Transcript Value priorities, empathy and guilt in Finland, Bulgaria

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