You are on page 1of 28

W.C. Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136.

CHAPTER SEVEN KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION An outstanding exa ple o! researc" in t"e Piagetian tradition is t"e #or$ o! %a#rence &o"l'erg. &o"l'erg "as !ocused on oral de(elop ent and "as proposed a stage t"eor) o! oral t"in$ing #"ic" goes #ell 'e)ond Piaget*s initial !or ulations. &o"l'erg+ #"o #as 'orn in 19,-+ gre# up in .ronx(ille+ /e# 0or$+ and attended t"e Ando(er Acade ) in 1assac"usetts+ a pri(ate "ig" sc"ool !or 'rig"t and usuall) #ealt") students. He did not go i ediatel) to college+ 'ut instead #ent to "elp t"e 2sraeli cause+ in #"ic" "e #as ade t"e 3econd 4ngineer on an old !reig"ter carr)ing re!ugees !ro parts o! 4urope to 2srael. A!ter t"is+ in 1958+ "e enrolled at t"e 6ni(ersit) o! C"icago+ #"ere "e scored so "ig" on ad ission tests t"at "e "ad to ta$e onl) a !e# courses to earn "is 'ac"elor*s degree. 7"is "e did in one )ear. He sta)ed on at C"icago !or graduate #or$ in ps)c"olog)+ at !irst t"in$ing "e #ould 'eco e a clinical ps)c"ologist. Ho#e(er+ "e soon 'eca e interested in Piaget and 'egan inter(ie#ing c"ildren and adolescents on oral issues. 7"e result #as "is doctoral dissertation (1958a)+ t"e !irst rendition o! "is ne# stage t"eor). &o"l'erg is an in!or al+ unassu ing an #"o also is a true sc"olar8 "e "as t"oug"t long and deepl) a'out a #ide range o! issues in 'ot" ps)c"olog) and p"ilosop") and "as done uc" to "elp ot"ers appreciate t"e #isdo o! an) o! t"e 9old ps)c"ologists+9 suc" as :ousseau+ ;o"n <e#e)+ and ;a es 1ar$ .ald#in. &o"l'erg "as taug"t at t"e 6ni(ersit) o! C"icago (196,-1968) and+ since 1968+ "as 'een at Har(ard 6ni(ersit). PIAGET'S STAGES OF MORAL JUDGMENT Piaget studied an) aspects o! oral =udg ent+ 'ut ost o! "is !indings !it into a t#o-stage t"eor). C"ildren )ounger t"an 1> or 11 )ears t"in$ a'out oral dile as one #a)8 older c"ildren consider t"e di!!erentl). As #e "a(e seen+ )ounger c"ildren regard rules as !ixed and a'solute. 7"e) 'elie(e t"at rules are "anded do#n ') adults or ') ?od and t"at one cannot c"ange t"e . 7"e older c"ild*s (ie# is ore relati(istic. He or s"e understands t"at it is per issi'le to c"ange rules i! e(er)one agrees. :ules are not sacred and a'solute 'ut are de(ices #"ic" "u ans use to get along cooperati(el).

At approxi atel) t"e sa e ti e--1> or 11 )ears--c"ildren*s oral t"in$ing undergoes ot"er s"i!ts. 2n particular+ )ounger c"ildren 'ase t"eir oral =udg ents ore on conse@uences+ #"ereas older c"ildren 'ase t"eir =udg ents on intentions. W"en+ !or exa ple+ t"e )oung c"ild "ears a'out one 'o) #"o 'ro$e 15 cups tr)ing to "elp "is ot"er and anot"er 'o) #"o 'ro$e onl) one cup tr)ing to steal coo$ies+ t"e )oung c"ild t"in$s t"at t"e !irst 'o) did #orse. 7"e c"ild pri aril) considers t"e a ount o! da age--t"e conse@uences--#"ereas t"e older c"ild is ore li$el) to =udge #rongness in ter s o! t"e oti(es underl)ing t"e act (Piaget+ 193,+ p. 13-). 7"ere are an) ore details to Piaget*s #or$ on oral =udg ent+ 'ut "e essentiall) !ound a series o! c"anges t"at occur 'et#een t"e ages o! 1> and 1,+ =ust #"en t"e c"ild 'egins to enter t"e general stage o! !or al operations. 2ntellectual de(elop ent+ "o#e(er+ does not stop at t"is point. 7"is is =ust t"e 'eginning o! !or al operations+ #"ic" continue to de(elop at least until age 16. Accordingl)+ one ig"t expect t"in$ing a'out oral issues to continue to de(elop t"roug"out adolescence. &o"l'erg t"ere!ore inter(ie#ed 'ot" c"ildren and adolescents a'out oral dile as+ and "e did !ind stages t"at go #ell 'e)ond Piaget*s. He unco(ered six stages+ onl) t"e !irst t"ree o! #"ic" s"are an) !eatures #it" Piaget*s stages. KOHLBERG'S METHOD &o"l'erg*s (1958a) core sa ple #as co prised o! -, 'o)s+ !ro 'ot" iddle- and lo#er-class !a ilies in C"icago. 7"e) #ere ages 1>+ 13+ and 16. He later added to "is sa ple )ounger c"ildren+ delin@uents+ and 'o)s and girls !ro ot"er A erican cities and !ro ot"er countries (1963+ 19->). 7"e 'asic inter(ie# consists o! a series o! dile HeinB 3teals t"e <rug 2n 4urope+ a #o an #as near deat" !ro a special $ind o! cancer. 7"ere #as one drug t"at t"e doctors t"oug"t ig"t sa(e "er. 2t #as a !or o! radiu t"at a druggist in t"e sa e to#n "ad recentl) disco(ered. 7"e drug #as expensi(e to a$e+ 'ut t"e druggist #as c"arging ten ti es #"at t"e drug cost "i to a$e. He paid C,>> !or t"e radiu and c"arged C,+>>> !or a s all dose o! t"e drug. 7"e sic$ #o an*s "us'and+ HeinB+ #ent to e(er)one "e $ne# to 'orro# t"e one)+ 'ut "e could onl) get toget"er a'out C 1+>>> #"ic" is "al! o! #"at it cost. He told t"e druggist t"at "is #i!e #as d)ing and as$ed "i to sell it c"eaper or let "i pa) later. .ut t"e druggist saidA 9/o+ 2 disco(ered t"e drug and 2* going to a$e one) !ro it.9 3o HeinB got desperate and 'ro$e into t"e an*s store to steal t"e drug-!or "is #i!e. 3"ould t"e "us'and "a(e done t"atD (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. 19) &o"l'erg is not reall) interested in #"et"er t"e su'=ect sa)s 9)es9 or 9no9 to t"is dile a 'ut in t"e reasoning 'e"ind t"e ans#er. 7"e inter(ie#er #ants to $no# #") t"e su'=ect t"in$s HeinB s"ould or s"ould not "a(e stolen t"e drug. 7"e inter(ie# sc"edule t"en as$s ne# @uestions #"ic" "elp one understand t"e c"ild*s reasoning. Eor exa ple+ c"ildren are as$ed i! HeinB "ad a rig"t to steal t"e drug+ i! "e #as (iolating t"e druggist*s rig"ts+ and #"at sentence t"e =udge s"ould gi(e as suc" as t"e !ollo#ingA

