Social And Developmental Psychology: Testing Kohlbergs Theory on Moral Development - Lab Report Example

Social and developmental psychology - testing Kohlberg’s theory on moral development Part A: As a human being grows or attains maturity, his maturity about society and various social affairs also changes gradually. A particular incident will be interested by people of different age group at different point of time. According to psychology, it is considered that as a human being grows up, he actually undergoes changes at his experiential and behavioral level. Thus, social and developmental psychology can be defined as the specific stream of psychological discipline that “…is concerned with the scientific understanding of age-related changes in experience and behavior. Although most developmental theories have been specifically concerned with children, the ultimate aim is to provide an account of development throughout the lifespan. The task is to discover, describe, and explain how development occurs, from its earliest origins, into adulthood and old age.” (Butterworth and Harris, 1994, 3) However, in this context, one important aspect we need to keep in mind that such development at the psychical level of people, since their childhood, does not happen at a drastic rate but it occurs step by step, gradually. Different stages of such psychological development, for the first time, has been emphasized by Piaget as he was “interested in how children come to understand and respect moral rules, and whether these developmental facts can help us to understand the form and transformation of ethical codes in society.” (Killen and Smetana, 2006, 42) Despite Piaget’s realization and research about moral development of a child to a matured human being was correct but it is also considered as a “broad outline” and it also lacked both logical and theoretical coherence. In this context, Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is standing on a much stronger foundation as he not only corrected the flaws of Piaget’s theory but specified the stages of moral development have been specified more elaborately by him. Melanie Killen and Judith Smetana have observed, “One might suppose that because of the convergence of their respective intellectual projects that Piaget and Kohlberg also shared the same understanding of stage development. But Kohlberg appeared to have a more stringent reading of what structures d’ ensemble required than did Piaget.”(Killen and Smetana, 2006, 45) Kohlberg’s theory psychoanalysis revolutionized this field of moral development and looking at his contribution in this field, the critics suggest, “Kohlberg has contributed more than any other theorist to the study of moral development and his name is nearly synonymous with the field …. Kohlberg combined systematic research and clinical sensitivity to explore intersubjective experience and meaning discernment with a rigor that previously did not exist.” (Greene, 2000, 137) His theory can said to be a perfect bridge between the theories of philosophers, psychologist and romantics and theories of social learners – behaviorists. Kohlberg has always asserted that behavior has an underlying structure and it is not a summation of separate responses excited by impulses from outside. (Rest, 1979, 7) He has derived the essence of all these disciplines related to moral aspect and at the same time, he attempted to come up with such a theory that would provide him with the potential to obtain a better analytical perspective of the situation. Finally he has come up with the argument that acts as his major theoretical foundation that “the culture, through its rules and standards, transmits to the individual the lists of virtues that he or she is to practice to improve moral character.” (Greene, 2000, 138) He has asserted that there is a border or interface that distinguishes between the person and the circumstance, where he exists. An individual interacts with the surrounding through the means of biological or environmental and at the same time through such interaction he explores various types of innate structures. Kohlberg’s work is greatly dependent over the philosophical structure of Socrates’ work. Vigorous method of questioning in order to understand the right and wrong from the moral perspective has been derived from the Socrates’ philosophical approach. Kohlberg has classified the stages of moral development into three main categories, namely, preconventional, conventional, postconventional or principled. Each of these three stages can be classified into two parts. For instance, preconventional is divided into heteronomous morality and individualism, instrumental purpose and exchange. Likewise, conventional approach is classified into a) mutual interpersonal expectations, relationships and interpersonal conformity and b) social system and conscience. Postconventional or principled is divided into, a) social contract or utility and individual rights, b) universal ethical principle. (Greene, 2000, 139- 141) In the context of social existence of a human being moral development plays a very crucial role. A person decides what is right and what is wrong not only for him but also for a greater benefit of the society. Thus, in the context of social existence a person providing a great deal of importance to the moral factor is absolutely essential. Society in the modern context is regarded as a great family and it is also expected from humanitarian perspective that every individual must honor the essential aspects of social existence just as he honors the macrocosmic aspects of his family and reaching the culmination of such honoring the bond of human fellowship receives a strong foundation. According to Kohlberg, the stages of moral development are sure to follow a particular and specific sequential order and this sequence will flow in a successive manner. In this context he has clearly suggested that, “Stage theory holds that every single individual, studied longitudinally, should only move one step at a time through the stage sequence and always in the same order. Any deviations from this order not due to obvious errors in observation oe to dramatic regression-including stress or damage questions the validity of the stage sequence itself.” (Kohlberg; Killen and Smetana, 2006, 45) This invariability of sequence has clearly been expressed by Kohlberg through the method of interviewing an individual, Joe, at three different stages of his life: Joe is 10 years of age, Joe at the age of 17 years and finally 24 years. Each time he has asked Joe