Kohlberg Developmental (Component 2)

Question 1

Describe the methodology and sample used by Kohlberg (1968) in his research ‘The child as a moral philosopher’ (10)

Answer 1

Kohlberg’s research involved a primary sample of 75 American boys. These participants were aged between 10 and 16 years old at the beginning of the study. By the conclusion of the research, the boys were between the ages of 22 and 28. Kohlberg also studied an additional sample of people from Great Britain, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, and Turkey. These participants were interviewed by Kohlberg himself or by a colleague.

The methodology used was a longitudinal study that followed the development of the same group of boys over a period of 12 years. Kohlberg used interviews to assess the moral reasoning of the boys, which produced qualitative data. These interviews included the use of moral dilemmas and were re-conducted with the participants every 3 years. Furthermore, the research included a cross-cultural comparison by studying moral reasoning in Great Britain, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, and Turkey.

Question 2

Procedures

Answer 2

Kohlberg’s research involved creating nine hypothetical moral dilemmas, such as the famous Heinz dilemma, each designed to present a conflict between two distinct moral issues. During the study, each participant was asked to discuss three of these specific dilemmas. To explore their reasoning, they were prompted by a set of ten or more open-ended questions, including “Should Heinz steal the drug?” and “Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another’s life?”. Participants had to justify their answers by explaining “why or why not” they held certain views.

Question 3

Findings

Answer 3

Kohlberg’s research findings supported his proposed stage theory of moral development, showing that as participants got older, they progressed through the stages. The study found that these stages were always passed through in a fixed order, stage by stage. Participants never skipped a stage or went back to a previous one. For example, no adults at Stage 4 had previously been through Stage 6, but all adults at Stage 6 had successfully passed through at least Stage 4. However, not all participants reached the final stage of moral development by the time the study ended.

In terms of cross-cultural findings, the overall results were consistent across different countries. The same sequence of development was seen in participants from Mexico and Taiwan, although the progression occurred at a slower rate. For instance, at age 16, Stage 5 thinking was more common in the USA than in either Mexico or Taiwan, as participants in those two countries reached this stage at a later age.

Ultimately, the analysis of these common themes across both samples led to the construction of a three-level, six-stage theory:
Pre-conventional Morality: Includes Stage 1 (Punishment and Obedience Orientation) and Stage 2 (Instrumental-Relativist Orientation).
Conventional Morality: Includes Stage 3 (Good Boy, Nice Girl Orientation) and Stage 4 (Law and Order Orientation).
Post-conventional Morality: Includes Stage 5 (Social Contract Orientation) and Stage 6 (Universal Ethical Principles).

Question 4

Conclusions

Answer 4

One of the primary conclusions of Kohlberg’s research is that the stages of moral development are invariant and universal. This means that the sequence of moral growth is the same for all individuals, regardless of their cultural background. However, the research also concluded that while the sequence is fixed, some individuals may not reach the final stage of moral development.

Furthermore, Kohlberg concluded that moral development is a progressive process where children at a particular stage tend to move forward in their reasoning when they are confronted by the views of a child one stage further along. For example, in an argument between a Stage 3 child and a Stage 4 child, the child in the third stage tends to move towards or into Stage 4. Conversely, the Stage 4 child understands the Stage 3 arguments but does not accept them.

A final practical conclusion is that moral discussions can be used as a tool to help children actively develop their moral reasoning.

Question 5

Evaluation of sample + methodological issue of Kohlberg (1968) in his research ‘The child as a moral philosopher’

Answer 5

Sample:

One strength of Kohlbergs research is that the cross cultural comparison as he has a widened sample. For example, his widened sample includes Great Britain, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico and Turkey. This increases the population validity as it shows that the identified stages of moral development might be a universal human process rather than one limited to a single country. However, the sample is mostly western culture meaning the sample is not as representative of eastern cultures. Therefore, even though widening the sample to different countries is beneficial for generalising findings, we cannot say with certainty that his stages are truly universal when he only studied five other countries.

Methodology:

One weakness of Kohlberg’s research is the use of hypothetical dilemmas.
This decreases the validity of the research as the specific dilemmas used, such as a man having to steal drugs for his wife, may not have been relevant to the young boys in the sample. This means the boys may have struggled to identify with the situation presented to them.
Because the participants were presented with situations that were not relevant to their own lives, the answers they provided might not accurately reflect their true moral reasoning in a real-world context. Furthermore, because the dilemmas were purely hypothetical, they were not true to how the participants might actually act if the moral dilemma was really happening to them.
Therefore, this is a weakness of Kohlberg’s research because the study lacks ecological validity, making it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about how individuals would actually behave in real-life moral scenarios.

One weakness of Kohlberg’s research is that he used interviews.
This decreases the validity of the research as participants may have been affected by social desirability bias. This means the boys may have responded to the moral dilemmas in a way that showed themselves in a positive light rather than being honest.
Because the participants were being interviewed, they may have felt that their own true moral reasoning was “wrong” and adjusted their answers to please the interviewer. Furthermore, younger children in the sample may have felt particularly pressured by the interview setting, which could further distort the accuracy of the qualitative data being collected.
Therefore, the use of interviews is a weakness of Kohlberg’s research because the presence of social desirability and participant pressure means the findings may not accurately reflect the participants’ genuine stage of moral development.

Question 6

Evaluate the ethical issues

Answer 6

A strength regarding the ethics of Kohlberg’s research is that participants may have been given the right to withdraw in the study.
This is a strength as it ensures that the participants’ autonomy is respected, allowing them to leave the research if they felt uncomfortable with the nine hypothetical moral dilemmas or the interview process.
However, a significant weakness is that participants may have felt obligated to continue due to the longitudinal method and the 12-year duration of the study. Furthermore, because the children were so young when they started (aged 10–16), they may not have fully understood that they had the right to drop out.
Therefore, even though they may have been given the right to withdraw, the long-term commitment and the age of the sample may have undermined this right in practice by creating a sense of pressure to stay.

One weakness regarding the ethics of Kohlberg’s research is the issue regarding protection from harm.
This is because the moral dilemmas used were very sensitive in content, such as the Heinz dilemma involving a dying wife. Contemplating these scenarios could have been stressful and difficult for the young children in the sample to think about.
However, it can be argued that because the dilemmas were purely hypothetical, they were less harmful than putting the children into real-life moral dilemmas to observe their behavior.
Therefore, while the sensitive nature of the topics posed a risk of psychological distress, the use of imaginary scenarios was an attempt to balance the need for research with the ethical requirement to protect participants from significant harm.