Level of moral reasoning

• Moral development

  Kohlberg proposed that as children get older their decisions and judgements about right and wrong become more sophisticated (see left).

  A person's level of reasoning (thinking) affects their behaviour.
• Offenders at lowest level

  Kohlberg et al. (1973) used a moral dilemma technique (e.g.

  Heinz dilemma) and found offenders tend to be at the pre-conventional level, whereas non-offenders progress higher.

  Pre-conventional level is characterised by:

  • A need to avoid punishment and gain rewards.
  • Less mature, childlike reasoning.

  Offenders may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards (e.g. money, respect).
• Offenders

  Research shows that offenders are often self-centred (egocentric) and display poorer social perspective-taking skills (Chandler 1973).

  Individuals who reason at a higher level tend to empathise more and exhibit behaviours such as honesty, generosity and non-violence.
• Evaluation

  One limitation of level of moral reasoning is thinking versus behaviour. Kohlberg's theory provides insight into the criminal mind - offenders may be more childlike and egocentric when making moral judgements. However, moral thinking is not the same as moral behaviour. Moral reasoning may be used to explain behaviour but only afterwards.  This suggests that understanding moral behaviour may be more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them.
• Evaluation

  One strength of level of moral reasoning is evidence support. Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning of offenders and non-offenders on a SRM-SF scale (11 moral dilemmas). Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offenders group (e.g. not taking things that belong to someone else). This is consistent with Kohlberg's theory, and suggests his theory of criminality has validity.