a particular question that why a person must not steal from a store. At the preconventional morality stage, when Joe is only 10 he replied, “It’s not good to steal from a store. It’s against the law. Someone could see you and call the police.” The 17 year old Joe at the stage of conventional morality answers, “It’s a matter of law. Its one of our rules that we’re trying to protect everyone, protect property, not just to protect a store. It’s something that’s needed in our society. If we didn’t have these laws, people would steal, they wouldn’t have to work for living, and our whole society would get out of kilter.” At the postconventional morality level we see that Kohlberg has placed his questions more strategically to Joe and he starts his answering from a very specific angle that stealing from a store is not correct because it is “violating another person’s rights, in this case to property.” It is through his answers the aspects of law and morality automatically emerges. While expressing his opinion about morality he, in a very specific and organized manner, replies the morality means, “Recognising the rights of other individuals, first to life and then to do as he pleases as long as it doesn’t interfere with somebody else’s rights.” (Kohlberg; Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003, 263-264) It is clear from such observation that how in three different stages, perception of the social affairs and morality, for an individual gradually changes. It is clear from Joe’s reply at the first stage that he actually repeating the words or lessons of morality, which he has been taught. It is due to the fear of punishment that he is trying to avoid the situation. Consequently, it is also clear that such understanding of morality is not coming spontaneously from his behavior. In the second stage, it becomes evident from his reply that he has been emotionally charged to do good for the people. It is the stage of his life that he has started exploring that he has certain roles to play to help the society. At the same time, basic human virtues have highly been appreciated by him in this stage of his life. Finally, the stage of postconvnetional morality comes where Joe is much restricted and specific in expression of his emotions and it becomes clear from his answers that he also has become much critical in judging the affairs of his life. He has inculcated a clear idea about right of an individual and morality. His logical approach also shows that as a rational human being he has received clear understanding of the fact that violating an individual’s basic right means that he is breaching the social norms of morality. Now, such development at the level of human perception in the context of moral development follows a particular kind of sequence and that is universal in nature. The main appeal of Kohlberg’s psychological discourse lies in the fact that he has identified the universal sequence at the behaviorist aspect of human beings in the context of social and developmental psychology. Part B: To find out the relevance of Kohlberg’s observation a practical application has been chosen that would be experimented over primary level students. Methodology: For the purpose of the study, a primary survey has been undertaken with a team of research assistants. Ten boys and ten girls in a large inner-city primary school were selected at random to participate in a covert observation study of bullying and pro-social behavior. The children were filmed at playtimes for 1 week (1st study), after which the whole school took part in a year-long program of events designed to reduce bullying and increase co-operative behavior. The same children were then filmed again for another week (2nd study). The attached table (result section) shows the number of times each child was observed to participate in acts of bullying or aggression, and acts of helping or co-operation. The study will view whether there are any sex differences in the incidence of bullying or helping behaviors, what effects have the intervention program had on these behaviors and have boys and girls responded to the interventions in the same way. The study will check whether there is any relation between the two variables-helping and bullying. Thus, in order to check whether there is any relation, correlation technique will be used for this purpose. After that, the results will be compared. In this study, we are applying the statistical method of correlation to check the degree of association between variables. The statistical packages used in this method are Ms Excel and STATA. Logit model is run in this study. Results and interpretations: Table 1: 1st study (Before intervention program)   Bullying Helping Bullying 1 Helping -0.27381 1 Correlation is used to denote the degree of association between two variables. In correlation analysis, we are concerned with the joint relationship of the two variables and use a measure of the interdependence of the two variables, called the Correlation coefficient. If with the increase or decrease of one variable, other variable decreases or increases the variables are said to be negatively correlated. Here the correlation coefficient between the bullying and helping is found as -0.27381 which is negative. It signifies that if children participate more in bullying or aggression, then children won’t get involved in acts of helping or co-operation. This is the case before the intervention program. Table 2: 1st study (After intervention program)   Bullying Helping Bullying 1 Helping -0.22417 1 Here, also the correlation coefficient between the bullying and helping is coming as -0.22417 which is negative. Thus, in the situations, the correlation coefficient is coming as negative. Table 3: Correlation between bullying and helping in case of males (before intervention)   Bullying Helping Bullying 1 Helping -0.18829 1 Table 4: Correlation between bullying and helping in case of females (before intervention)   Bullying Helping Bullying 1 Helping -0.46463 1 Table 5: Correlation between bullying and helping in case of males (after intervention)   Bullying Helping Bullying 1 Helping -0.39866 1 Table 6: Correlation between bullying and helping in case of females (after intervention)   Bullying Helping Bullying 1 Helping -0.16585 1 Now, when we are considering correlation between bullying and helping individually between males and females, it has been seen that before intervention, the absolute value of correlation coefficient between bullying and helping in case of females is higher than that of males, whereas the absolute