, showed empathy when he “refused to bring snacks with peanuts to school because another boy had to sit alone during snack because he was allergic to nuts. Jack wanted to sit with him” (Lovecky, 2009, p. 161).

Prosocial behavior seems to result more from emotion than from intellect, more from empathy than from theory of mind (Eggum et al., 2011). The origins of prosocial behavior may arise from parents helping their children become aware of emotions, not from parents informing children what emotions others might have (Brownell et al., 2013).

Prosocial reactions are not automatic. Some children limit empathy by “avoiding contact with the person in need [which illustrates] … the importance of emotion development and regulation in the development of prosocial behavior” and the critical influence of cultural norms (Trommsdorff & Cole, 2011, p. 136). Feeling distress may be a part of nature; responding to distress may be nurture.

Antisocial Actions

antisocial behavior Actions that are deliberately hurtful or destructive to another person.

Antipathy can lead to antisocial behavior—deliberately hurting another person, including people who have done nothing wrong. Antisocial actions include verbal insults, social exclusion, and physical assaults (Calkins & Keane, 2009). An antisocial 4-year-old might look another child in the eye, scowl, and then kick him hard without provocation.

297

Pinch, Poke, or Pat Antisocial and prosocial responses are actually a sign of maturation: Babies do not recognize the impact of their actions. These children have much more to learn, but they already are quite social.
MATTHIAS STOLT/GETTY IMAGES
LIZ BANFIELD/GETTY IMAGES

In some ways, antisocial behavior comes naturally (Seguin & Tremblay, 2013). Even letting another child use a crayon that a child has already used is hard at age 2. Most 5-year-olds have learned to do it. Much depends on the child’s family and preschool education: With guidance, children balance giving and taking. The result is more prosocial and fewer antisocial actions as children mature (Ramani et al., 2010).

Aggression

Not surprisingly, given the moral sensibilities of young children, 5-year-olds already judge whether another child’s aggression is justified or antisocial (Etchu, 2007). Children are particularly focused on effects, not motives: A child who accidentally spilled water on another’s painting may be the target of that child’s justified anger. As with adults, self-defense is more readily forgiven than is a deliberate, unprovoked attack.

Do not assume, however, that bullies realize when they are wrong: At every age, aggressors feel they have a reason to do what they did. The young child’s emphasis on effects more than intentions may make more sense than the adult’s readiness to consider reasons.

instrumental aggression Behavior that hurts someone else because the aggressor wants to get or keep a possession or a privilege.

Researchers recognize four general types of aggression, all of which are evident in early childhood (see Table 10.2). Instrumental aggression is common among 2-year-olds, who often want something they do not have and simply try to take it. An aggressive reaction from the other child—crying, hitting, and resisting the grab of the instrumentally aggressive child—is also more typical at age 2 than earlier or later.

Table : TABLE 10.2The Four Forms of Aggression
Type of Aggression Definition Comments
Instrumental aggression Hurtful behavior that is aimed at gaining something (such as a toy, a place in line, or a turn on the swing) that someone else has Often increases from age 2 to 6; involves objects more than people; quite normal; more egocentric than antisocial.
Reactive aggression An impulsive retaliation for a hurt (intentional or accidental) that can be verbal or physical Indicates a lack of emotional regulation, characteristic of 2-year-olds. A 5-year-old can usually stop and think before reacting.
Relational aggression Nonphysical acts, such as insults or social rejection, aimed at harming the social connections between the victim and others Involves a personal attack and thus is directly antisocial; can be very hurtful; more common as children become socially aware.
Bullying aggression Unprovoked, repeated physical or verbal attack, especially on victims who are unlikely to defend themselves In both bullies and victims, a sign of poor emotional regulation; adults should intervene before the school years. (Bullying is discussed in Chapter 8.)

298

reactive aggression An impulsive retaliation for another person’s intentional or accidental action, verbal or physical.

Reactive aggression is therefore common among young children; almost every child reacts when hurt, whether or not the hurt was deliberate. Children are less likely to respond with physical aggression as they develop emotional control and theory of mind (Olson et al., 2011).

relational aggression Nonphysical acts, such as insults or social rejection, aimed at harming the social connection between the victim and other people.

Relational aggression (usually verbal) destroys another child’s self-esteem and disrupts the victim’s social networks, becoming more hurtful as children mature. A young child might tell another, “You can’t be my friend” or “You are fat,” hurting another’s feelings. These examples are relational aggression.

bullying aggression Unprovoked, repeated physical or verbal attacks, especially on victims who are unlikely to defend themselves.

