Discuss validity and ethical issues of Kohlberg (12)

• Para 1: sample limits validity

  • P: the sample used by Kohlberg limits the validity of his findings

  • E: his original research was conducted on 75 American boys, meaning the sample lacked gender and cultural adversity

  • E: Carol Gillitan (1982) criticised this, arguing that Kohlberg’s theory was based on a typically male view of morality focused on justice, whereas women may prioritise care and relationships. This suggests the theory may not fully capture female moral reasoning

  • L: therefore, Kohlberg’s findings may lack population validity as they may not generalise beyond Western, male participants
• Para 2: ecological validity

  • P: the use of hypothetical moral dilemmas raises concerns about ecological validity

  • E: Kohlberg assessed moral reasoning using made-up scenarios, such as the Heinz dilemma, which were often unrealistic and detached from participants‘ real life experiences

  • E: Gilligan (1982) argued that such dilemmas might not reflect how people reason in actual moral situations. She used real-life decisions, like abortion, to explore moral thinking more authentically

  • L: this suggests kohlberg’s method may lack ecological validity, as responses might not reflect genuine moral behaviour
• Para 3: social desirability bias

  • P: the research may suffer from social desirability bias, reducing internal validity.

  • E: participants were interviewed and asked to justify their moral decisions, which may have led them to give socially acceptable or idealistic answers rather than truthful ones

  • E: this challenges the validity of the findings as Kohlberg may have measured how people think they would act, not how they actually behave. Although Kohlberg (1975) found some link between moral reasoning and behaviour (e.g. cheating), other research (e.g. Burton, 1976) showed people do not consistently act in line with their moral stage

  • L: as a result, moral reasoning does not always predict real-life moral behaviour, lowering the internal validity of the study
• Mini conclusion

  While Kohlberg’s research was groundbreaking in identifying stages of moral development, its validity is limited by its sample bias, unrealistic dilemmas, and potential social desirability bias. These issues suggest that his theory may not fully reflect how moral reasoning develops or translates into real-life behaviour across all individuals