SOCIAL AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Thingbaijam Boris Singh

What is social development?

Social development refers to the process by which a child learns to interact with others around
them. As they develop and perceive their own individuality within their community, they also
gain skills to communicate with other people and process their actions. Social development most
often refers to how a child develops friendships and other relationships, as well how a child
handles conflict with peers.

Why is social development so important?

Social development can actually impact many of the other forms of development a child
experiences. A child’s ability to interact in a healthy way with the people around her can impact
everything from learning new words as a toddler, to being able to resist peer pressure as a high
school student, to successfully navigating the challenges of adulthood. Healthy social
development can help your child:

Develop language skills.

An ability to interact with other children allows for more opportunities to practice and learn
speech and language skills. This is a positive cycle, because as communication skills improve, a
child is better able to relate to and react to the people around him.

Build self esteem.

Other children provide a child with some of her most exciting and fun experiences. When a
young child is unable to make friends it can be frustrating or even painful. A healthy circle of
friends reinforces a child’s comfort level with her own individuality.

Strengthen learning skills.

In addition to the impact social development can have on general communication skills, many
researchers believe that having healthy relationships with peers (from preschool on up) allows
for adjustment to different school settings and challenges. Studies show that children who have a
hard time getting along with classmates as early as preschool are more likely to experience later
academic difficulties.

Resolve conflicts.

Stronger self esteem and better language skills can ultimately lead to a better ability to resolve
differences with peers.
Establish positive attitude.

A positive attitude ultimately leads to better relationships with others and higher levels of self
confidence.

How can parents make a difference when it comes to social development?

Studies show that everyday experiences with parents are fundamental to a child’s developing
social skill-set. Parents provide a child with their very first opportunities to develop a
relationship, communicate and interact. As a parent, you also model for your child every day
how to interact with the people around you.

Because social development is not talked about as much as some other developmental measures,
it can be hard for parents to understand the process AND to evaluate how their child is
developing in this area. There are some basic developmental milestones at every age, as well as
some helpful tips a parent can use to support their child.

Infants & Toddlers:

During the first 2 years of life, huge amounts of development are rapidly occurring. You can
expect your child to:
– Smile and react positively to you and other caregivers
– Develop stranger anxiety—though it can be frustrating, this is a normal step in development
– Develop an attachment to a comfort object such as a blanket or animal
– Begin to show anxiety around other children
– Imitate adults and children—just as a child develops in other ways, many social skills are
learned simply through copying what a parent or sibling does
– Already be affected by emotions of parents and others around them

As a parent, one can:

– Respond to the baby’s needs promptly—the child is learning how to trust someone
– Make eye contact with the baby—get down to their level and connect visually when interacting
with them
– Babble and talk to the baby, always pausing to allow them to respond
– Play copycat with words and actions
– Play “peekaboo”—this teaches your child that even if the parent “disappear” he/she will come
back, and sets the stage for less stranger anxiety in the future
– Involve the baby in daily activities such as running errands or visiting friends—this shows
them how one interact with others in a respectful, positive way
– Begin to arrange playdates so that the child can interact with peers

Preschoolers:

By this age, the stage has been set in the earliest years (mostly by parental and other family
interactions) for a child to branch out. As preschool begins your child can:
– Explore independently
– Express affection openly, though not always accurately—there can still be much frustration for
your child as language development is still happening
– Still show some stranger anxiety
– Perfect the temper tantrum—it can be stressful, but tantrums are a normal part of child
development
– Learn how to soothe themselves
– Be more aware of others’ emotions
– Cooperate with other children
– Express fear or anxiety before an upcoming event (such as a doctor visit)

As a parent, one can:

– Demonstrate their own love through words and physical affection—which is a great way to
begin teaching a child how to express other emotions as well
– Help the child express their emotions by talking through what they are feeling
– Play with the child in a “peer-like” way to encourage cooperative play—this is helpful when
they are in a group environment and have to share toys and cooperate
– Continue to provide play dates and opportunities to interact with other children
– Provide examples of one’s trust in others, such as one’s own friendships or other relationships

School children:

By 5 and older, a child’s social development begins to reach new levels. This is a point in time
when most children will spend more hours in a day with other children than with their parents. It
is normal for them to:
– Thrive on friendships
– Want to please friends, as well as be more like their friends
– Begin to recognize power in relationships, as well as the larger community
– Recognize and fear bullies or display bully-like behavior themselves
– As early as 10, children may begin to reject parents’ opinion of friends and certain behaviors—
this is a normal step, but can be especially frustrating for parents

As a parent, one can:

– Talk with the child about social relationships and values by asking them about school and
friends every day
– Allow children the opportunity to discuss social conflicts and problem-solve their
reactions/actions
– Discuss the subject of bullying and harassment, both in person and on the Internet
– Allow older children to work out everyday problems on their own
– Keep the lines of communication open—as a parent, one wants to make oneself available to
listen and support your child in non-judgmental ways

One’s child’s social development is a complex issue that is constantly changing. But the good
news is that parents can have a big impact on how it progresses. By modeling healthy
relationships and staying connected with the child, one can help them relate to the people around
them in positive, beneficial ways. By encouraging them to engage with other children and adults,
one is setting them up to enjoy the benefits of social health—from good self esteem to strong
communication skills to the ability to trust and connect with those around them.

Moral development
Definition

Moral development is the process through which children develop proper attitudes and behaviors
toward other people in society, based on social and cultural norms, rules, and laws.

Description

Moral development is a concern for every parent. Teaching a child to distinguish right from
wrong and to behave accordingly is a goal of parenting.

Moral development is a complex issue that—since the beginning of human civilization—has

been a topic of discussion among some of the world's most distinguished psychologists,
theologians, and culture theorists. It was not studied scientifically until the late 1950s.

Piaget's theory of moral reasoning

Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, explored how children developed moral reasoning. He
rejected the idea that children learn and internalize the rules and morals of society by being given
the rules and forced to adhere to them. Through his research on how children formed their
judgments about moral behavior, he recognized that children learn morality best by having to
deal with others in groups. He reasoned that there was a process by which children conform to
society's norms of what is right and wrong, and that the process was active rather than passive.

Piaget found two main differences in how children thought about moral behavior. Very young
children's thinking is based on how actions affected them or what the results of an action were.
For example, young children will say that when trying to reach a forbidden cookie jar, breaking
10 cups is worse than breaking one. They also recognize the sanctity of rules. For example, they
understand that they cannot make up new rules to a game; they have to play by what the rule
book says or what is commonly known to be the rules. Piaget called this "moral realism with
objective responsibility." It explains why young children are concerned with outcomes rather
than intentions.

Older children look at motives behind actions rather than consequences of actions. They are also
able to examine rules, determining whether they are fair or not, and apply these rules and their
modifications to situations requiring negotiation, assuring that everyone affected by the rules is
treated fairly. Piaget felt that the best moral learning came from these cooperative decision-
making and problem-solving events. He also believed that children developed moral reasoning
quickly and at an early age.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development

Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, extended Piaget's work in cognitive reasoning
into adolescence and adulthood. He felt that moral development was a slow process and evolved
over time. Still, his six stages of moral development, drafted in 1958, mirrors Piaget's early
model. Kohlberg believed that individuals made progress by mastering each stage, one at a time.
A person could not skip stages. He also felt that the only way to encourage growth through these
stages was by discussion of moral dilemmas and by participation in consensus democracy within
small groups. Consensus democracy was rule by agreement of the group, not majority rule. This
would stimulate and broaden the thinking of children and adults, allowing them to progress from
one stage to another.

PRECONVENTIONAL LEVEL

The child at the first and most basic level, the pre-conventional level, is concerned with avoiding
punishment and getting needs met. This level has two stages and applies to children up to 10
years of age.

Stage one is the Punishment-Obedience stage. Children obey rules because they are told to do so
by an authority figure (parent or teacher), and they fear punishment if they do not follow rules.
Children at this stage are not able to see someone else's side.

Stage two is the Individual, Instrumentation, and Exchange stage. Here, the behavior is governed
by moral reciprocity. The child will follow rules if there is a known benefit to him or her.
Children at this stage also mete out justice in an eye-for-an-eye manner or according to Golden
Rule logic. In other words, if one child hits another, the injured child will hit back. This is
considered equitable justice. Children in this stage are very concerned with what is fair.