The fourth and most ominous type is bullying aggression, done to dominate someone else. It is not rare among young children but should be stopped before school age, when it becomes particularly destructive. Not only does it destroy the self-esteem of victims, it impairs the later development of the bullies, who learn patterns that will harm them in adulthood. [Lifespan Link: An in-depth discussion of bullying appears in Chapter 13.]

All forms of aggression usually become less common from ages 2 to 6, as the brain matures and empathy increases. Parents, peers, and preschool teachers are pivotal mentors in this process. It is a mistake to expect children to regulate their emotions on their own; without guidance they may develop destructive patterns. It is also a mistake to punish the aggressor too harshly because that may remove them from their zone of proximal development, where they can learn to regulate their anger.

In other words, although there is evidence that preschool children spontaneously judge others who harm people, with the emphasis on the actual hurt more than the intention, there also is evidence that prosocial and antisocial behavior is learned (Smetana, 2013).

Discipline

Adults’ values, temperament, and experiences affect their responses when their children misbehave. Of course, those values and disciplinary strategies are influenced by culture.

Ideally, adults guide children toward good behavior and internalized standards of morality so that children always behave well. But this is not reality: Misbehavior cannot always be prevented.

Lest anyone imagine that, with benevolent parents, children will always be good, consider a study of mothers and 3-year-olds during late afternoon (a stressful time). Conflicts (including verbal disagreements) arose about every two minutes (Laible et al., 2008). Here is one example that began with an activity recommended for every parent; the mother was about to take her daughter for a walk:

Especially for Parents of 3-Year-Olds How could a parent compromise with a child who wants to wear “other shoes”?

Response for Parents of 3-Year-Olds: Remember, authoritative parents listen but do not usually give in. A parent could ask why the child did not want the Pooh sandals (ugly? too tight? old?) and explain why the “other shoes” were not appropriate (raining? save for special occasions? hard to walk in?). A promise for the future (e.g., “Let’s save your other shoes and pretty dress for the birthday party tomorrow”) might stop the “Noooo”

Child: I want my other shoes.
Mother: You don’t need your other shoes. You wear your Pooh sandals when we go for a walk.
Child: Noooooo.
Mother: [Child’s name]! You don’t need your other shoes.
Child: [Cries loudly]
Mother: No, you don’t need your other shoes. You wear your Pooh sandals when we go for a walk.
Child: Ahhhh. Want pretty dress. [Crying]
Mother: Your pretty dress!
Child: Yeah.
Mother: You can wear them some other day.
Child: Noooooo. [Crying]
[from Laible et al., 2008, pp. 442–443]

In this study, those 3-year-olds who had been securely attached at age 1 (an indication of responsive parenting) had as many conflicts as those who had been insecurely attached. Obviously, good parenting does not always produce good children, if by good children we mean those who are peaceful and obedient.

However, unlike the situation in the snippet above, the mothers of securely-attached children were more likely to compromise and explain (Laible et al., 2008). Is that the best response? Should this mother have offered reasons why the other shoes were not appropriate, or should she have let her daughter wear them? Alternatively, should she have slapped the child for crying, or said “I don’t want to walk with you if you fuss”?

Physical Punishment

corporal punishment Punishment that physically hurts the body, such as slapping, spanking, etc.

In the United States, young children are slapped, spanked, or beaten more often than are infants or older children, and more often than children in Canada or western Europe. Not only in the United States but also in many developing nations, adults remember being physically punished and think it works. In some ways, they are correct: Physical punishment (called corporal punishment because it hurts the body) succeeds at the moment—spanking stops misbehavior.

Longitudinal research finds, however, that children who are physically punished are more likely to become bullies, delinquents, and then abusive adults. They are also less likely to learn quickly in school or attend college (Straus & Paschall, 2009). In fact, although children who misbehave in externalizing ways (hitting, yelling, throwing things) are more likely to be spanked, longitudinal research finds that if they are not spanked they learn to control their acting out. On the other hand, the more children are spanked, the more likely they are to continue misbehaving (Gershoff et al., 2012).

In several nations of Europe, corporal punishment is illegal; in many nations on other continents, it is the norm. In the United States, it is legal and parents use it often. Even in U.S. schools, paddling is legal (but rarely used) in 19 of the 50 states. Most of those states are in the Southeast, and most of the children who are paddled are African American boys, which raises questions about the effectiveness and justice of the punishment (Morones, 2013).

Although some adults believe that physical punishment will “teach a lesson” of obedience, the lesson that children learn may be that “might makes right.” When they become bigger and stronger, they use corporal punishment on others. Parents who were hit as children usually become hitters themselves.

