Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Peer pressure wikipedia , lookup
James M. Honeycutt wikipedia , lookup
Role-taking theory wikipedia , lookup
Familialism wikipedia , lookup
Group dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Socio-cognitive conflict and social representations of morality Klaus Helkama Department of Social Psychology University of Helsinki Universidade de Coimbra May 2009 Socio-cognitive conflict Piagetian tasks (conservation) Smedslund (1966): Decentration results from conflicts of social communication Doise & Mugny (1981): Socio-cognitive conflict produces cognitive development Strong socio-cognitive conflict: - Child caught within the conflict by the adult - Compliance denied - Response relevant to the relationship with the adult (Replication in Finland: better results than in the original study) Socio-cognitive conflict Representations of morality 1: temptation Durkheim/Freud: resistance to temptation Narrative: David & Bath-sheba (2 Samuel 11) Resistance to temptation: David spies Bath-sheba (Hans Memling 1485 ca) Representations of morality 2: Conflict resolution (justice) Piaget: The moral judgment of the child (1932) Kohlberg: Stages of justice reasoning Piaget: Key - peer interaction (mutual respect) Kohlberg: Key – role-taking opportunities (participation) Narrative: Solomon (1 Kings 3:16-28) Justitia (Giotto 1303 ca) Representations of morality 3: Helping Samaritan (Bassano 1550-70)) (The Good Care (helping, mercy, forgiveness) Gilligan: In a different voice No systematic method Skoe: Ethic of care interview Narrative: Good Samaritan (Luke 10, 30-37) Research team members Antti Uutela, Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman, Esa Pohjanheimo, Merja Ikonen-Varila, Merja Kiianmaa, Henry Honkanen, Leena Rantanen-Väntsi, Anne Koponen, Simo Salminen, Jukka Tontti, Martti Puohiniemi, Liisa Myyry, Soile Juujärvi, Annukka Vainio, Saana Manninen, Alina Nikitenkova, Mia Silfver, Markku Verkasalo, Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, Eeva Kolttola, Tuuli-Anna Mähönen, Petra Korkiakoski, Antero Olakivi Funding: University of Helsinki, Academy of Finland Morality as a functional system Vygotsky (1932) Moscovici (1976) Doise (1990): societal norms as a ”metasystem”, guiding the system and the interrelations of its components (reasoning, emotion, action) Basic functions of morality: resistance to temptation (selfcontrol, self-restraint, conformity), helping (benevolence), and conflict resolution (justice) Basic operations: willpower (norm as given), social perspective-taking (conflict of norms) Norms vs values as predictors of behaviour Norms as given (Lönnqvist & al.: Conformism moderates the relations between values and behaviour PSPB, 2006) Conformity important values did not predict behaviour (regret; peer assessed helping) Conformity not important -> values do predict behaviour (Replicated in several studies) Norms /values conflict: behaviour/decision-making as trade-off between values -> social perspective-taking Everyday morality: Wark &Krebs (1996, 1997, 2001) Types of moral problems: Antisocial Temptation Transgression Prosocial Helping Loyalty Social pressure Antisocial dilemmas Temptation Decision-maker (E) is faced with the temptation to meet his or her needs or advance her or his interest by behaving dishonestly - Dating friend’s boyfriend or girlfriend - Starting an affair - Lying to avoid trouble Antisocial dilemmas Transgression E must react to a transgression that has occurred - -Friend steals from school - -Father has affair Prosocial dilemmas Helping E feels conflicted whether or not (s)he is responsible for doing something on other person’s behalf - Taking car keys from a drunk - Stopping to help an obviously drunk person - Brother using drugs, parents do not know Prosocial dilemmas Loyalty (conflicting demands) Two or more people make inconsistent demands on E, who must decide whose expectations to fulfil - Which one of divorced parents to spend Christmas holidays with - Whether to tell a friend about his girlfriend’s /her boyfriend’s affair Social Pressure Social pressure E feels pressured by other(s) to engage in behaviour that violates E’s values - Friends pressure to continue dating relationship - Other