User:Sarah.alani/sandbox

Paragraph: This helps you set the style of the text. For example, a header, or plain paragraph text. You can also use it to offset block quotes.

A : Highlight your text, then click here to format it with bold, italics, etc. The "More" options allows you to underline, add code snippets, and change language keyboards.

Links: The chain button allows you to link your text. Highlight the word, and push the button. The visual editor will automatically suggest related Wikipedia articles for that word or phrase. This is a great way to connect your article to more Wikipedia content. You only have to link important words once, usually during the first time they appear. If you want to link to pages outside of Wikipedia (for an "external links" section, for example) click on the "External link" tab.

Cite: The citation tool in the visual editor helps format your citations. You can simply paste a DOI or URL, and the visual editor will try to sort out all of the fields you need. Be sure to review it, however, and apply missing fields manually (if you know them). You can also add books, journals, news, and websites manually. That opens up a quick guide for inputting your citations. Finally, you can click the "re-use" tab if you've already added a source and just want to cite it again. Mcgill University Insert: This tab lets you add media, images, or tables.
 * Bullets: To add bullet points or a numbered list, click here.

Ω The final tab allows you to add special characters, such as those found in non-English words, scientific notation, and a handful of language extensions.  bold ' 'bold bold

 How will I contribute to my article (Moral Development):  Moral development section Children's interactions and experiences with caregivers and peers have been shown to influence their development of moral understanding and behavior. ("Early Childhood Moral Development". www.mentalhelp.net. Retrieved 2018-03-25.)  Researchers have addressed the influence of interpersonal interactions on children's moral development from two primary perspectives: Socialization/Internalization (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994;[8] Kochanska & Askan, 1995;[9] Kochanska, Askan, & Koenig, 1995[10]) and Social domain theory (Turiel, 1983;[6] Smetana 2006[11]). Research from the social domain theory perspective focuses on how children actively distinguish moral from conventional behavior based in part on the responses of parents, teachers, and peers (Smetana, 1997[12]). Social domain suggests that there are different areas of reasoning co-existing in development those include societal (concerns about conventions and grouping), moral (fairness, justice and rights)  and psychological (concerns with personal goals and identity). (Turiel, E. (2006). The development of morality. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development. Volume 3 of the Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 789–857). Editors-in-Chief: W. Damon & R. M. Lerner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ) Adults tend to respond to children's moral transgressions (e.g. hitting or stealing) by drawing the child's attention to the effect of his or her action on others, and doing so consistently across various contexts. In contrast, adults are more likely to respond to children's conventional misdeeds (e.g. wearing a hat in the classroom, eating spaghetti with fingers) by reminding children about specific rules and doing so only in certain contexts (e.g. at school but not at home) (Smetana, 1984;[13]1985[14]). Peers respond mainly to moral but not conventional transgressions and demonstrate emotional distress (e.g. crying or yelling) when they are the victim of moral but unconventional transgressions (Smetana, 1984). Children then use these differing cues to help determine whether behaviors are conventionally wrong.
 * I want to try and redefine some of the information making it more precise and to the point such as in the history section.
 * Attempt to represent the different stages of Moral development in a table to simplify the information for people who are in a rush and would like to get the idea quickly.
 * Source:
 * https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
 * Add statistics to support some of the arguments
 * Incorporate the Milgram experiment? The research was to see how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. You would test your their morality as they know the way to judge if one was right or wrong was by hurting the other. Some kept going until the end while others realized how wrong the experiment was and asked to stop it immediately.
 * Sources:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxq4QtK3j0Y
 * https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
 * 1) Interpersonal Influences

Research from a socialization/internalization perspective focuses on the ways in which adults pass down standards or rules of behavior to children through parenting techniques and why children do or do not internalize those values (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Kochanska & Askan, 1995). From this perspective, moral development involves children's increasing compliance with and internalization of adult rules, requests, and standards of behavior. Using these definitions, researchers find that parenting behaviors vary in the extent to which they encourage children's internalization of values, and that these effects depend partially on a child attributes, such as age and temperament (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). For instance, Kochanska (1997) showed that gentle parental discipline best promotes conscience development in temperamentally fearful children but that parental responsiveness and a mutually responsive parent-child orientation best promote conscience development in temperamentally fearless children.[15]These parental influences exert their effects through multiple pathways, including increasing children's experience of moral emotions (e.g. guilt, empathy) and their self-identification as moral individuals (Kochanska, 2010[16]). Development can be divided up to multiple stages however the first few years of development is usually seen to be formed by 5 years of age. According to Freud's research, relationships between a child and parents early on usually provides the basis forth personality development as well as the formation of morality. (Freud, S (1930–1961). "Civilization and its discontents". New York, NY – via W. W. Norton.)

