cognitive explanation: level of moral reasoning Flashcards
explain the aim of Kohlberg’s theory
moral reasoning is a cognitive process of reasoning whilst considering ethical implications, also known as right and wrong and so dictates what we deem acceptable. By understanding theories on levels of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions, we can identify the origins of delinquent behaviour and the logic behind such decisions.
how can psychologists measure moral reasoning
by specifically developing a moral dillema and then analysing qualitative responses. eg. Heinz dilemma
What was Kohlberg’s contribution
developed a stage theory of moral reasoning, the higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning.
what were the 3 levels of moral reasoning
level 1 - pre-conventional morality
level 2 - conventional morality
level 3 - post-conventional morality
describe Kohlberg’s level 1 of moral reasoning.
stage 1 - punishment orientation
“if an action leads to punishment it must be bad”
“if an action leads to reward it must be good”
- criminal will commit crime if they can get away with it
stage 2 - personal gain
Actions are seen in terms of rewards rather than moral value.
criminal will commit crime for personal gain, no consideration of their actions for others.
describe Kohlberg’s level 2 of moral reasoning.
stage 3 - ‘good boy’ or ‘good girl’ orientation
- this stage involves societal norms and external expectations to identify right from wrong.
reasoning relates to gaining the social approval of others and avoid being disliked
stage 4 - maintenance of social order
rules are obeyed to maintain social order laws are seen as equal to everyone, and obeying rules is considered valuable and essential.
describe level 3 of Kohlbergs moral reasoning
stage 5 - morality of contract and individual rights.
The individual understands some laws are unjust and should be changed or abolished if they infringe on the rights of others.
stage 6 - morality of conscience
person has developed their own ethical and moral principles
how can Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning provide an explanation for criminality
Many studies offenders reason around level 1 - pre-conventional morality. Assocated with a need to avoid punsihment and gain rewards. This is less mature and childlike, non offenders generally progress to conventional level + beyond.
what other elements may support that criminals have a low level of moral reasoning
studies which suggest that offenders are often more ego centric and display poorer social perspective taking skills than non offenders. As a result will not sympathise with the rights of others meaning more likely to commit crime for personal gain.
what is an issue with using moral dilemma’s and spoken responses to assess levels of morality. (AO3)
Cannot directly measure cognitions as they are internal thought processes that cannot be physically measured. In addition it is hard to fully verbalise cognitions, this could result in an underestimation of the level of moral reasoning.
can be hard to distinguish and judge what level someone is reasoning at, as their answer may involve characteristics from many stages. This is problematic as it may be that some criminals are functioning at a higher level of morality but due to communication problems are classified as being in the lower stages.
outline a study that supports Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning. (AO3)
Palmer and Hollin comapred moral reasoning in 332 non offenders, 126 convicted offenders using the socio -moral reflection measure - contains moral dilemma related questions. Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non offender group. This is consistent with Kohlberg’s prediction that criminals reason at a low moral level.
what is an issue with using moral dilemmas to measure morality
(AO3)
method is low in ecological validity, It isn’t measuring actual behaviour as the person is not phsyically in the scenario. What we claim we’d do in a hypothetical situation often differs from our actions when faced with the actual circumstance and real consequences. In addition the dilemmas are unfamiliar to most people, and hard to answer by people who have never been in that position. Hence it may be inappropriate to judge someones moral reasoning based on their response to a story.
what is an issue with Kohlberg’s theory and cause and effect (AO3)
Theory does describe how morality is processed differently in criminals, however does not provide an explanation for what causes these cognitive differences. As a result the theory cannot provice a complete understanding of the distal cause of crime. Perhaps a biological approach could account for this, in that the difference in thinking is due to neurotransmitters, a lack of activity in the prefrontal cortex ect.
Perhaps the cognitive explanation is the proximal explanation used to explain the thinking of criminals and the true root cause is the underpinning biology. truly hollistic approach would be to look at both biology and cognition and the inclusion of environmental factors. (eg. levels of education, parenting)
