instructions:<\/p>\n
After reading Chapter 14 of the text, what are some of the contributions parents and\/or peers make in the moral and cognitive development of adolescents?<\/p>\n
Please include clear examples from the reading and research to help support your claims. You are welcome to include additional outside sources as necessary.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This is chapter 14 of the text:<\/p>\n
Parent and Peer Contributions to Moral Development<\/span><\/span> :<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Kohlberg <\/span>maintained<\/span> that parents have a minimal role in the moral development of their children and that peer interactions are essential to promoting moral growth (Walker, Hennig, & <\/span>Krettenauer<\/span>, 2000). This is due, he argued, to the differences in power inherent in the two types of relationships. <\/span>Because children are under the unilateral authority of their parents, they are not inclined to try to understand their parents\u2019 point of view when it differs from their own or to negotiate and compromise on issues of disagreement.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Recently, however, developmentalists have challenged Kohlberg\u2019s idea that parents have <\/span>little impact<\/span> in the moral realm (Augustine & Stifter, 2015; Carlo et al., 2011). Research finds that authoritative, democratic, responsive parenting is <\/span>generally associated<\/span> with higher levels of moral maturity in children. <\/span>For instance, adolescents whose parents express disappointment\u2014as opposed to love, withdrawal, or power assertion in response to their children\u2019s misbehavior\u2014are more likely to describe themselves in terms of moral dimensions (\u201cI am a kind person\u201d or \u201cI am a fair person\u201d) rather than in non-moral terms (\u201cI am smart\u201d or \u201cI am athletic\u201d; Patrick & Gibbs, 2012).<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Research also finds that peers can <\/span>impact<\/span> teens\u2019 moral reasoning. In one study, young adolescent best friends were videotaped as they discussed social dilemmas, such as whether to <\/span>tell on<\/span> a friend who had done something wrong or dangerous (McDonald, Malti, Killen, & Rubin, 2014). Best friends who reported that they were able to constructively resolve their own conflicts also engaged in more moral reasoning in discussing <\/span>the social<\/span> dilemmas. The upshot of this research is that both parent and peer relationships were highly influential in moral development and reasoning, but each type of relationship contributes in distinctive ways.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n Cultural Variations in Moral Reasoning<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Like studies showing cross-cultural variability in formal-operational reasoning, studies using Kohlbergian dilemmas (such as the Heinz dilemma) reveal significant differences between cultural groups in moral reasoning (Sachdeva, Singh, & Medin, 2011; <\/span>Turiel<\/span>, 2008b). Although there are some exceptions (<\/span>Shweder<\/span>, <\/span>Mahapatpa<\/span>, & Miller, 1987), most studies show that people who live in <\/span>relatively small<\/span>, technologically unsophisticated communities have primarily face-to-face interactions with others and have not received extensive schooling that exposes them to ways of life other than their own rarely reason beyond stage 3 on Kohlberg\u2019s scale (Figure 14.9). Furthermore, social relationships in these communities may be strongly hierarchical in nature throughout life, <\/span>providing<\/span> little opportunity for the sort of equality of power that Kohlberg argued is essential to moral development (Eberhardt, 2014).<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Kohlberg suggested that cultural differences in social stimulation produce differences in moral reasoning. However, several developmentalists have argued that Kohlberg\u2019s stage sequence, particularly in the higher stages, <\/span>contains<\/span> built-in value judgments that reflect the moral views of Western culture and democracy. Are we really to believe, such critics ask, that people who grow up in a traditional village in a developing country and reason at stage 2 of Kohlberg\u2019s sequence are less moral than the residents of a city in a more developed country (<\/span>Shweder<\/span>, Minow, & Markus, 2002)?<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Kohlberg (1984) denied that cultural differences in performance on his dilemmas lead to the conclusion that some societies are more moral than others. He echoed the classical position of modern anthropology that cultures should be thought of as unique configurations of beliefs and institutions that help the social group adapt to both local conditions and universal aspects of life (Eberhardt, 2014). In this view, a culture in which stage 3 is the height of moral reasoning would be considered \u201cmorally equivalent\u201d to a culture in which some people reason at stage 5 or 6, even though the specific reasoning practices could be scored as less \u201cdeveloped\u201d according to Kohlberg\u2019s criteria.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Nevertheless, other approaches to moral reasoning have produced results that <\/span>depart<\/span> markedly from those obtained using Kohlberg\u2019s methods. Cross-cultural studies have reported that by adulthood, a shift from conventional to postconventional moral reasoning is quite widespread if not universal (Gielen & <\/span>Markoulis<\/span>, 2001). For example, using their social domain theory, which emphasizes the need to separate moral issues from issues involving social convention and personal choice (see Chapter 13, pp. 451\u2013452), Elliot <\/span>Turiel<\/span> and his colleagues also <\/span>provide<\/span> evidence that the pattern of development for moral reasoning, defined in terms of justice and rights, is universal across cultures. The areas in which cultural differences do appear tend to be those related to social conventions and personal choice, the importance of obedience to authority, and the nature of interpersonal relationships (<\/span>Turiel<\/span>, 2002; <\/span>Wainryb<\/span>, 1995).<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n An extensive study by Cecilia <\/span>Wainryb<\/span> <\/span>provides<\/span> an excellent example of how moral reasoning is culturally universal while reasoning in other social domains is culturally specific. <\/span>Wainryb<\/span> compared judgments about social conflicts given by a large sample of Israeli 9- to 17-year-olds. Half the participants were Jews from a secular, Westernized part of the Israeli population. The other half were from Druze Arabic villages, where the cultural norms emphasize hierarchical family structures, fixed social roles, and severe punishment for violating traditional duties and customs. The study pitted questions about justice and personal choice against questions about authority and interpersonal considerations.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Wainryb<\/span> found no cultural or age differences in response to questions involving justice. For example, an overwhelming percentage of participants at all ages said that a boy who saw someone lose money should return it, even though the boy\u2019s father said to keep the money\u2014a conflict with authority. Jewish children were slightly more likely than Druze children to choose personal considerations over interpersonal considerations, but the variability within each cultural group was far larger than the variation between them. The only <\/span>really significant<\/span> cultural difference was that Jewish children were much more likely than Druze children to assert personal rights over authority\u2014a result in line with the hierarchical family structure in Druze culture, in which obedience to authority is a central value.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n In a similar vein, Joan Miller and her colleagues found that while people from India and the United States may differ in where they draw the line between moral infractions and personal conventions, members of both groups distinguish between the two (Miller & Schaberg, 2003). For example, people from India and the United States judged the violation of dress codes in terms of social conventions, not moral issues; and members of both societies judged theft to be a moral issue, not a matter of social convention. These studies suggest that by dividing up questions of morality into separate domains, it is possible to obtain a subtler picture of cultural influences on moral reasoning in which there are both universal and culture-specific elements.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n Reference:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n Lightfoot, C. (2018). The Development of Children (8th Edition). Macmillan Higher Education.<\/span><\/p>\n https:\/\/mbsdirect.vitalsource.com\/books\/9781464178894 <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" instructions: After reading Chapter 14 of the text, what are some of the contributions parents and\/or peers make in the moral and cognitive development of adolescents? Please include clear examples from the reading and research to help support your claims. You are welcome to include additional outside sources as necessary. This is chapter 14 of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[196],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/28156"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/28156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=28156"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=28156"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=28156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n