In contrast with Piaget and Kohlberg's theories, Eisenberg believed that children have a more advanced capability for moral understanding and justification of moral behaviour than previously thought. This is an advantage as the aforementioned theories are frequently criticised for undermining children's abilities. Also in contrast to Piaget and Kohlberg, Eisenberg presented participants with much simpler dilemmas, in which there is a simpler child character. This may increase internal validity, because it is impossible to assess a child's moral understanding by presenting them with a dilemma which they do not fully comprehend.
The theory states that a child will be empathetic only when they understand another's distress and feel concern about it (Eisenberg, 2000). This is an important element of the theory, and is supported by Caplan and Hay (1989), who found that persoanl distress alone is insufficient for pro-social behaviour to take place. They found that young children (in the 'self-centered' level) were often upset by the distress of another child but did not offer to help. This supports the theory as the lack of ability to be concerned caused the children not to take action.
Gender differences are not accounted for by Eisenberg's theory. Feshbach (1982) found that males are less empathetic than females at any one point in their life. Eisenberg et al. (1991) suggested, however, that this difference may be explained by the fact that girls' cognitive maturation is faster than that of girls.
Cross-cultural differences have also been found in Eisenberg's theory, which may be criticised for being eurocentric. Research has found that European children changed from hedonistic to needs-oriented reasoning, as suggested by Eisenberg, but research in collectivist cultures, such as Israeli kibbutzim, has found that children there tend to emphasise communal values in their morals. This indicates that it is not only cognitive ability that influences pro-social behaviour, but also the society in which the child lives.
An alternative theory of the development of pro-social reasoning is provided by Hoffman, who saw empathy as an involuntary reaction to emotional stimuli. He suggests that it is also related to cognitive development; that is, as children gain the ability to interpret the world from others' viewpoints, they are able to indirectly experience others' distress, and therefore act empathetically. This is similar to Eisenberg's idea that a child's cognitive ability determines their ability to attend to another's distress.
Hoffman's theory is also a stage theory. The progression of the stages begins with an infant having 'global emphathy'; that is, not being able to differentiate between their own distress and the distress of others. Then, they gain the ability to perceive another's distress, and true empathy develops later. In the fourth stage, children gain the ability to empathise for another's feelings (by age 2), and finally the child is able to undertake role-taking in order to assess what behaviour is appropriate. These are open to many of the same criticisms as Eisenberg's stages, for example that it is a reductionist outlook, but unlike Eisenberg's theory, ages are not specified, allowing for individual differences in the onset of the stages.
In addition to explaining the stages of pro-social development, Hoffman explained the role of discipline in children's moral development. He suggested that a child who is punished, without explanation, for performing anti-social behaviour may continue to perform that behaviour, but avoid punishment by not performing the behaviour in the presence of somebody who will punish them. However, if the discipline is accompanied by an explanation of how the child's behaviour affects somebody else, or if pro-social behaviour is praised, then the child's empathetic development will improve. This is supported by Baumrind (1971), who found that parents who attempted to instill pro-social behaviour into their children by means of rules and punishment were not successful. Grusec (1982) found that praise for pro-social behaviour led to behaviours in the future such as spontaneous help on the part of the child.
This has implications for parenting and education, indicating that strict parenting and teaching styles based primarily on punishment are unlikely to work.
