Kohlberg (1968)

• Methodology:


  Interviews, qualitative data. Cross-cultural comparisons + longitudinal element. 75 American boys from age 10-16 & again between 22 & 28. Also studied people in GB, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico & Turkey.
• Procedures:


  Assess moral thinking, 9 hypothetical moral dilemmas created. Each presented conflict between 2 moral issues. Participant asked to discuss 3 of these dilemmas, prompted by set of 10 or more open-ended questions. Answers analysed & common themes identified so stage theory could be constructed. Each boy re-interviewed every 3 years. Same type of interview used with kids & adults in other countries.
• Findings:


  Answers analysed & common themes identified so stage theory could be constructed (account of how behaviour changes at different ages (stages)). Younger kids thought at pre-conventional level & as got older, their reasons for moral decisions became less focused on themselves & more on doing good as relationships with others are important. Final level of development is related to moral principles. Results in Mexico & Taiwan were same, except development was little slower.
• Conclusions:


  Key features of moral development: stages are invariant & universal (people everywhere go through same stages in same order). Each new stage represents a more equilibrated form of moral understanding, resulting in a more logically consistent & morally mature form of understanding. Moral discussion classes can be used to help kids develop their moral thinking. Discussions between kids at stages 3 & 4 result in stage 3 kid moving forwards.
• Evaluate external validity:


  Gilligan (1982) criticised research as evidence not based on real-life decisions. Moral dilemmas were hypothetical which may have made little sense especially to children. Her own research involved interviewing people about their own moral dilemmas e.g, decision to get an abortion.
• Evaluate sample:


  Gilligan (1982)- theory based on interviews with boys. Male morality may be different to female morality- it's based on justice rather than caringness. Evidence showed women tend to be more focused on relationships (caring) than justice when making moral decisions. Suggests theory was gender-biased & restricted to 1 type of morality.
• Jorgensen (2006):


  Gilligan's critique (of sample) was more of an expansion of Kohlberg's theory, rather than an alternative to it. Core concepts remain unchallenged, such as the invariant sequence of development & importance of social interactions.
• Evaluate social desirability bias:


  Self report method: participants prefer to present self in good light. May describe their moral behaviour idealistically. Kohlberg asked how people think, rather than what they'd actually do- theory is about idealistic moral thinking than about behaviour. Kohlberg claimed it was a theory of reasoning: predicted those who reason in a more mature fashion should be inclined to more morally mature behaviour:
• Kohlberg (1975):


  Students given opportunity to cheat on test, 15% of college students at post-conventional stage cheated, 70% of those at pre-conventional stage did.
• Burton (1976):


  People only behave consistently with their moral principles on some kinds of moral behaviour, e.g, cheating or sharing toys- concluded that generally it's likely that factors other than moral principles affect moral behaviour, such as likelihood of punishment.
• Ethical issues:


  Risk of stress, anxiety, humiliation, for example, in children. Lack of valid consent from kids. Kids may not understand debrief so risk not alleviated.