6.5 Moral Development

Children develop increasingly complex moral values, judgments, and behaviours as they mature. Social bonds (Chapter 4), theory of mind (Chapter 5), as well as the emotional and social maturation just described, are the foundations for morality.

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).

Many developmentalists believe that children’s attachment to their parents, and then to others, is the beginning of morality. According to evolutionary theory, humans protect, cooperate, and even sacrifice for one another precisely because

With maturity 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).

Social Domain Theorist Elliot Turiel teaches courses on human development at the University of California. His research focuses on social and moral development.

JOSHUA TURIEL

In contrast, Elliot Turiel’s moral development theory (1979, 1983, 2008b) focused on the belief that as children interact with their social environment, they form their own ideas in an attempt to understand the events, people, and interactions around them. According to this social domain theory, children develop three separate and distinct domains of social knowledge:

• The moral domain deals with issues about rights, justice, and the welfare of others, such as when a child realizes it is wrong to hit someone.
• The social conventional domain deals with arbitrary but commonly agreed-upon rules, such as raising your hand in class or the need to be punctual for classes or appointments.
• The personal domain deals with matters of individual choice and preferences, such as the clothes you wear or your choice of leisure activities.

Children as young as two-and-a-half have been found to understand the difference between right and wrong and to have some sense of the difference between what is morally wrong and conventionally incorrect (Smetana, 1981).

Nature and Nurture

Many parents, teachers, and other adults consider morality as perhaps more important than any other advance already described (e.g., physical strength, motor skills, intelligence, language). Conflicting perspectives by scholars in many social sciences persist on how children internalize standards, develop virtues, and avoid vices:

• 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).
• 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 behaviour is not innately good or bad.

Both nature and nurture are always influential, but developmentalists disagree about which is more important for morality (Killen & Smetana, 2007; Krebs, 2008; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2009; Turiel, 2006). That debate cannot be settled here; readers are encouraged to explore the issue further. However, here we explore two moral issues that arise from age 2 to age 6: children’s aggression and adult’s disciplinary practices. Nature and nurture are evident in both.

Empathy and Antipathy

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, dislike or even hatred.

Prosocial ActionsScientists studying young humans and other primates report spontaneous efforts to help others who are hurt, crying, or in need of help. Empathy is a necessary emotion to prosocial behaviour, extending helpfulness and kindness without any obvious benefit to oneself (Roberts & Strayer, 2008; Warneken & Tomasello, 2009). Expressing concern, offering to share, and including a shy child in a game or conversation are examples of prosocial behaviour among young children. So is the story of Jack who, at 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).

Emotional regulation, moral development, and the emergence of empathy are nowhere more apparent than in the way children play with one another. Rough-and-tumble play, for instance, teaches children not to hurt their playmates; socio-dramatic play teaches children to take turns; and children learn to share art supplies, construction materials, and toys when engaged with other children (Peterson & Flanders, 2005; Utendale & Hastings, 2011). While sharing a crayon is hard at age 2, most 5-year-olds do it easily. Much depends on the child’s family and preschool education: Children learn the balance between giving and taking. The result is more prosocial actions as children mature (Ramani et al., 2010).

Prosocial behaviour seems to result more from empathy than from cognition, more from emotional understanding than from theory of mind (Eggum et al., 2011). However, prosocial reactions are not automatic. Some children avoid contact with the person in need, which illustrates the importance of emotion development and regulation in the development of prosocial behaviour and the critical influence of cultural norms (Trommsdorff & Cole, 2011).

Some researchers have found a link between children’s quality of attachment in infancy and their empathic responses as preschoolers. For example, children with secure attachment (whose parents were responsive and sensitive to their needs) showed more emotional and behavioural empathic responses to their peers’ distress than did children with insecure–avoidant histories (Kestenbaum et al., 1989). Thus, children’s internal working model, as discussed in Chapter 5, serves as the prototype for their later relationships with peers.

Also, researchers in Canada and the United States have examined the influence of parenting on children’s prosocial behaviours. They found that authoritative parents are more likely to have children engage in prosocial behaviours, whereas these behaviours may be undermined by authoritarian parenting (Hastings et al., 2005; Kochanska, 1991). Authoritative parents may model prosocial behaviours for their children by showing concern and affection for others, which reinforces their children’s own positive feelings for other people. In contrast, when authoritarian parents demonstrate a lack of concern for, or outright hostility toward others, these parents make it difficult for their children to see the value of prosocial activities.

