Cognitive Explanations

• what is Kohlberg's theory of level of moral reasoning?

  • a developmental theory that looks at the ways in which individuals grow in their understanding of moral decision making and behaviour.
  • Kohlberg argued that this happens in a stage process where moral reasoning becomes more complex and abstract as a child ages.
  • Importantly, he argued that it was usually complete by the time the individual was 9 or 10 years old, which is in line with the age of criminal responsibility in the UK (age ten).
• what are the three levels of moral reasoning?

  1. pre-conventional morality: Moral code is shaped by adults who are outside of the individual.
  2. conventional morality: Moral standards become internalised and authority is not questioned.
  3. post-conventional morality: Abstract consideration of individual ethics and circumstances.
• what did kohlberg use to assess moral reasoning and what did he find?

  • Heinz dilemma which provides individuals the opportunity to consider different viewpoints and offer responses to the consequences of Heinz's actions
  • Kohlberg believed that very few individuals reach the highest levels of moral reasoning, and some may not progress further than the first, which is where offending behaviour is likely to happen.
• evaluation of level of moral reasoning (1)

  • Kohlberg has been criticised for using an all-male sample in the initial development of his theory of moral development, as this would mean that his concept of moral development is androcentric (i.e. male orientated) and not generalizable to women. Gilligan (1972) argues that male views of morality are more likely to be law-based and pragmatic, while female views will be influenced by compassion and care. This is important because a female response to Heinz’s dilemma may not be influenced by the same moral reasoning.
• evaluation of level of moral reasoning (2)

  • use of the Heinz dilemma has been criticised by researchers as a tool for assessing a person’s moral reasoning. For example, Rosen (1980) argues that the scenario lacks validity as the children being interviewed have no way of assessing their moral reasoning of the situation from their own perspective as they have never been married etc, so it is difficult to imagine Heinz’s perspective. This is important as the children in Kohlberg’s original sample may have been hindered in their ability to show level 3 reasoning as the situation was hypothetical