Children will also make deals with each other and even adults. They will agree to behave in a
certain way for a payoff. "I'll do this, if you will do that." Sometimes, the payoff is in the
knowledge that behaving correctly is in the child's own best interest. They receive approval from
authority figures or admiration from peers, avoid blame, or behave in accordance with their
concept of self. They are just beginning to understand that others have their own needs and
drives.

CONVENTIONAL LEVEL This level broadens the scope of human wants and needs. Children
in this level are concerned about being accepted by others and living up to their expectations.
This stage begins around age 10 but lasts well into adulthood, and is the stage most adults remain
at throughout their lives.

Stage three, Interpersonal Conformity, is often called the "good boy/good girl" stage. Here,
children do the right thing because it is good for the family, peer group, team, school, or church.
They understand the concepts of trust, loyalty, and gratitude. They abide by the Golden Rule as it
applies to people around them every day. Morality is acting in accordance to what the social
group says is right and moral.

Stage four is the Law and Order, or Social System and Conscience stage. Children and adults at
this stage abide by the rules of the society in which they live. These laws and rules become the
backbone for all right and wrong actions. Children and adults feel compelled to do their duty and
show respect for authority. This is still moral behavior based on authority, but reflects a shift
from the social group to society at large.

POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL Some teenagers and adults move beyond conventional

morality and enter morality based on reason, examining the relative values and opinions of the
groups with which they interact. Few adults reach this stage.

Correct behavior is governed by the sixth stage, the Social Contract and Individual Rights stage.
Individuals in this stage understand that codes of conduct are relative to their social group. This
varies from culture to culture and subgroup to subgroup. With that in mind, the individual enters
into a contract with fellow human beings to treat them fairly and kindly and to respect authority
when it is equally moral and deserved. They also agree to obey laws and social rules of conduct
that promote respect for individuals and value the few universal moral values that they
recognize. Moral behavior and moral decisions are based on the greatest good for the greatest
number.

Stage six is the Principled Conscience or the Universal/Ethical Principles stage. Here, individuals
examine the validity of society's laws and govern themselves by what they consider to be
universal moral principles, usually involving equal rights and respect. They obey laws and social
rules that fall in line with these universal principles, but not others they deem as aberrant. Adults
here are motivated by individual conscience that transcends cultural, religious, or social
convention rules. Kohlberg recognized this last stage but found so few people who lived by this
concept of moral behavior that he could not study it in detail.

Carol Gilligan and the morality of care

Kohlberg's and Piaget's theories have come under fire. Kohlberg's six stages of moral
development, for example, have been criticized for elevating Western, urban, intellectual (upper
class) understandings of morality, while discrediting rural, tribal, working class, or Eastern moral
understandings. Feminists have pointed out potential sexist elements in moral development
theories devised by male researchers using male subjects only (such as Kohlberg's early work).
Because women's experiences in the world differ from men's in every culture, it would stand to
reason that women's moral development might differ from men's, perhaps in significant ways.

Carol Gilligan deemed Kohlberg's research biased because he only used male subjects to reach
his findings. Because of this, his model is based on a concept of morality based on equity and
justice, which places most men in stage five or six. Gilligan found that women, who value social
interaction more than men, base their moral decisions on a culture of caring for other human
beings. This would place them at stage three, making women appear to be inferior morally to
men. Men determine immorality based on treating others unfairly, and women base it on turning
away someone in need.

Gilligan's work, however, doesn't solve the gender question, because newer research has found
that both males and females often base their moral judgments and behaviors on both justice and
care. Nevertheless, the morality of care theory opened up explorations of moral reasoning in
many groups and cultures.

Bronfenbrenner

Urie Bronfenbrenner studied children and schools in different cultures since many ethnic,
religious, and social groups often have their own rules for moral behavior. His research found
five moral orientations, regardless of culture, social group, or developmental stage. Movement
from the first stage to any of the others was dependent on participation in the family and other
social institutions within each culture. Movement to the last stage involved exposure to a
different moral system that might be in conflict with one's own. This moral pluralism forces
individuals to examine their own moral reasoning and beliefs. This often occurs when people
work in other countries or cultures and come face to face with different sets of moral
conventions.

