Explain and Evaluate Two Approaches to Explaining Moral Development Essay

deterrent lesson reading is what we take aim to be right, wrong, good or bad. It is unquestion qualified from infancy through to adulthood and is the principles we usance to determine what is right or wrong, somewhat or unfair. Each individual has their hold catching of what piety is, however loosely this is determined largely by the nuance or society we live in and the rules that we conform to within this society.In psychology there atomic number 18 many theories much(prenominal)(prenominal) or less the beliefs of good fracturement, and how piety is actual from nipperishness to adulthood. The reason for the variant theories is c every last(predicate)able to the methods, ship canal of education adopted by the psychologists to study human doings. These theories allow us to equivalence and gives us the opportunity to take into reflexion all views and ideas and non to settle for secure one argument or glide slope around this subject.(http//www.sid.ir/en /VEWSSID/J_pdf/97420082403.pdf)The aim of this appellative is look at the two dissimilar onward motiones to clean development, firstlyly the cognitive bill to honorable development by jean Piaget. Then moving on to the societal specifying hypothesis, and Banduras contri preciselyion to how lessonity develops. Criticisms of these theories ordain be discussed and evaluations based on the two studies will be made.Piaget was the first psychologist to study cognitive development in nipperren. His work dates back to 1932 and his findings stated that cleanity develops through kidskinhood and adolescence. He believed that children progress through different levels of morality harmonise to their cognitive development. Piaget conducted a enumerate of experiments and from these tests cogitate that children up to the age of three or four could not afford moral perspicacitys as they were not able to record rules at this age. He stated, if the children were unable to visu alize the rules and that they were breaking then they were unable to make moral judgements. He believed that once children could record the rules, and that they were breaking them then this was the age that moral development began. From his seek, this started at the age of rough eight years old.Woods B, (2004 pg.72)Piaget believed that moral development in children of this age takes ready in two branchs. Stage one- heterononmous morality described as morality enforce from come forthside. This is when children see the rules as been made by parents, teachers or God and that they are unchangeable. righteousness at this stage is based on moral punishment, you do something wrong and you will be punished. This stage is described by Piaget as the pre-operational stage of development where the child is only able to make his judgement based on the consequence of the action.The minute stage- Autonomous morality described as morality which is based on the childs own rules is apparent w hen the child is able to decentre and distinguish the intent poop the action along with the consequence of the action. It is the stage at which children are able to to a lower placestand that rules are flexible to change and match to the situation. Woods B, (2004 pg.72)From Piagets experiments he was able to fill up that morality is based on the list of cognitive development, how intelligent one is. The strengths of Piagets possibleness are that whilst conducting his experiments he did contract on children alone as chance uponers. He contributed hugely to our finding of education and believed that this was the strike to saving our society.Piagets moral supposition was described by his experiment with children that assimilate-to doe with rules whilst playing a game of marble. Children under the age of five showed they had no rules, children time-honored between ages 5-10 saw the rules as repair and children 10 and supra realised the rules and to a fault adopted them by mutual consent.Moral dilemmas were similarly presented to children by Piaget to develop his guess further. He gave children a pair of stories where there first child deliberately caused a small amount of damage due to his actions. The second child caused a good deal more damage but his actions were a lead of an accident. Piaget asked the children to describe which character deserved to be punished in his exploit to understand childrens reasoning in their answers. His demonstration from his experiment was that younger children focused more on consequences, whilst the older ones excessivelyk into servant intent.From Piagets system we drive home a greater disposition on the influence of psychological processes on behaviour, we have greater intellectual on erudition and idea. along with the above, Piagets theory has had practical benefits such acquirement skills to reform memory and improving problem closure skills.Dwyer D & Charles C (2006 pg318)Both of the above e xperiments have been criticised. Other theorists have claimed that games of marbles do not represent a childs entire perception of morality. Piagets use of moral dilemmas has excessively been criticised. It has been claimed that younger children only focused on consequences because the story was narrated, however the results may not have been the comparable if the stories were watched on video. young children may have been better able to consider intentions if they were. Other theorists conducting similar research found that, although younger children had some intention of intent, they