Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development - Coursework Example

Running Head: Theories of Moral Development Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development of Moral developmentis a multi faceted specialization of psychology. This article provides emphasis to the Theory of Moral Development by Kohlberg. The research of predecessors and successors is also provided. This theory was developed by Jean Piaget so the paper provides his introduction and theory, it then moves towards our main focus, that is, Kohlberg’s theory and a detailed discussion is provided here. Modifications made by his successors are also briefly analyzed. The main conclusion I could draw from this research is that morality can be enhanced; however the education of a person does not guarantee moral action. Moral action is determined by the internal motivation of a person to do right. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development Introduction The Merriam- Webster Dictionary (2003) defines morality and morals as the relation of principles of right and wrong behavior. It denotes the ability to choose between good and bad deeds. The aptitude to choose righteousness becomes the greatest virtue. For instance, the action of an individual to apply adequate value to human life versus value in material possessions, the worth of a life is more than that of a vehicle. What is the greatest virtue, saving the life of a child or taking the life an elderly person due to pain? Should lying be punished when its outcome serves the greater good? This archival thesis will be devoted to the study of morality with the central framework of the Theory of Moral Development by Kohlberg (1984). The objective is to provide a foundation for the following questions: How can one make a person more moral? Does knowledge of right and wrong lead to more consistent moral behavior execution? What can moral education offer the framework of society? In order, to fully understand all of the implications of Kohlberg’s theory it is essential to evaluate the predecessors and the person of Kohlberg. There will be a chronological description of theories influential to Kohlberg’s research. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development and moral development will be analyzed. Although, his research devoted most of its energies to children it has provided an invaluable foundation for unveiling the development of morality that laid the ground for Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development. Developmental-Structural Approach by Jean Piaget The developmental-structural approach was first taken by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980). He was a Swiss psychologist who developed a theory of child development known as genetic epistemology. This theory has had a wide impact, not only on psychology and education, but also on fields as diverse as linguistics and physics. Genetic epistemology is the study of how a child acquires and modifies abstract ideas, such as the concepts of causality, space, time, force, and morality. Piagets methods involve questioning children as well as observing their behavior. His so-called conservation tasks have been highly influential and are now used by investigators all over the world. These tasks involve presenting a child with two quantities (for example, two balls of clay or two sets of sticks), transforming one of them (a ball into a sausage-shape or a set of sticks into a row), and determining if the child knows that the transformed quantity remains the same despite a change in its appearance that it has been "conserved." (Zaporozhets and Lukov, 2002). Piagets theory of mental growth distinguishes four phases, roughly within certain ages: 1. The sensori-motor period (birth to 2 years), during which the child gains motor control and can distinguish objects of one class from those of another; 2. The preoperational period (2 to 7 years), during which the child reasons intuitively rather than deductively and is able to name objects but not classes; 3. The concrete operational period (7 to 11 years), during which the child can respond logically to objects, classes, and relations but not to verbal propositions, and cannot formulate concepts verbally; 4. The formal operational period (11 to 15 years), during which the child can define concepts and can reason logically, systematically, and symbolically. These four phases reflect a consistently growing abstractive ability, with physical acts and experiences increasingly replaced or anticipated by mental ones, thereby suggesting a fundamental continuity between physical and mental functioning. (Malerstein and Ahern, 1979) Lawrence Kohlberg:Biography Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) has been a psychologist being famous for applying the developmental method of Piaget for investigating the variations in ethical interpretation. In spite of being very rich, after World War II, Kohlberg decided to be a sailor, to assist in smuggling Jews by means of the Palestinian British barrier. He researched reasoning skills of children related to moral issues, in order to complete his doctorate degree. According to him ethical complexities inspired their expansion by means of a permanent series of ever more adaptable sorts of moral reckoning. He endeavored to elucidate his wide-ranging “Cognitive Developmental” opinion about changes that take place because of age. This theory earned him world fame in the field of moral learning. He got ill in 1973 and the disease developed seriously by 1987. He was admitted into a hospital from