Antisocial ActionsAntipathy can lead to antisocial behaviour, such as deliberately or unintentionally hurting another person, including people who have done no harm. Antisocial actions include verbal insults, social exclusion, and physical assaults (Calkins & Keane, 2009). A 4-year-old who is antisocial might look another child in the eye, scowl, and then kick him hard without provocation.

Not surprisingly, given the moral sensibilities of young children, 5-year-olds already judge whether another child’s aggression is justified or not (Etchu, 2007). As with adults, self-defence is more readily forgiven than is a deliberate, unprovoked attack. However, do not assume that bullies realize when they are wrong: At every age, aggressors feel they had a reason to do what they did.

Researchers recognize four general types of aggression, all evident in early childhood (see TABLE 6.2). Instrumental aggression is common among 2-year-olds, who often want something and try to get it without thinking. The aggressive reaction of 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.

Reactive aggression is common among young children as well; almost every child reacts in an aggressive way when attacked. Children are less likely to respond with physical aggression as they develop emotional control and theory of mind (Olson et al., 2011).

Relational aggression (usually verbal) destroys the target child’s self-esteem and disrupts the victim’s social networks. The impact of this type of aggression becomes 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.

The fourth and most ominous type is bullying aggression. The intent of this form of aggression is to dominate someone else. This behaviour is not only destructive for the victims in the form of depression and low self-concept, but for bullies who will learn behaviour patterns that will have negative consequences in adulthood (see an in-depth discussion of bullying in Chapter 8).

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

Pat, Pinch, or Poke Toddlers bite, hit, grab, and pull hair. By age 4 or 5—as a result of brain maturation, theory of mind, emotional regulation, and interactions with caregivers—children are more aware. Some, like the girl in the photo on the left, are deliberately prosocial, while others, like the boy in the photo on the right, are deliberately antisocial.

LIZ BANFIELD/GETTY IMAGES
MATTHIAS STOLT/GETTY IMAGES

A team of Canadian researchers (Côté et al., 2006) was the first to explore the differences between typical and atypical patterns of physical aggression among toddlers and the way these patterns might predict future aggressive behaviour. Using Canada’s National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, the researchers followed more than 10 000 children from the age of 2 to the age of 11. They discovered that the children fell into three distinct groups in terms of their use of physical aggression.

The first group—about one-third of the children—rarely used physical aggression as toddlers and almost never as preadolescents. Just over half of the children fell into the second group. They used physical aggression occasionally in toddlerhood and infrequently at age 11. The third group, about one-sixth of the children, used physical aggression frequently both as toddlers and as preadolescents.

The researchers concluded that the typical developmental pattern for physical aggression was of declining use over time. However, the third group, mostly boys from disadvantaged families, showed a stable or increased use of this behaviour, presumably because they had not learned other effective behavioural strategies that would limit their use of physical aggression (Côté et al., 2006).

Two explanations for children at risk of aggressive behaviour are biologically linked. First, some researchers have found that neurological deficits (acquired in utero or in infancy) may hinder children’s ability to learn alternative strategies that would inhibit physical aggression (Moffitt, 2003; Tremblay et al., 2004). Second, some parents may hand down to their children genetic characteristics that do not facilitate learning of emotional regulation or inhibit the use of overt aggression (Arseneault et al., 2003; Dionne et al., 2003; Weaver et al., 2004).

Discipline

Ideally, adults guide children toward good behaviour and internalized standards of morality so that children behave well and never need to be disciplined. But this ideal is not realistic: Misbehaviour 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:

In this study, children who were securely attached at age 1 (an indication of responsive parenting) had as many conflicts as those who were insecurely attached. Obviously, good parenting does not always produce good children, if the latter are defined as children who are peaceful and obedient.

However, unlike 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 the mother have offered reasons why the other shoes were not appropriate, or should she have let her daughter wear them? Alternatively, what if the mother had slapped the child for crying, or said, “I don’t want to walk with you if you fuss”?

Physical PunishmentMany adults remember receiving such punishment and think it works. Initially, they seem to be correct: Physical punishment (called corporal punishment because it hurts the body) succeeds at the moment—spanking stops misbehaviour. But, this is not a good solution.

