Moral Development

Question 1

Critically evaluate Kohlberg’s stage model of moral development

Answer 1

Intro: morality develops to help humans distinguish
right from wrong and act on this - then description of Kohlberg’s 1963 theory - certain social experiences are needed to continue to the next stage of moral development
Main Body:
Snarey. 1985 - biases - Gilligan, 1982 (gender bias)
support - Colby and Kohlberg, 1987; Colby et al., 1983 - but studies are old
challenge - Schweder et al., 1987 - study is old
next p - Kohlberg highlights social experiences as leading to morality - but in other cultures these social experiences may be different - the theory reflects a Western bias - but perhaps it is just the methodology that reflects these cultural differences - Turiel, 2006
-can also bring in that there may be a bio nature leading to this cognitive dev (hay et al., 1991)
Conclusion: theory is useful, need to pay more heed to culture, but wide support for the theory

Question 2

The seeds of our understanding of justice and our understanding of right and wrong are part of our biological nature. Discuss

Answer 2

Intro: definition of morality, studies note that children develop psb before they develop moral thinking, essay will conclude that social and cultural influences play greater role in development of morality than biology
Main Body:
p1 - support for biological nature, research suggests psb to develop in v young children - Hay et al., 1991, Levitt et al., 1985 - argument weak due to sex differences (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998)
p2 - cultural influences - Whiting and Whiting, 1975 (strong study); Triandis, 1995 - collectivist cultures perhaps taught to suppress individualism for good of group - Turiel, 2006
p3 - evolutionary theory - perhaps in our nature to be moral for survival of gene pool - but this notion weak because morality is often spontaneous and has no direct personal gain
Conclusion: we may have predisposition to understand right and wrong but social experiences and culture play a bigger role in its development - without social experiences morality would not develop despite research suggesting young children have the seeds to morality (Hay et al., 1998)

Question 3

What impact does culture have on morality?

Answer 3

Intro: morality definition, suggested that collectivist culture have different paradigms of morality compared to individualist cultures, will be shown that culture has major impact on morality
Main Body:
p1 - Miller and Bersoff (culture impacts on how to define and react to moral issues) - can it be explained by differences in social experiences during moral development - Walker and Pitts, 1998
p2 - Turiel, 2006 - culture doesn’t have a big an impact as thought - supported by Haidt and Joseph, 2004 - perhaps differences becoming less strong because cultures becoming more developed/industrialised
p3 - Schweder et al., 1987 - culture impacts what classifies as right and wrong - but this is v old study may not be relevant
Conclusion: much research highlights major impact of culture on morality but developing body of literature suggesting not as important as previously thought

Question 4

Kohlberg, 1963 stage theory of moral development

Answer 4

72 boys (aged, 10, 13, 16) - resolve series of dilemmas
looked at underlying rationale for decision
moral growth progresses through 3 moral levels, each with 2 sub-stages
Level 1: pre-conventional morality (heteronomous morality, naive hedonism) - rules are not internalised. conformity to avoid punishment
Level 2: conventional morality (interpersonal accord/conformity, authority) - obedience for approval
Level 3: post-conventional morality (social contract, ethical principles) - internalised ethical code

Question 5

Colby and Kohlberg, 1987

Answer 5

strong positive correlation between age and maturity of moral reasoning
this highlights that morality develops at certain times, due to age

Question 6

Colby et al., 1983

Answer 6

replicated Kohlberg’s study
found participants went through the stages exactly as Kohlberg stated
no one skipped stages
highlights that age enables children to progress to next stage of morality

Question 7

Schweder et al., 1987

Answer 7

600 respondents from Chicago and Orissa
gave short stories and asked if they were right or wrong
major cultural differences in what classifies as morally wrong or right
Orissa - issues about food, sex, clothing almost always moral issues rather than social convention
Chicago - moral order more constructed around protection of individuals and their personal freedom
culture affects content of morality and also frequency of moral behaviour
morality is not like Kohlberg’s three stages

Question 8

Haidt and Joseph, 2004

Answer 8

found cultural consistencies in moral development
found that cultures value kindness and justice in morality
people across cultures have respect for traditions and deference to legitimate authorities - considered consistency in morality

Question 9

Turiel, 2006

Answer 9

Kohlberg underestimates moral development
too much focus on legal concepts which children do not understand
if tested for morality using things like sweets or toys they understand much better and show higher levels of moral reasoning
found 5 year olds sophisticated in reasoning compared to Kohlberg’s model
can distinguish between moral rules and social conventions
consistent across all cultures

Question 10

Hay et al., 1991

Answer 10

12-18 month old infants may sometimes offer toys to companions
2 year olds more likely to offer toys when playthings are scarce rather than plentiful
suggests perhaps there is a biological aspects to psb as children want to ensure others are okay

Question 11

Levitt et al., 1985

Answer 11

psb in toddlers, i.e. sharing toys, is more likely to occur when there is an adult around to instruct them
suggests there is a seed of understanding so we aim to appease adults who have developed this understanding fully

Question 12

Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998

Answer 12

girls reported to share toys more than boys
difference is small
suggests that this seed may be greater in girls than boys
or alternatively that society teaches girls morality much quicker

Question 13

Whiting and Whiting, 1975

Answer 13

children aged 3-10 years observed in 6 cultures
looked at percentage of children engaging in altruistic behaviours
non-industrialised cultures higher percentages of children engaging in altruistic behaviours
industrialised cultures had less children engaging in altruistic behaviours - explained by higher levels of emphasis on competitiveness and individualistic behaviours
suggests culture impacts on understanding of morality not biology

Question 14

Triandis, 1995

Answer 14

children from collectivist cultures taught to suppress individualism
taught to co-operate with others for the greater good of the group
- can this link to evo theory? - for the good of the species

Question 15

Miller and Bersoff

Answer 15

pps asked to rate undesirability of single incidents
breached either justice or interpersonal obligations
next described incidents where pps could fulfil one obligation by violating the other
more serious incidents = more likely for Indians to switch to justice
in life threatening situations both americans and indians viewed helping others as moral issues
disagreement occurred when issues were less extreme - indians tended to view helping others as moral issue, no matter how minor the issue

Question 16

Walker and Pitts, 1998

Answer 16

some aspects of moral growth differ considerably from culture to culture
morality depends on the culture one grows up in

Question 17

Snarey, 1985

Answer 17

review of 45 studies into Kohlberg's theory
biases in favour of complex urban societies and middle-class populations are identified
but with adaptation and participants interviewed in their native language it can be culturally fair

Question 18

Gilligan, 1982

Answer 18

gender bias in Kohlberg’s theory as only boys looked at
In her own research found that
- girls morality is much more about empathy and feelings of the people in the situation
- boys arrive at similar conclusion but through reasoning involving systems of logic rather than empathy or feeling