where he disappeared and later his body was found in a swamp. (Rest, et al. 1988) Theory of Moral Development: Adolescence to Adulthood Lawrence Kohlberg conducted a 20yr. longitudinal study of moral development. He challenged behavioral and psychoanalytic themes with his cognitive developmental approach to moral reasoning. He argued that social context was primary in the development of personality. Constructions of the social world follow a developmental progression of six stages (Brabeck, 2005). Kohlberg viewed knowledge as the precursor to moral conduct. Knowledge of principles will lead to virtuous action. Nonetheless, moral behavior is executed most often when a person feels that he/she has the freedom, as well as obligation, and then the issue in question becomes relevant (Grover, 1980). Moral judgment evolves in an invariant sequence. During interim stages one adheres to a moral code to gratify personal needs, gain approval from others, and to support the social order (Kohlberg, 1964). During higher stages, moral decisions are dependent on conscience and ethical principles (Kay, 1982). Reasoning below one’s current stage is to be considered ineffective. Arguments above one’s current stage cannot be judged accurately. An individual’s current stage is characterized by the ability to criticize earlier ways of thinking as inadequate (Navarez, 1997). Grasping the structure of one’s thinking by generalizing the previous thinking activities is a vital step in proceeding to the next stage (Boom et al. 2001). Development is an activity of self-construction that requires the act of making meaning rather than the passive ordering of made meanings (Hayes, 1994). That is to say, the individual is learning to become an independent thinker. Ideas of right and wrong are evaluated to decide on a plan of action. Kohlberg’s fundamental themes of cognitive development according to Gibbs (2003) are: Superficiality, self-cent ration: a child’s propensity to center upon salient stimuli. In order for the child to move past this stage, he/she needs a working memory and to reflect and integrate perspective from others through social interaction. Decentration, mental coordination, social construction: the ability of coordinating multiple features of a situation. Tommy’s ability to see the kids playing, hear the teacher calling and realize that his shoe lace is untied. Moral reciprocity: most relevant to growth beyond superficial in the cognitive sense- cognitive primacy (Gibbs, 2003). The ability to do right out of a sense of reciprocating the acts of another; parent buying candy, teacher’s compliment yields grateful and proper behavior by the child. Levels of Development as following Stages: 1- Punishment and obedience orientation 2- Instrumental relativist orientation 3- Interpersonal concordance orientation 4- Society maintaining orientation 5- Social contract orientation 6- Universal ethical principles (Palmer, 2001). I. Pre-conventional the individual’s main objective is pleasing the self and finding ways to avoid pain. This stage is void of any thoughts that consider his/her role in society Kohlberg (1984). i. Stage One- Heteronomous- motivation for right doing is avoidance of punishment from a superior power. This stage does not consider the interest of other members of society. It is incapable of making a relation to another’s view point (Kohlberg, 1984). Underdeveloped moral realism, actions based on rules. ii. Stage Two- Individualism, Instrumental Purpose and Exchange-Seeking only to serve one’s own interest and perspectives. Awareness of other’s interest comes to surface but this creates conflict (Kohlberg, 1984). Mental coordination and moral logic are evident- moral reciprocity. Motivates action in order to restore balance of equality- to get even (Gibbs, 2003). Pragmatic morality, actions based on desires to maximize reward, and minimize negative consequences (Hunt, 1993). In this stage, John sees the view of his parents which in turn ultimately benefit him. II. Conventional Level Conventional is concerned about social approval, loyalty to persons, groups, and authority; and welfare of others and society Kohlberg (1984). It is assumed that guilt arises during level II (Reber & Reber, 2001). iii. Stage Three- Mutual, Interpersonal Expectations, Relationships, and Interpersonal conformity- A desire to maintain rules that support a stereotype of acceptable social behavior. The need arises to be perceived as a good person in one’s own eyes and others. This phase recognizes the needs, interests, and feelings of others and will regard those in greater importance to one’s own. Relational decisions are made through the filter of the Golden Rule (Kohlberg, 1984). It is the truly ideal normative, reciprocity- represents the quintessential expression of what has been labeled the moral point of view. Thinking prompts efforts to resolve misunderstandings for the sake of the relationship (Gibbs, 2003). iv. Stage Four- Social System and Conscience (Conventional) – It creates a sense of obligation to maintain the social system as the principal concern. Regards the point of view of the system as more important than one’s own. Relationships are seen in context of the role each plays in the societal unit (Kohlberg, 1984). Actions are based on anticipation of formal dishonor (not simply disapproval) and guilt over harm done to others (Hunt, 1993). III. Post Conventional Level Post-conventional is similar to pre-conventional in that it returns to the perspective of the individual; however this view can be universal. The rational person evaluates social obligations