Bronfenbrenner also noted that individuals could slide back into a previous moral orientation
when they experienced the breakdown of their familiar social order as in war, regime changes,
genocide, famine, or large scale natural disasters that destroy social infrastructures. People
narrow their attention to their own pressing needs and ignore the welfare of the larger society.

Self-oriented morality coincided with Kohlberg's pre-conventional morality. Behavior is based

on self-interest and motivated by who can help children get what they want or who is hindering
that process. This stage was found in all children and some adults in all cultures.

Authority-oriented morality again is similar to Kohlberg's Law and Order stage. This applies not
only to parents' rules but to teachers, religious leaders, and government officials. This moral
orientation was culturally defined. It was very evident in Middle Eastern cultures where religious
authority is the law.

Peer-authority morality is moral conformity based on the conventions and rules of a social group.
This is evident among teenagers in Western cultures and even among some adults.

Collective-oriented morality is an extension of the peer-authority stage. Here a larger group's rule
supersedes individual rights and interests. Duty is the law. This moral orientation was found in
Asian cultures.

Objectively-oriented morality is akin to Kohlberg's universal principles stage. Here, however,

these rules transcend individual moral perspectives and become entities in themselves. Like
Kohlberg's last stage, this moral orientation was found in relatively few people in any culture.

Other theories

There are several other approaches to the study of moral development, which are categorized in a
variety of ways. Briefly, the social learning theory approach claims that humans develop
morality by learning the rules of acceptable behavior from their external environment, an
essentially behaviorist approach. Psychoanalytic theory proposes instead that morality develops
through humans' conflict between their instinctual drives and the demands of society. Cognitive
development theories view morality as an outgrowth of cognition, or reasoning, whereas
personality theories are holistic in their approach, taking into account all the factors that
contribute to human development.

The differences between these approaches rest on two questions: How moral are infants at birth?
And how is moral maturity defined? The contrasting philosophies at the heart of the answers to
these questions determine the essential perspective of each moral development theory. Those
who believe infants are born with no moral sense tend toward social learning or behaviorist
theories, because all morality must therefore be learned from the external environment. Others
who believe humans are innately aggressive and completely self-oriented are more likely to
accept psychoanalytic theories where morality is the learned management of socially destructive
internal drives. Those who believe it is the reasoning abilities that separate humans from the rest
of creation will find cognitive development theories the most attractive. And those who view
humans as holistic beings born with a full range of potentialities will most likely be drawn to
personality theories.

What constitutes mature morality is a subject of great controversy. Each society develops its own
set of norms and standards for acceptable behavior, leading many to say that morality is entirely
culturally conditioned. There is debate over whether or not this means that there are no universal
truths, and no cross-cultural standards for human behavior. This debate fuels the critiques of
many moral development theories.

Definitions of what is or is not moral are in a state of upheaval within individual societies.
Controversies rage over the morality of warfare (especially nuclear), ecological conservation,
genetic research and manipulation, alternative fertility and childbearing methods, abortion,
sexuality, pornography, drug use, euthanasia, racism, sexism, and human rights issues, among
others. Determining the limits of moral behavior becomes increasingly difficult as human
capabilities, choices, and responsibilities proliferate with advances in technology and scientific
knowledge. For example, prenatal testing techniques that determine birth defects in the womb
force parents to make new moral choices about whether to give birth to a child.

The rise in crime, drug and alcohol abuse, gang violence, teen parenthood, and suicide in
Western society has also caused a rise in concern over morality and moral development. Parents
and teachers want to know how to raise moral children, and they turn to moral development
theorists to find answers. Freudian personality theories became more widely known to the
Western public in the 1960s and were understood to imply that repression of a child's natural
drives would lead to neuroses. Many parents and teachers were therefore afraid to discipline their
children, and permissiveness became the rule. Cognitive development theories did little to
change things, as they focus on reasoning and disregard behavior. Behaviorist theories, with their
complete denial of free will in moral decision-making, are unattractive to many and require
precise, dedicated, behavior modification techniques.

