Childrens Early Moral Development An Analysis of Moral

Children’s Early Moral Development: An Analysis of Moral Language in Children’s Talk MS Thesis Research Jennifer Cole Wright University of Wyoming Department of Psychology Spring, 2004

Research Questions Ø Ø Ø When do children begin to engage in moral discussion with others? How do children use moral language in these discussions? What kinds of things do they refer to? Do we see change in children’s use of moral language over time?

Review of Moral Development Theories Moral knowledge: Innate, Learned/Adopted, or Discovered/Constructed Moral development: Early Sensitivity (Intuitionist/Sentimentalist) or Late Development (Rationalist) Moral engagement: Passive, Active, or Both Moral motivation: Internally Generated or Externally Generated Moral salience: Well-being/Feelings, Social Norms, or Rules/Principles Moral concepts: Context-Specific or Context-General

Participants Ø CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System, Mac. Whinney & Snow, 1990) on-line language database Ø Ø Archived transcripts of at home adult/child conversations Transcripts used for: Ø Ø Abe (age 2; 4. 24 – 5; 0. 11), 1 st born, caucasian male, grad school family, MLU at 33 -36 mo: 6. 0; 45 -48 mo: 8. 0 Sarah (age 2; 3. 19 -5; 1. 6), 1 ST born, caucasian female, working class family, MLU at 33 -36 mo: 2. 3; 45 -48 mo: 3. 2

Target Words Ø Ø Ø The use of 99 words were analyzed across seven children. 33 were chosen as target words: Evaluative: good, bad, right, wrong, nice, mean, kind, poor, friend Deontic: must, should, better, suppose, trouble Emotion/Internal State: angry, sorry, worry, sad, hope, happy, afraid, love, hate Verb/Action: hit, need, help, hurt, cry, give, kiss Virtue: brave, strong, gentle

Coding Scheme Ø Used by: mother, father, other adult, child Ø Use form: declarative, interrogative, directive, narrative Ø Speaker order: initiator (of discussion), responder Ø Adult/Child use: to instruct/model (Y/N) to approve/disapprove (Y/N) to give/ask for reasons/explain (Y/N) to motivate obedience (Y/N) to communicate feelings (Y/N) to motivate perspective-taking (Y/N) to elicit sympathy (Y/N)

Coding Scheme Ø Ø Child role: passive, active- creative, active- reasoning Reference to: feelings - of speaker or another (Y/N) welfare/needs - of speaker or another (Y/N) disposition/behavior - of speaker or another (Y/N) damage to goods/property (Y/N) principles (e. g. fairness/justice/kindness) (Y/N) (dis)approval - of speaker or another (Y/N) laws/rules or standards/expectations (Y/N) obedience/punishment (Y/N) Ø Motivation: none, internal, external Ø Context: context-specific, context-general

Results Ø Of 11, 061 target words there were 1, 155 uses in a moral context (10. 4%) Ø Ø Ø Abe 188 (44. 7%) of 421 uses Sarah 219 (29. 8%) of 734 uses Significant negative trend in use over time:

The same pattern was found with the adults:

Target Words Used in Moral Context

Categories Used in Moral Context

Use – Children and Adult

Developmental Trends Give/Ask Reasons - Child Motivate/Deny Obedience - Adult

Reference - Children

Reference - Adults

Reference to Motivation - Children Abe: 88 internal/12 external, Sarah: 54 internal/32 external Internal External

Context of Use - Children Abe: 71 specific/16 general, Sarah: 49 specific/12 general Context-Specific Context-General

Child Role

Ø Passive Active-Creative Active- Reasoning

Review of Moral Development Theories Moral knowledge: Innate, Learned/Adopted, or Discovered/Constructed Moral development: Early Sensitivity (Intuitionist/Sentimentalist) or Late Development (Rationalist) Moral engagement: Passive, Active, or Both (more Active than Passive) Moral motivation: Internally Generated or Externally Generated Moral salience: Well-being/Feelings, Social Norms, or Rules/Principles Moral concepts: Context-Specific or Context-General

Conclusion Ø Ø The picture that emerges is of the young child as someone who is both active in his discussion of moral issues with the adults in his environment and sensitive to the kinds of considerations that seem crucial to the development of genuine moral understanding. Accordingly, the Kohlbergian cognitivedevelopment approach seriously underestimates the moral capacities of young children. While reasoning abilities may play an important role in later moral development, it seems clear that they build upon a robust moral sensitivity that is already present in the child.

Examples - Abe (2; 10. 20) “it did hurt me then. it doesn't hurt me now. it doesn't hurt you now too. ” (2; 10. 20) “no because I’m a mean boy I’m gon (t)a get you (be)cause you are a mean mommy. ” (3; 10. 15) “because he’s nice to nice people. ” (3; 10. 18) “yeah I’m going to cooperate unless my teacher’s mean to me than I won’t cooperate. ” (3; 11. 2) “you could have put it on the floor for me. I asked you so you should have done it. ” (4; 0. 25) “if the animals want to be loose the zookeepers let em be loose. aren’t the zookeepers nice to the animals? ” (4; 2. 19) “yeah friends could be still friends if they’re mad. ” (4; 8. 27) “she doesn’t like Pudgy a bit. I don’t because he is so mean. ” (4; 11. 21) “I know I’m gon (t)a be good because I’m gon (t)a. ”

Examples - Sarah (2; 7. 12) “a [a mouse] bite me. I hit him. ” (2; 9. 29) “little girl spilled dat milk. girl bad too huh? ” (3; 2. 16) “he's a ba(d) bear (a)n(d) tha(t) means. I put you in the crib. ” (3; 2. 23) “my cousin hit me. an(d) she a bad girl” (3; 8. 6) “I wa(s)n’t good. I was going to fight. ” (3; 8. 25) “I should hit her with a pencil (a)n(d) a stick. ” (4; 2. 1) “I hope I don’t hurt it” (a tree) (4; 2. 9) “I didn’t spill it last night uhhuh Mommy? because I’m a good girl last night. ” (4; 2. 16) “I did somethin(g) wrong in the dog house” (4; 6. 5) “don’t hit a girl with eye glasses. ” (4; 10. 6) “when I get to have a broken toy I’m gonna give that to him. I’m gonna give him a broken arm. ” (4; 10. 27) “beat up my pony. xxx so bad. you know he’s beatin(g) up the pony. ” [engaging in pretend play]