Kohlberg

Question 1

Kohlberg: methodology

Answer 1

Used semistructured interviews to collect qualitative data.
Included cross cultural comparisons and a longitudinal element.

Studied 75 American boys 10-16 and again 22-28.
Also studied Great Britain, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, and Turkey.

Question 2

Kohlberg: procedures

Answer 2

Kohlberg created 9 hypothetical dilemmas to assess moral thinking. Each dilemma presented a conflict between 2 moral issues. Each participant asked to discuss 3 of these, with open ended questions, e.g. ‘should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not?’
If yes, then ‘If Heinz doesn’t love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Why or why not?’ And so on.

Boy’s answers analysed and common themes identified. Each reinterviewed 3 years later.
Same kind of interview with adults and children in other countries.

Question 3

Kohlberg: findings

Answer 3

Common themes identified so stage theory could be constructed.

Preconventional level: Stage 1=punishment and obedience orientation
Stage 2= instrumental purpose orientation

Conventional level: Stage 3= interpersonal cooperation
Stage 4= social order maintaining orientation

Post conventional level: Stage 5= Social contract orientation
Stage 6= universal ethical principles orientation.

Question 4

Kohlberg: conclusions

Answer 4

Kohlberg concluded that main features of moral development are:

• stages are invariant and universal, so people everywhere go through same stages in same order.
• each new stage represents a more equilibrated from of moral understanding, resulting in more logically consistent and mature.

Question 5

Kohlberg: evaluation (sampling) 1

Answer 5

P > Kohlberg’s sample was androcentric, limiting the generalisability of his findings.

E > He specifically studied boys in America, meaning female moral development was not considered.

E > This raises concerns in relation to population validity, as Gilligan found evidence that female moral development differs from males, establishing his theory of care-based morality.

L > Lack of gender diversity means study may not be applicable to all, so reduces its credibility.

Question 6

Kohlberg: evaluation (external validity) 2

Answer 6

P > Lacks ecological validity as situations were hypothetical, not real.

E >Participants were tested on their response to questions in relation made up scenarios, such as Heinz dilemma, rather than real life moral decisions .

E > How people believe they will act and how they really would in a real moral dilemma is evidently different.

L > Limits the study’s practical application as may not accurately reflect moral behaviour.

Question 7

Kohlberg: evaluation (social desirability bias) 3

Answer 7

P > Participants could have experienced social desirability bias, which would have affected validity of responses.

E > Moral dilemmas were presented in an interview format, so participants may have altered responses to appear more sophisticated.

E > This could lead to demand characteristics, where participants say what they think is expected rather than their true moral reasoning.

L > The presence of this social desirability bias reduces the internal validity of the study as responses may not reflect true moral cognition.