value of correlation coefficient of males is found to be greater than that of females after the intervention program. We will check the impact of intervention programs on these behaviors of bullying or helping. For this purpose, Logit model is required. Statistically, logistic regression (often called the logistic model or logit model) is applied for forecasting of the possibility of incidence of an event by setting data to a logistic arc. It is a widespread linear model applied to binomial regression. Like many types of regression examination, it makes use of numerous forecaster variables that possibly be either arithmetical or resounding. Table 7: An analysis of Gender, Bullying and Helping (Before intervention) Iteration 0: log likelihood = -13.862944 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -10.497935 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -10.2185 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -10.204262 Iteration 4: log likelihood = -10.204204 Logistic regression Number of obs = 20 LR chi2(2) = 7.32 Prob > chi2 = 0.0258 Log likelihood = -10.204204 Pseudo R2 = 0.2639 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gender | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- Bullying | -.0447609 .0592059 -0.76 0.450 -.1608023 .0712804 Helping | -.1791415 .0891687 -2.01 0.045 -.353909 -.0043741 _cons | 4.007691 2.205108 1.82 0.069 -.3142416 8.329623 Each of the co-efficient measures the change in the estimated logit for a unit change in the value of the given regressor (holding other regressors constant). To test the null hypothesis that all the slope coefficients are simultaneously equal to zero, the equivalent of the F test in the linear regression model is likelihood ratio (LR) statistic. The co-efficient of Bullying is -.0447609. It implies that with other variables constant, if bullying increases by one unit, on average the estimated logit decreases by 0.0.447609 units. It signifies that there is a negative relation between the two. Similarly, the co-efficient of Helping is -.1791415. It implies that with other variables constant, if helping increases by one unit, on average the estimated logit decreases by 0.1791415. The negative log-likelihood is the off-putting log of the likelihood of a pragmatic reply. Diminishing the off-putting of a log-likelihood function therefore creates utmost probability approximations for an exacting outcome. The LR statistics is also found to be negative which is -10.204204 in this situation of preceding intervention. The probability, i.e. the P value is 0.0258 which is too insignificant. Now, we will be incorporating, the students after the intervention program. Table 8: An analysis of Gender, Bullying and Helping (After intervention) Iteration 0: log likelihood = -13.862944 Iteration 1: log likelihood = -13.336966 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -13.336066 Iteration 3: log likelihood = -13.336066 Logistic regression Number of obs = 20 LR chi2(2) = 1.05 Prob > chi2 = 0.5904 Log likelihood = -13.336066 Pseudo R2 = 0.0380 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ gender2 | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- bullying2 | -.0486959 .0638875 -0.76 0.446 -.173913 .0765212 helping2 | -.036871 .0450709 -0.82 0.413 -.1252083 .0514663 _cons | 1.297796 1.402706 0.93 0.355 -1.451457 4.047048 The co-efficient of Bullying is -.0486959. It implies that with other variables constant, if bullying increases by one unit, on average the estimated logit decreases by 0.0486959 units. It signifies that there is a negative relation between the two. Similarly, the co-efficient of Helping is -.036871. It implies that with other variables constant, if helping increases by one unit, on average the estimated logit decreases by 0.036871. The LR statistics is also found to be negative which is -13.336066 in this situation of preceding intervention. The probability, i.e. the P value is 0.5904 which is better than the probability estimated before intervention. Conclusions: Through this analysis, it can be interpreted that after the introduction of intervention programs, some kind of alterations has been observed in the behavioral pattern of the male and female students. The students have responded in a positive manner to some extent after the introduction of intervention program. The first stage of Kohlberg discusses about the moral dilemma. The individual may think that he/she should abide by the rules; otherwise he/she might be punished. Thus, it can be seen that the students in fear of getting punished may not opt for bullying around and may take up helping or cooperation acts. Judging over the age group of the children we understand that all of them belong to the preconventional level of morality. At this stage though there is childish mischievousness but at the same time they are reminded of the penalty that they have to pay due to breaking up of the norms and bullying other people. It also becomes evident from such observation that as the children have not perceived the importance of being moral they are acting in such manner. Joe also talked in the same manner and at the same time he specified that fear of being punished is one of the main reasons that people should restrain themselves from staling. Later on we see that he develops more specific ideas regarding being moral. It is due to this reason he talked about the importance of law in the society and emphasized over the definition of morality as he clearly believes. Though in this study we have not focused over the later two stages but from the experiment of the first stage, that is the level of preconventional morality, it becomes clear that Kohlberg’s observation was true. Consequently it also asserts that in the context of social and developmental psychology the stages of moral development, as Kohlberg also has felt, follows certain intermittent approaches and there is no denial of the sequence. Works Cited 1. Greene, Roberta Rubin, 2000, Human behavior theory and social work practice, New Jersey: Aldine Transaction 2. Rest, James R., 1979, Development in judging moral issues, Minnesota : University of Minnesota Press 3. Harris,  Margaret, Butterworth, George, 1994, Principles of developmental psychology Principles of psychology, Philadelphia: Psychology Press 4.  Smetana,  Judith , Killen, Melanie, 2006, Handbook of Moral Development, London: Routledge 5. Blades, Mark,  Cowie,  Helen, Smith, Peter K., 2003, Understanding childrens development Basic psychology (Oxford, England) Basic psychology, New York: Wiley-Blackwell Read More