pressure to divorce - Other band members pressure to use drugs Wark & Krebs findings More developed reasoning (on the Kohlberg scale) displayed in prosocial dilemmas (typically Stage 3) than in antisocial dilemmas (typically stage 2) Problem: Prosocial dilemmas pull for Stage 3 or more developed? Antisocial dilemmas pull for Stage 2 or less developed? Proposed solution: socio-cognitive conflict Socio-cognitive conflict and dilemma types Degree of socio-cognitive conflict Antisocial Temptation LOW Transgression MODERATE Prosocial Helping MODERATE Loyalty HIGH Social pressure HIGH TEMPTATION (LOW) Focus on moral standards which are not questioned Internally accepted moral standard vs. E’s desires: Having an affair is wrong – while the romantic partner could have a different perspective, this perspective is not considered TRANSGRESSION AND HELPING (MODERATE) Other parties involved do not play an active role (make explicit moral claims) in the decision-making ; deals with the limits of one’s duty LOYALTY & SOCIAL PRESSURE (HIGH) The confrontation of one’s viewpoint with other people’s is explicit Socio-cognitive conflict and dilemma type (Myyry & Helkama, Scand. J. Psychol. 2007) Study 1: assessment of typical dilemmas (2 for each type; 2 solutions (yield, not yield to temptation)) In terms of A – disagreement among the parties B – difficulty of compliance C – difficulty in general Scale: 1-7 (relevance for relationships in the future) Socio-cognitive conflict and dilemma types (Myyry & Helkama, Scand. J. Psychol. 2007) Dilemma types Tempt. Transgr. Help. Soc.pr. Loyalty < < Eta squared .31-.34 Integrative complexity and dilemma types (Myyry & Helkama, ScandJPsych 2007) Study 2: Integrative complexity (IC) as a function of the (assumed) degree of socio-cognitive conflict (low, moderate, high) (SCC) Respondents: 191 university and open university female students, mean age 27, sd=8 Self-reported real-life dilemma, feeling scale Results: SCC & IC , r= .24 (p<.01) - SCC & reported upset, r=.28 (p<.01) - SCC & reported sympathy r=.29 (p<.01) Ethic of care and dilemma types (Juujärvi 2003; J. Adult Devel. 2005 ) Real-life dilemmas tempt. transgr. help. soc,pr. loyalty Social perspective taking & dilemma types (Juujärvi 2003) Real-life dilemmas Ethic of care level Level on hypothetical dilemmas as a function of the dilemma type chosen for reporting (Juujärvi 2003) Justice reasoning (Kohlberg stage) (Juujärvi 2003) Discrepancy btw own real-life dilemma scores (first column) and standard hypothetical dilemma scores (2nd) as a function of type of own dilemma chosen for reporting Conclusions High SCC dilemma types (social pressure and loyalty) elicit : (a) more social perspective –taking (b) more differentiated & integrated moral reasoning, whether assessed by integrative complexity, Skoe’s Ethic of care level or Kohlberg justice reasoning, not just certain types of reasoning (Stage 2 vs 3), than do low SCC dilemma types, temptation in particular Conclusions For high SCC dilemmas there is no discrepancy btw hypothetical and real-life dilemma scores Thus, people’s choice of their own dilemma to report does not reflect their ”competence” in moral reasoning High SCC dilemmas are emotionally more involving than are low SCC dilemmas Hierarchy, equality, socio-cognitive conflict, and development of moral judgment Hypothesis: In hierarchical environments, there are fewer scc:s than in egalitarian ones -> less pressure toward moral judgment development Follow-up study of medical students (Helkama & al. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 2003) Freshmen’s preference of principled reasoning in different countries (Rest’s DIT, Hofstede’s (2001) power distance P% score on the DIT and power distance (r=.69*) (Gielen & Markoulis 2001, Hofstede 2001) Open questions and future directions Choice of real-life dilemma to report: To what extent does the dilemma type reflect the cultural SR of morality (temptation & norms vs. loyalty & value conflict)? (Bulgaria: more social pressure than in Finland) – To what extent are people ”consistent” in their choices? (Preliminary: not very) More representative samples: ordinary people’s dilemmas (ongoing) Processes of engagement and disengagement of social perspective-taking and empathy