Kohlberg

Question 1

Methodology

Answer 1

• Kohlberg used interviews to assess the moral reasoning of the boys. These interviews produced qualitative data.
• Longitudinal study – Kohlberg assessed the moral reasoning of the American boys over a period of 12 years – interviews were re-done every 3 years
• Cross-cultural comparison – Kohlberg studied moral reasoning in Great Britain, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico and Turkey

Question 2

Sample

Answer 2

• 75 American boys • Aged 10-16 at the
beginning of the study
• Aged 22-28 at the end
• Also studied people from
Great Britain, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico and Turkey

Question 3

Procedure

Answer 3

• Kohlberg created nine hypothetical moral dilemmas (such as the Heinz dilemma), with each dilemma presenting a conflict between two moral issues.
• Each participant was asked to discuss three of these dilemmas, prompted by a set of ten or more open-ended questions such as:
• Should Heinz steal the drug? (Why or why not?)
• Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? (Why or why not?)
• Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another’s life? (Why or why not?)
• Following an analysis of the boys’ answers, common themes were identified which supported Kohlberg’s stage theory.
• The same interviews were used with children and adults in the other countries and compared to the original American study

Question 4

Findings

Answer 4

Kohlberg’s findings supported his stage theory of moral development
• Participants progressed through the stages as they got older. Some participants had not reached the final stage of moral development by the end of the study.
• Stages were always passed through stage by stage and in the fixed order and the participants never went back to a previous stage. For example, no stage 4 adults had previously been through Stage 6, but all Stage 6 adults had passed through at least Stage 4.
The following cross-cultural findings were observed:
• Overall, the same results were seen in Mexico and Taiwan –
but at a slower rate. E.g. at the age of 16, Stage 5 thinking was more prevalent in the USA than either Mexico or Taiwan – this stage was reached by participants in these two countries at a later age.

Question 5

Conclusions

Answer 5

• Stages are invariant and universal
• Some individuals may not reach the final stage
• Children at a particular stage of development tend to move forward in their moral reasoning when confronted by the views of a child one stage along. In an argument between a stage 3 and a stage 4 child, the child in the third stage tends to move towards or into stage 4, while the stage 4 child understands but does not accept the arguments of the stage 3 child. Moral discussions could therefore be used to help children develop their moral reasoning.

Question 6

Evaluation of sample

Answer 6

Only American boys
Morality in boys could be different to girls (Gilligan) Affects population validity – difficult to generalise findings on moral development to all children
Cross cultural comparison Widened sample to include GB, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico and Turkey
Increases population validity BUT – mostly western culture so sample not as representative of eastern cultures (saying stages are universal but only studied 5 other countries)