Evaluate methodological + ethical issues Kohlberg

• Methodology 1 (point)

  One methodological issue is that Kohlberg only studies boys, which may limit how far the findings can be generalised to all children
• Methodology 1 (evidence)

  His sample included 75 American boys aged 10-16, who were re-interviewed later as young adults. Carol Gillitan (1982) argued that this creates a gender bias, as males and females may reason about moral issues differently. She suggested that women tend to focus more on care and relationship, while Kohlberg‘s dilemmas focused on justice
• Methodology 1 (evaluate)

  This suggests that the findings may not reflect female moral development and therefore lack population validity. However, Jorgensen (2006) argued that Gilligan’s critique was more of an expansion than a rejection of Kohlberg’s theory, his stages may still be relevant, even if they don’t capture all aspects of moral reasoning.
• Methodology 1 (link)

  This highlights how gender bias in developmental research can affect the validity and generalisability of the conclusions drawn
• Methodology 2 (point)

  A strength of Kohlberg’s research is its use of longitudinal and cross-cultural approach.
• Methodology 2 (evidence)

  He followed the same participants over many years and studied people in Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, and more, finding similar patterns in moral development.
• Methodology 2 (evaluate)

  this adds to the reliability of his findings and supports his conclusion that moral development progresses through universal and invariant stages. However, the dilemmas were Western in focus, and cultural interpretations of morality may differ. For example, collectivist cultures may prioritise group needs over individual justice, which may influence responses
• Methodology 2 (link)

  This means Kohlberg’s methods support the theory’s strength, but cultural bias in the dilemmas still limits full cross-cultural validity
• Ethics (point)

  Research involving children raises potential ethical concerns
• Ethics (evidence)

  the dilemmas Kohlberg presented involved serious and potentially upsetting topics like illness, theft, and death.
• Ethics (evaluate)

  children may not have the emotional maturity to process these situations or give fully informed consent. Although the study was not harmful physically, there is the possibility of psychological discomfort. Researchers also must ensure parental consent and age-appropriate explanations are given
• Ethics (link)

  This shows the importance of considering emotional well-being in developmental research, even when the methods appear low-risk
• Conclusion

  In conclusion, Kohlberg’s research on moral development raised important methodological and ethical issues. While it had strong features like a longitudinal and cross-cultural design, it was limited by gender bias, cultural assumptions, and the artificial nature of hypothetical dilemmas. Ethical concerns, particularly when working with children, must always be carefully managed to protect participants and ensure valid, meaningful results.