User talk:JGinsburg2/sandbox

Children’s environmental morality development refers to the way that children formulate their relationship to, place within (Audley et al., 2020), and understanding of the natural world through a moral framework (Heyd, 2003). Environmental identity, an aspect of environmental psychology and environmental ethics is intrinsically enveloped within self-identity development, or identity formation; therefore, by default environmental morality develops concurrently with morality, that is, children’s environmental morality development is an aspect of children’s identity development. Numerous different frameworks exist which psychologists understand morality development in children—not all of them will be addressed here. Children’s morality development in general is germane to understanding how children understand and formulate relationships with the environment in a moral way. In order for environmental morality development to be defined, morality development in children needs to first be defined.

Children’s morality development refers to the ways in which children understand and conceptualize behaviors as “right,” and “wrong,” (Duhn, 1990) or, how they understand what they “should,” and “should not” do (Wainryb & Brehl, 2006; Wainryb, 2004). There are numerous theories that have been developed to describe how children’s self-identities with regard to morality develop, for example, social domain theory (SDT; Turiel, 1983). However, many fewer studies that have actually focused on the way that children relate to the environment in a moral sense (e.g. Otto et al, 2019). In developing theories regarding understanding how moral development occurs, earlier philosophers such as Dewey, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky are frequently referenced (see Mooney, 2012 for a brief overview. The social domain theory approach implies that morality (development, understanding, and applications to decision making) relies on core judgements about welfare, justice, and rights that are considered important and necessary (Nucci, 2014; Turiel, 1983 & 2014; Smetana et al., 2014). Social domain theory is a framework for conceptualizing the ways in which people reason through problems and then based on this reasoning decide how to act.

Children’s environmental identity development relates to morality development in an essential and inextricable way. Researchers see that children need exposure to the outdoors in order to create a relationship with the natural environment and therefore choose to be a steward of it (see environmental stewardship; Chawla, 2009; Sobel 2014). Moral regard for nature must surpass a simple interest in acting against pollution; moral environmental understanding is much greater than that (Kahn, 2003). Moral regard for the environment is defined as an “action-oriented disposition,” (Green et al., 2015, p. 1026) which begins with meaningful and purposeful positive encounters with whatever one considers nature. Importantly, Kahn (2003) characterizes two main forms of environmental reasoning (a type of psychological reasoning): anthropocentric and biocentric. That is, juxtaposing the definitions of anthropocentric reasoning and ecocentric, or biocentric reasoning (see Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001), Kahn (2003) defines anthropocentric environmental reasoning as that which appeals to environmental changes which have a direct effect on humanity. In contrast, Kahn (2003) writes that biocentric reasoning is that which has a wider scope and includes those changes to the natural environment that are beyond simply affecting humans. Karpiak & Baril (2007) utilized Kohlberg's (1984) theory of stages of moral development to demonstrate that ecocentrism corresponds positively with pro-environmental behavior, which, many have cited barriers to. Given these differing forms of reasoning (anthropocentric as opposed to eco-centric), with cognitive underpinnings of various encounters with nature, children begin to develop the ability to morally associate with and for care for animals (Kahn, 2003) and their welfare, which, in turn, can be surmised to be associated with caring for the environment. Important to note, is that, children’s ideas about the environment (that is, their ecological assumptions) also may change over time, they are not constant. That is, these identities are malleable. Culture must also be taken into consideration when defining children’s environmental moral reasoning development. Cultural relativism (Hatch, 1983) must be taken into consideration in that children’s moral understandings, both in general and about the environment specifically, cannot be extrapolated from cultures to culture, or among different socioeconomic statuses (oftentimes not even within a given culture, see multiculturalism), and, the frameworks that children acquire are culture and context specific. Generally speaking, studies of psychological development must be situated within common notions of the communities, economies, and family structures within which such development is being studied.

References

Audley, S., Stein, N. R. & Ginsburg, J. L. (2020). Fostering Children’s Ecocultural Identities within Ecoresiliency. In: T. Milstein & J. Castro-Sotomayor (Eds.) Handbook of Ecocultural Identity. London, UK: Routledge.

Chawla, L. (2009). Growing Up Green: Becoming an Agent of Care for the Natural World. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1), 6-23.

Dunn, J. (1990). The Beginnings of Moral Understanding: Development in the Second Year, In J. Kagan & S. Lamb (Eds.), The Emergency of Morality in Young Children, 91-111. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Green, C., Kalvaitis, D. & Worster, A. (2016). Recontextualizing psychosocial development in young children: a model of environmental identity development. Environmental Education Research, 22(7), 1025-1048.

Hatch, E. (1983). Culture and morality: the relativity of values in anthropology. Columbia University Press.

Heyd, T. (2003). The Case for Environmental Morality. Environmental Ethics, 25(1), 5-24.

Kahn, P. H. (2003). The Development of Environmental Moral Identity. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, 113-134. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Kolberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. Harper and Row.

Kortenkamp, K. V. & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Commons Dilemmas, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261-272.

Mooney, C. G. (2013). Theories of Childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget & Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: RedLeaf Press.

Nucci, L. P. (2014). The Personal and the Moral. In Killen, M & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.) Handbook of Moral Development, (538-558). New York: Psychology Press.

Otto, S., Evans, W. G., Moon, M. J., Kaiser, F. G. (2019). The development of children’s environmental attitude and behavior. Global Environmental Change, 58, 1-6.

Sobel, D. (2014). Learning to walk between the raindrops: The value of nature preschools and forest kindergartens. Children Youth and Environments, 24(2), 228-238.

Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turiel, E. (2014). Morality: Epistemology, Development, and Social Opposition. In Killen, M & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.) Handbook of Moral Development, (3-22). New York: Psychology Press.

Smetana, J. G., Jambon, M. & Ball, C. (2014). The Social Domain Approach to Children’s Moral and Social Judgements. In Killen, M & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.) Handbook of Moral Development, (23-45). New York: Psychology Press.

Wainryb, C. & Brehl, B. A. (2006). I thought she knew that would hurt my feelings: Developing psychological knowledge and moral thinking. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 34(1), 131-171.

Wainryb, C. (2004). “Is” and “ought”: Moral judgements about the world as understood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2004(103), 3-18.