Especially for Parents Suppose you agree that spanking is destructive, but you sometimes get so angry at your child’s behavior that you hit him or her. Is your reaction appropriate?

Response for Parents: No. The worst time to spank a child is when you are angry. You might seriously hurt the child, and the child will associate anger with violence. You would do better to learn to control your anger and develop other strategies for discipline and for prevention of misbehavior.

Smack Will the doll learn never to disobey her mother again?
© URBANZONE/ALAMY

Many studies of children from all family constellations find that physical punishment of young children correlates with delayed theory of mind and increased aggression (Olson et al., 2011). To prove cause without a doubt would require parents of monozygotic twins to raise them identically, except that one twin would be spanked often and the other never. Of course, that is unethical as well as impossible.

300

Nonetheless, many developmentalists wonder why parents would take the chance. The best argument in favor of spanking is that alternative punishments are often worse (Larzelere et al., 2010). Let us consider some of those alternatives.

Psychological Control

psychological control A disciplinary technique that involves threatening to withdraw love and support and that relies on a child’s feelings of guilt and gratitude to the parents.

Another common method of discipline is called psychological control, in which children’s shame, guilt, and gratitude are used to control their behavior (Barber, 2002). Psychological control may reduce academic achievement and emotional intelligence, just as spanking is thought to do (Alegre, 2011).

Consider the results of a study of an entire cohort (the best way to obtain an unbiased sample) of children born in Finland (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). Their parents were asked 20 questions about their approach to child rearing. The following four items, which the parents rated from 1 (“Not at all like me”) to 5 (“Very much like me”), measured psychological control:

  1. “My child should be aware of how much I have done for him/her.”
  2. “I let my child see how disappointed and shamed I am if he/she misbehaves.”
  3. “My child should be aware of how much I sacrifice for him/her.”
  4. “I expect my child to be grateful and appreciate all the advantages he/she has.”

timeout A disciplinary technique in which a child is separated from other people for a specified time.

The higher the parents scored on these four measures of psychological control, the lower the children’s math scores were—and this connection grew stronger over time. Surprisingly, math achievement suffered most if parents were high not only in psychological control but also in affection (e.g., they frequently hugged their children) (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004). One explanation is that affection increased the child’s fear of disappointing the parent, which slowed down their willingness to learn new ideas.

Bad Boy or Bad Parent? For some children and in some cultures, sitting alone is an effective form of punishment. Sometimes, however, it produces an angry child without changing the child’s behavior.
SW PRODUCTIONS/AGE FOTOSTOCK

Other research also finds that psychological control can depress children’s achievement, creativity, and social acceptance (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Compared with corporal punishment, children punished with psychological control seem less likely to be physical bullies but more likely to be relationally aggressive (Kuppens et al., 2009), depressed, and anxious (Gershoff et al., 2010).

The disciplinary technique most often used with young children in North America is the timeout, in which an adult requires a misbehaving child to sit quietly, without toys or playmates, for a short time (Barkin et al., 2007). Timeout is favored by many experts in the United States. For example, in the large, longitudinal evaluation of the Head Start program highlighted in Chapter 5, an increase in timeouts and a decrease in spankings were considered signs of improved parental discipline (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010).

Another alternative to physical punishment and psychological control is induction, in which the parents talk extensively with the offender, helping the child understand why his or her behavior was wrong. Ideally, parents listen as children articulate their emotions and then encourage the children to imagine what they might have done instead of what they did do.

Such conversation helps children internalize standards, but induction takes time and patience. Since 3-year-olds confuse causes with consequences, they cannot answer an angry “Why did you do that?” or appreciate a lengthy explanation of why the behavior was wrong. Simple induction (“You made him sad”) may be more appropriate, but even that is hard before theory of mind is possible.

301

OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES

Is Spanking Okay?

Worldwide, cultural differences in child discipline are apparent. For example, only half as many Canadian parents as U.S. parents slap, pinch, or smack their children (Oldershaw, 2002). Although many U.S. school districts forbid corporal punishment in schools, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2004 that teachers and parents could use “reasonable force” to punish children (Bugental & Grusec, 2006).

By contrast, physical punishment by anyone—parent, teacher, sibling, stranger—is illegal in many other developed nations (including Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Italy, Norway, New Zealand, and Sweden). It is considered a violation of human rights (Bitensky, 2006).

Opinions about spanking are influenced by past experiences and cultural norms, making it hard for opposing perspectives to be understood by people on the other side. For that reason, consider why a person might or might not put hot sauce on a child’s tongue. Then see if those reasons apply to other forms of corporal punishment.