Schools are returning to character education programs, popular in the 1920s and 1930s, where
certain virtues such as honesty, fairness, and loyalty, are taught to students along with the regular
academic subjects. Unfortunately, there is little or no agreement as to which virtues are important
and what exactly each virtue entails.

Another approach to moral education that became popular in the 1960s and 1970s is known as
values clarification or values modification. The purpose of these programs is to guide students to
establish or discern their own system of values on which to base their moral decisions. Students
are also taught that others may have different values systems, and that they must be tolerant of
those differences. The advantages of this approach are that it promotes self-investigation and
awareness and the development of internal moral motivations, which are more reliable than
external motivations, and prevents fanaticism, authoritarianism, and moral coercion. The
disadvantage is that it encourages moral relativism, the belief that "anything goes." Values
clarification is generally seen as a valuable component of moral education, but incomplete on its
own.

Lawrence Kohlberg devised a moral education program in the 1960s based on his cognitive
development theory. Called the Just Community program, it utilizes age-appropriate or stage-
appropriate discussions of moral dilemmas, democratic consensus rule-making, and the creation
of a community context where students and teachers could act on their moral decisions. Just
Community programs have been established in schools, prisons, and other institutions with a fair
amount of success. Exposure to moral questions and the opportunity to practice moral behavior
in a supportive community appear to foster deeper moral reasoning and more constructive
behavior.

Overall, democratic family and school systems are much more likely to promote the
development of internal self-controls and moral growth than are authoritarian or permissive
systems. Permissive systems fail to instill any controls, while authoritarian systems instill only
fear of punishment, which is not an effective deterrent unless there is a real chance of being
caught or punishment becomes a reward because it brings attention to the offender. True moral
behavior involves a number of internal processes that are best developed through warm, caring
parenting with clear and consistent expectations, emphasis on the reinforcement of positive
behaviors rather than the punishment of negative ones, modeling of moral behavior by adults,
and creation of opportunities for the child to practice moral reasoning and actions.

According to personal (social) goal theory, moral behavior is motivated by the desire to satisfy a
variety of personal and social goals, some of which are self-oriented (selfish), and some of which
are other-oriented (altruistic). The four major internal motivations for moral behavior as
presented by personal (social) goal theorists are: 1) empathy; 2) the belief that people are
valuable in and of themselves and therefore should be helped; 3) the desire to fulfill moral rules;
and 4) self-interest.

In social domain theory, moral reasoning is said to develop within particular social domains: 1)
moral (e.g., welfare, justice, rights); 2) social-conventional (social rules for the orderly function
of society); and 3) personal (pure self-interest, exempt from social or moral rules).

Most people have more than one moral voice and shift among them depending on the situation.
In one context, a person may respond out of empathy and place care for an individual over
concern for social rules. In a different context, that same person might instead insist on following
social rules for the good of society, even though someone may suffer because of it. People also
show a lack of consistent morality by sometimes choosing to act in a way that they know is not
moral, while continuing to consider themselves moral people. This discrepancy between moral
judgment (perceiving an act as morally right or wrong) and moral choice (deciding whether to
act in the morally right way) can be explained in a number of ways, any one of which may be
true in a given situation:

 weakness of will (the person is overwhelmed by desire)

 weakness of conscience (guilt feelings are not strong enough to overcome temptation)
 limited/flexible morality (some latitude allowed in moral behavior while still maintaining
a "moral" identity)

The Moral Balance model proposes that most humans operate out of a limited or flexible
morality. Rather than expecting moral perfection from ourselves or others, people set certain
limits beyond which they cannot go. Within those limits, however, there is some flexibility in
moral decision-making. Actions such as taking coins left in the change-box of a public telephone
may be deemed acceptable (though not perfectly moral), while stealing money from an open,
unattended cash register is not. Many factors are involved in the determination of moral
acceptability from situation to situation, and the limits on moral behavior are often slippery. If
given proper encouragement and the opportunity to practice a coherent inner sense of morality,
however, most people will develop a balanced morality to guide their day-to-day interactions
with their world.