Longitudinal research finds that children who are physically punished are more likely to become bullies, delinquents, and then abusive adults, as well as slower to learn in school (Straus & Paschall, 2009). Although some adults believe that physical punishment will “teach a lesson” of obedience, the lesson that children learn is that “might makes right.” When they become bigger and stronger, they use corporal punishment on others. Parents who hit were usually hit themselves.

Debate continues about the effectiveness of physical punishment. Physical punishment is common worldwide, yet 24 countries have legislation that bans it (Zolotor & Puzia, 2010). Although spanking in North America has declined since 1975, almost 80 percent of the parents in one American study reported that they still discipline their preschool children in this way.

Many studies of children from all types of families 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.

Many developmentalists wonder why parents would take the chance administering physical punishment, knowing its consequences for child development. While many parents do absolutely refrain from spanking their children, they may routinely use other disciplinary techniques that can be equally harmful to child development (Larzelere et al., 2010). Let us consider some of those alternatives.

Psychological ControlAnother common method of discipline is called psychological control, in which children’s shame, guilt, and gratitude are used to control their behaviour (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.”

The higher the parents scored on these four measures of psychological control, the lower the children’s math scores—and this connection grew stronger over time. Surprisingly, math achievement suffered most if parents were also high 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 made it more difficult for the child to learn.

Other research also finds that psychological control can depress children’s achievement, creativity, and social acceptance (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Compared to 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).

Time OutThe disciplinary technique most often used in North America is the time out, in which an adult requires a misbehaving child to sit quietly, without toys or playmates, for a short time (Barkin et al., 2007). Time out is favoured by many experts in North American education. For example, in the large, longitudinal evaluation of Head Start highlighted in Chapter 5, an increase in time outs and a decrease in spankings were considered signs of improved parental discipline (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010).

However, research on the effectiveness of the time out is confounded by the many ways it is used. Some parents angrily put the child in a corner, yelling at him or her to stay there until the parent is no longer angry. The effect is similar to corporal punishment: The child feels rejected. To be effective, a time out must be brief; one minute for each year of the child’s age is suggested. As with every form of discipline, the parents’ own emotional state and the child’s temperament need to be considered.

ExplanationAnother alternative to physical punishment is induction, in which the parents talk extensively with the misbehaving child, helping the child understand why his or her behaviour 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.

Bad Boy or Bad Parent? For some children and in some cultures, sitting alone is an effective form of punishment; for others, it produces an angry child.

SW PRODUCTIONS/AGE FOTOSTOCK

Conversation helps children internalize standards, but induction takes time and patience. Since 3-year-olds confuse causes with consequences, they cannot answer “Why did you do that?” or appreciate a lengthy explanation of why a behaviour was wrong. Simple induction (“You made him sad”) may be more appropriate.

OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES

Is Spanking OK?

Some parents and researchers believe that children should never be spanked, while others believe there is a role for spanking. 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). Yet, the Criminal Code of Canada supports using reasonable force to punish children. Section 43 states that: “Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances” 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).

Research finds that many methods of discipline, including spanking, affect the child’s later levels of anxiety and aggression (Gershoff et al., 2010). Further complications can occur. Children vary in temperament; some may suffer from corporal punishment and some may not care at all. Parents vary in personality; some spank while out of control and others do not.

The Impact of Spanking Does spanking lead to increased aggression? The research is mixed, however it appears that the effects of spanking depend on the child and the family context.

URBAN ZONE/ALAMY

Opinions about discipline are clouded by past experiences and cultural norms, making it hard for opposing perspectives to be understood. For example, while one person may suggest putting hot sauce on a child’s tongue as punishment for forbidden speech such as curses or sexual slang (Whelchel, 2005), another may consider this “plain mean & a newer version of old abuse tactics that our parents used to use” (Patterson, 2007).

As mentioned, cultures differ regarding which punishments are thought appropriate for which misdeeds. Harmful effects are reduced if a child does not feel unfairly disciplined because the particular punishment is the norm within their group (Vittrup & Holden, 2010). 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 mothers who spanked were convinced that spanking was what they should 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).

It is evident that there are many perspectives about corporal punishment. Many developmentalists are convinced that alternatives to spanking are better for the child as a safeguard against abuse. But a dynamic-systems view considers discipline as one aspect of a complex situation.