In a book titled Creative Correction (Whelchel, 2005), an evangelical Christian suggests hot sauce (which burns) as punishment for forbidden speech, such as curses or sexual slang. (Many other methods, including spanking, are also suggested therein.)

Readers seem to be strongly for or against this suggestion. Of the 198 comments on the book that were posted on Amazon.com through November 2012, half were highly favorable (97 readers rated it 5), 34 percent were highly unfavorable (71 rated it 1), and only 15 percent were in between (at 2, 3, or 4). One woman wrote:

Putting hot sauce on your child’s tongue? I bet the author wouldn’t ever dare to do that to herself & look at all the hate spewing out of her mouth. As a born-again believer & mother, I’d never follow anything in this book. It’s so unchristlike that it’s sickening. There’s nothing “creative” about her correction ideas—it’s just plain mean & a newer version of old abuse tactics that our parents used to do.

An opposing perspective came from another woman:

I haven’t had the need for the Tabasco trick yet, but I’m not above using it. It would make a strong impression and wouldn’t require a repeat dose, I’m quite sure. Child abuse? Hardly. Giving a child free reign over the TV, internet and the house IS child abuse. Ask any elementary school teacher who her problem child is and it’ll be the kid with no discipline at home. A well-behaved child grows into a well-behaved adult. This world certainly needs more of those.

Back to spanking: If both of the above comments seem extreme, consider whether your attitudes about spanking are also more extreme than they might be. The research finds that many methods of discipline, including spanking, affect the child’s later level of anxiety and aggression (Gershoff et al., 2010). Developmentalists themselves suggest many opposing strategies.

The parents’ underlying attitude may be crucial. One study of African American mothers found that if they disapproved of spanking but did it nonetheless, their children were likely to be depressed. However, their children were not harmed if spanking mothers were convinced that spanking was the correct thing to do (McLoyd et al., 2007).

Similarly, Chinese American parents who used physical punishment and shame raised children who were relatively happy and well adjusted if the parents used those methods because they agreed with the Chinese ideology that led to them (Fung & Lau, 2009). Remember, parental affection and warmth are more influential than any disciplinary strategy.

What might be wrong with spanking? One problem is not only the attitudes but also the emotions of the adult. Angry spankers might become abusive. Another problem is the child’s thoughts, as he or she may not understand the reasoning behind the spanking. Parents assume the transgression is obvious, but many children think the parents’ emotions, not the child’s actions, triggered the spanking (Harkness et al., 2011).

She understands? Children who are spanked remember the pain and anger, but not the reason for the punishment. It is better for parents to explain what the misbehavior was. However, sometimes explanations are not understood.
© KIDSTOCK/BLEND IMAGES/CORBIS

302

Further complications can occur. Children vary in temperament; some may suffer from spanking and some may not care. Parents vary in personality; some spank while out of control. Cultures differ as well. Harmful effects are reduced, but do not necessarily disappear, if children believe the punishment is fair because similar punishments happen to every child they know (Vittrup & Holden, 2010).

A U.S. study of parents who attend religiously conservative Protestant churches found that, as expected, they spanked their children more often than other parents did. However, unexpectedly, children spanked during early (but not middle) childhood did not seem to develop the lower self-esteem and increased aggression that has been found with other spanked children (Ellison et al., 2011). Indeed, the opposite was more likely.

The authors of the study suggest that, since spanking was the norm and since most religious leaders also tell parents to explain transgressions (induction), to assure children that they are loved, and to never hit in anger, conservative Protestant children do not perceive being spanked as stigmatizing or demeaning. To the contrary, children may view mild-to-moderate corporal punishment as legitimate, appropriate, and even a sign of parental involvement, commitment, and concern (Ellison et al., 2011, p. 957).

As I write these words, I realize that the opposing perspective is mine. As you saw in the opening of this chapter, I believe that children should never be hit. I am one of many developmentalists convinced that alternatives to spanking are better for the child as well as a safeguard against abuse. But a dynamic-systems view considers discipline as one aspect of a complex web. I know I am influenced by my background and context; I also know that I am not always right.

SUMMING UP

Children’s moral development often advances during early childhood, usually gaining empathy as their theory of mind advances and their emotions become better regulated. New empathy usually helps a child act prosocially, making the child able to share, take turns, and so on. Children can also increasingly develop antipathy, which leads some to be aggressive without a self-protective reason (i.e., bullies), unlike those who engage in instrumental or reactive aggression. Parents, guided by their culture, teach morality in many ways, including the strategies they choose for discipline.

Every means of punishment may have long-term effects, with physical punishment especially criticized for encouraging aggression.

303