kohlberg

• Kohlberg

  • Aim: To investigate the development of moral reasoning in children
• Methodology

  • Non experimental method used; Use of interviews
  • Type of study over a long period of time; longitudinal
  • Type of data collected; qualitative data
  • The study included what type of comparisons? Cross cultural comparisons
• Sample

  • Nationality of sample; American
  • Gender of sample; Male
  • Total number of participants; 75
  • Age of participants; 10-16 and again between 22-28
• Procedures

  • moral dilemma: A conflict between two moral issues
  • 9 moral dilemmas per child.
  • Each participant was asked to discuss three of these with a set of ten open ended questions.
  • Type of questions asked? Open ended
  • Type of non experimental method? Interview
• Findings - Pre-conventional Level

  • Stage 1; Obedience or

  Punishment Orientation: Rules are seen as being fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it means avoiding punishment.

  • Stage 2; Self-Interest Orientation: Decisions are made based on the principle of "What's in it for me?"
• Findings - Conventional Level

  • Stage 3; Social Conformity Orientation: There is a sense of what "good boys" and "nice girls" do and the emphasis is on living up to social expectations. (Normally by adolescent)
  • Stage 4; Law and Order Orientation: They usually consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules (Normally by early adulthood).
• Findings - Post Conventional Level

  • Stage 5; Social Contract Orientation: People understand that there are differing opinions out there on what is right and wrong and that laws are really just a social contract.
  • Stage 6; Universal Ethics Orientation: Few people operate at this stage stage all the time. It is based on abstract reasoning and the ability to put oneself in other people's shoes. At this stage, people have a principled conscience and will follow universal ethical principles regardless of what the official laws and rules
• Conclusions

  • What were the cross cultural findings : Stages are universal
  • Middle class children in all cultures progressed quicker than lower class children
  • Religion had no effect on moral reasoning
• General Conclusions

  • Do all children go through these stages? No but each stage is built up from the previous
  • Do they have to be in chronological order? Yes need to go through chronologically
• Evaluation - Semi structured interviews

  • Allows supplementary questions to be asked if necessary, such as the questionnaires used by Kohlberg.
  • Often research is investigating children, so they may be less able to complete written self-reports methods.
  • Children and young people may be more susceptible to researcher bias due to face to face
• Evaluation - Longitudinal study + Sample

  • Allows the researcher to track the development of child
  • Androcentric sample- use of only males Carol Gilligan (1982) suggested that male morality might be quite different from female morality- it is based on justice rather then caringness.
• Evaluation -Type of data collected

  • Qualitative research= hard to analyse
  • Issues with the dilemmas themselves
  • Investigating what children say they would do not what they actually would do. May not be relevant to the participant’s life, e.g. can a child relate to the Heinz scenario in Kohlberg’s study?
  • Studying children of different ages may not be reliable as the same scenarios or questions may not be appropriate for all ages.
• Evaluation - Cross Cultural Comparisons and Validity

  • Allows the researcher to ask if development is universal or culturally specific. The same questions may not be appropriate for different cultures.
  • Validity: Not a real situation but a dilemma. People may respond differently in real life. Brings to question the validity of the research
• Evaluation - Ethics

  • Risk of stress, anxiety, humiliation or pain: procedures may elicit high levels of anxiety in children.
  • Children may not understand the debrief that is offered and therefore the risk is not alleviated.
  • Lack of valid consent from children or elderly participants.