2. Morality and cognition: intentionality

A hallmark of moral understanding is intentionality. This can be defined as an attribution of the target’s intentions towards another. (added citation) 5 components make up peoples concept of intentionality which include: An action is considered intentional if a personal has (a) a desire for an outcome, (b) a belief that the action will lead to the outcome, (c) an intention to perform the action, (d) skill to perform the action, and (e) awareness while performing it. ( http://research.clps.brown.edu/SocCogSci/Projects/intentionality.html )  Recent research on children's theory of mind, ToM, has focused on when children understand others' intentions (Wellman & Lui, 2004[17]). The moral concept of ones intentionality develops with experience in the world. Yuill (1984) presented evidence that comprehension of one's intentions plays a role in moral judgment, even in young children.[18] Killen, Mulvey, Richardson, Jampol, and Woodward (2011) present evidence that with developing false belief competence (ToM), children are capable of using information about one’s intentions when making moral judgments about act acceptability and punishment acceptability, recognizing that accidental transgressors, who do not hold negative intentions, should not be held accountable for negative outcomes.[19] In this study, children who lacked false belief competence were more likely to attribute blame to an accidental transgressor than children with demonstrated false belief competence. In addition to evidence from a social cognitive perspective, behavioral evidence suggests that even three-year-olds have the capacity to take into account actor intention and apply this information when responding to situations. Vaish, Carpenter, and Tomasello(2010), for instance, present evidence that three-year-olds are more willing to help a neutral or helpful person than a harmful person.[20] Beyond the ability to identify one’s intentionality, mental state understanding plays a crucial role in identifying victimization. While obvious distress cues (e.g. crying) allow even three year olds to identify victims of harm (Zelazo, Helwig, & Lau, 1996[21]), it is not until around six years of age that children are able to appreciate that a person may be an unwilling victim of harm even in the absence of obvious distress (Shaw & Wainryb, 2006).[22] In their study, Shaw and Wainryb (2006) discovered that children older than six interpret compliance, resistance, and subversion to illegitimate requests (e.g., clean my locker) from the perspective of a victim. That is, they judge that victims who resist illegitimate requests (deleted- will) feel better than victims who comply.

3. Morality and intergroup attitudes

Researchers interested in intergroup attitudes and behavior have approached the study of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination in children and adolescents from several theoretical perspectives. Some of these theoretical frameworks include: Cognitive Development Theory (Aboud, 1988);[23] Social Domain Theory (Killen & Rutland, 2011;[24] Killen, Sinno, & Margie, 2007[25]); Social Identity Development Theory (Nesdale, 1999);[26]Developmental Intergroup Theory (Bigler & Liben, 2006);[27] Subjective Group Dynamics (Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003;[28] Rutland, Killen, & Abrams, 2010[29]); Implicit Theories (Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006)[30] and Intergroup-contact Theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008).[31] The plethora of research approaches is not surprising given the multitude of variables, (e.g. group identity, group status, group threat, group norms, intergroup contact, individual beliefs and context) that need to be considered when assessing children's intergroup attitudes. While most of this research has investigated two-dimensional relationships between each of the three components: stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination (e.g., role of stereotypes in intergroup prejudice, use of stereotypes to reason about intergroup discrimination, how prejudices manifest into discrimination), very few have addressed all three aspects of intergroup attitudes and behaviors together (McKown, 2004).[32]

In developmental intergroup research, stereotypes are defined as judgments made about an individual's attributes based on group membership (Killen, Margie, & Sinno, 2006;[33] Killen et al., 2007). Social psychologists focus on stereotypes as cognitive components influencing intergroup behaviors and tend to define them as being fixed concepts associated with a category (Allport, 1954).[34] Prejudice, on the other hand is defined in terms of negative attitudes or affective expressions toward a whole group or members of a group (Stangor, 2009).[35] Negative stereotypes and prejudices can manifest into discrimination towards an outgroup and for children and adolescents this may come in the form of exclusion from peer groups (Killen & Rutland, 2011).

Within an intergroup encounter children and adolescents have been found to weigh concerns about fairness, justice and the welfare of others when making decisions about inclusion or exclusion of an outgroup member into a peer group.