still preferred to judge in terms of consequences because they found this easier. Piagets theory has in any case been criticised to be close specific. It has been verbalize that it is based on moral universals. It has been claimed that the moral development of children in non western cultures may differ from that of the children Piaget investigated. (http//e realthing2.com/title/Piaget%2527s+ theory+of+moral+development)Critics of Piagets theory have also stated that his research was not very scientific, that his findings were biased as he worked alone. Researchers conducting scientific experiments need to have two or more observers Piaget observed and noted his findings alone. He was criticised for making generalisations with his findings by being culture specific and not taking into history background, tradition and upbringing of each child. An example of this is using clinical interviews to study the thinking of children. His examine size was criticised for being too small and did not give much rumination to kindly understanding. Due to all the criticisms above regarding Piagets work we can appraise his theory as weak therefrom leading to errors in his conclusions.Haralambos M & sift D. (pg 522).Social learning theory approach to moral development is based on the idea that moral development happens as a result of observing and imitation. Albert Bandura 1977 st udy this concept and came up with findings that concluded that children learn through recognition, reward and punishment. Social learning theorist, focus particularly on empiric learning, imitation, recognition and reward.Woods B, (2004 pg. 126)Bandura conducted a subdue of experiments observing childrens behaviour towards an inflatable doll also called a Bobo doll. The children were spaced into classs and the first watched an adult behaving warringly towards this pursy up inflatable doll. This was the vulturous imitateing conditioning. The second group of children, the adult compete with the other toys and was the non aggressive modelling condition. on with a control group, which included children from the group who had witnessed an adult being violent and aggressive towards the Bobo doll.This group was then left in a room with a number of toys but not allowed to play with them in an attempt to build up the childrens frustration. The children were later left in a room a nd results were noted. The children who witnessed the adult being aggressive towards the Bobo doll imitated this behaviour and those from the non aggressive model displayed lower levels of aggression and violence, hence presentation that children learn through imitation. (http//psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/bobo-doll-experiment.htm)Bandura also believed that children learn from their social environment, this he believed provides models of behaviour and expectations of appropriate behaviour. He believed that children learn through observation, imitation and reinforcement which are all closely linked.Woods B, (2004 pg. 126)Along with Piagets theory, Banduras theory also has its criticisms. Banduras social learning theory takes into consideration cognitive learning but concentrates more upon the idea that morality is developed through positive reinforcement, imitation and the social environment. Woods B, (2004 pg. 71)When evaluating Banduras, experiment in attempt to understanding moral development, it is important to detail out that the experiments were conducted in a research laboratory and hence the results may not be true in the real world. Critics have also pointed out that there may be selection bias as the children in the experiment were all from the same socio economic background, making the results invalid and not true to society.The long term install of this experiment is not known as the results were noted immediately, and the reality is very different to an experiment. Even though the children displayed violent behaviour towards the doll this does not prove that they would be violent towards another person. The children could also have demonstrated this behaviour to please the adult, once more making the findings of this experiment inaccurate. (http//psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/bobo-doll-experiment.htm)The aim of this essay was to explain and appraise Piaget and Banduras theory. Both the theorists have c ontributed to understanding of moral development in nows society and both every bit face criticisms to their work. The main aspects that have been pointed out and open to attack are that both Bandura and Piaget have given little consideration to feelings, culture and religious beliefs.There sample was small not allowing general conclusions and findings to be widely acceptable. There experiments have been attacked for not being scientific. They failed to recognise that moral development has different content and meaning in different cultures and moral judgement is hugely influenced by societys commonality law and traditions. Parents role and child fodder are vital in how children and adolescents develop morally. Both Piaget and Bandura failed to take these important points into consideration when conducting their research.Piaget has studied cognitive development and his contributions are invaluable in the development of straightaway education and the human development theory. Ban dura looked more at social learning model one is amongst one of the most authoritative psychologists of our time. (http//www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/97420082403.pdf)