in order to internalize to the point of commitment. A set of societal rules and regulations are judged and as a result the person is able to rationally commit him/herself to society Kohlberg (1984). v. Stage Five- Social Contract or Utility and Individual Rights – Social contract made with society, friends and family on a calculation of logical reasoning to maintain the societal construct. Overall utility is quintessential during this stage. Objectively evaluates social norms in order to assimilate and integrate each as part of one’s belief system and social contract (Kohlberg, 1984). Action is based on maintenance of respect of community and self (Hunt, 1993). vi. Stage Six- Universal Ethical Principles - belief in universal moral principles and commitment to the maintenance of them. This is the perspective of any rational person that recognizes the overarching nature of morality (Kohlberg, 1984). Ideal moral view for all human beings to take toward others and one, action is determined by equity fairness and concern maintaining one’s own moral principles (Hunt, 1993). Persons in this stage have undergone the internalization of universal principles; furthermore seek no exemptions from punishment due to belief structure. Neo-Kohlbergians With every theory there are innovations to be made. This section will discuss some of the most notable “edits” of Kohlberg’s theory. A. Hoffman- Empathy based theory of pro-social moral development Hoffman (2000) believed that moral development had a direct correlation to empathy. Empathy according to his research was a determinant factor in a person’s development of morality. He made the claim that a person who has reached higher levels of cognitive thought and moral action is simultaneously aware of his/her empathic feelings toward others, which enable an internal moral compass. B. Turiel: Theory of Social Environement Elliot Turiel (1983) believes that Kohlberg, although accurate in measuring morality, failed to differentiate between convention and morality. Social conventions are the tasks that are attached to a specific social environment. That is to say actions may vary upon the social context. What is deemed acceptable amongst classmates would be inappropriate for the same person amongst a group of elders. Overall, both of these Neo-Kohlbergians offer excellent insight into the arena of development. Each in their own right places greater emphasis on emotions than Kohlberg. In future evolutions of theories of moral development, it will be vital to integrate cognition and emotion. Gilligan’s research was an attempt to bring to the surface the world of morality from the feminine perspective. C. A different voice- Carol Gilligan (1936- Present) Gilligan argued that women need to be represented more fully in accounts of human development. In responding to moral dilemmas, women are likely to speak in a ‘different voice’ that reflects an ethic of care and responsibility rather than justice and individuation (Hayes, 1994). Her challenge to Kohlberg has succeeded in calling attention to the complex contextual nature of moral development. The care perspective precedes attachment. Care is a matter of ‘paying attention’ and denotes a ‘willingness to be there’, ‘to listen’, and ‘to talk to’, ‘to understand’ (Gilligan 1993). References Boom, J., Bergman, D., & van der Heijen, P. (2001). ‘Hierarchical Structure of Moral Stages Assessed by a Sorting Task’, Child Development, Volume, 72, pp. 535-548. Brabeck, M. (2005). ‘Lawrance Kohlberg’. Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 4, pp. 453-454. Gibbs, J. (2003). Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman . Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc. pp.69-72 Gilligan, C. (1993). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 25-151 Grover, S. (1980). ‘An Examination of Kohlberg’s Cognitive Developmental Model of Morality’, Journal of Genetic Psychology, Volume 136, pp. 137-143. Hayes, R. (1994). ‘Legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg: Implications for Counseling and Human Development’, Journal of Counseling and Development, Volume 72, pp. 261-267. Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implication for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 63-75. Hunt, M. (1993). Story of Psychology, New York, NY: Random House. Kay, S (1982). ‘Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development: Critical Analysis of Validation Studies with the Defining Issues Test’. International Journal of Psychology, Volume 17, pp. 27-42. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. pp. 14-192. Malerstein, A.J. & Ahern, M. (1979). ‘Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development and Adult Character Structure’. American Journal Psychotherapy, Volume 33, pp.107-118. Merriam- Webster. (2003). Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, New York: Merriam-Webster. P. 561 Navarez, D. (1997). ‘The Neo-Kohlbergian Tradition and Beyond’, Moral Motivation through the Lifespan, Volume 45, pp. 119-163. Palmer, J. (2001). Fifty Modern Thinkers on Education: From Piaget to Present. New York: Routledge. pp. 188-192 Reber, A. & Reber, E. (2001). Dictionary of Psychology, New York, NY: Penguin Group. Rest, J., Power, C., & Brabeck, M. (1988). ‘Lawrance Kohlberg’. American Psychologist, Volume 43, pp.399-400. Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. New York: Cambridge University Press. Zaporozhets, A.V. and Lukov, U.D. (2002). ‘Development of Reasoning in Young Children’. Journal of Russian and Eastern European Psychology, Volume 40, pp. 30-46. Read More