<i!!erent indi(iduals "a(e di!!erent (ie#points. . At t"is stage c"ildren recogniBe t"at t"ere is not =ust one rig"t (ie# t"at is "anded do#n ') t"e aut"orities. . 7"e inter(ie# t"en goes on to gi(e ore dile as in order to get a good sa pling o! a su'=ect*s oral t"in$ing. #anted to $no# i! ot"ers #ould score t"e protocols in t"e sa e #a). Stage 2. Fne 'o) said t"at HeinB ig"t steal t"e drug i! "e #anted "is #i!e to li(e+ 'ut t"at "e doesn*t "a(e to i! "e #ants to arr) so eone )ounger and 'etter-loo$ing (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p.ut a)'e "e s"ouldn*t steal it 'ecause t"e) ig"t put "i in prison !or ore )ears t"an "e could stand. 2nstead+ t"e) see oralit) as so et"ing external to t"e sel(es+ as t"at #"ic" t"e 'ig people sa) t"e) ust do. Fnce again+ t"e ain concern is #it" t"e reasoning 'e"ind t"e ans#ers. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. 7"is procedure is called interrater reliability. 7o t"e HeinB dile a+ t"e c"ild t)picall) sa)s t"at HeinB #as #rong to steal t"e drug 'ecause 92t*s against t"e la#+9 or 92t*s 'ad to steal+9 as i! t"is #ere all t"ere #ere to it. 4(en t"oug" t"e c"ild agrees #it" HeinBGs action+ t"e reasoning is still stage 18 t"e concern is #it" #"at aut"orities per it and punis"."i once "e #as caug"t. 2n particular+ "e. Individualism and Exchange. eac" person is !ree to pursue "is or "er individual interests. Fnce &o"l'erg "ad classi!ied t"e (arious responses into stages+ "e #anted to $no# #"et"er "is classi!ication #as reliable. Ft"er =udges independentl) scored a sa ple o! responses+ and "e calculated t"e degree to #"ic" all raters agreed. &o"l'erg*s stage 1 is si ilar to Piaget*s !irst stage o! oral t"oug"t. W"en as$ed to ela'orate+ t"e c"ild usuall) responds in ter s o! t"e conse@uences in(ol(ed+ explaining t"at stealing is 'ad 9'ecause )ou*ll get punis"ed9 (&o"l'erg+ 1958'). 7"e c"ild assu es t"at po#er!ul aut"orities "and do#n a !ixed set o! rules #"ic" "e or s"e ust un@uestioningl) o'e). KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES Level 1. Prec !ve!"# !$l M r$l#"% Stage 1. &o"l'erg !ound t"ese agree ents to 'e "ig"+ as "e "as in "is su'se@uent #or$+ 'ut #"ene(er in(estigators use &o"l'erg*s inter(ie#+ t"e) also s"ould c"ec$ !or interrater relia'ilit) 'e!ore scoring t"e entire sa ple.5). (Col') and &au!! an. Alt"oug" t"e (ast a=orit) o! c"ildren at stage 1 oppose HeinBGs t"e!t+ it is still possi'le !or a c"ild to support t"e action and still e plo) stage 1 reasoning.9 3ince e(er)t"ing is relative. Eor exa ple+ a c"ild ig"t sa)+ 9HeinB can steal it 'ecause "e as$ed !irst and it*s not li$e "e stole so et"ing 'ig8 "e #on*t get punis"ed9 (see :est+ 19-3). 1983+ p. 9HeinB+9 t"e) ig"t point out+ 9 ig"t t"in$ it*s rig"t to ta$e t"e drug+ t"e druggist #ould not. Anot"er 'o) said HeinB ig"t steal it 'ecause a)'e t"e) "ad c"ildren and "e ig"t need so eone at "o e to loo$ a!ter t"e . &o"l'erg calls stage 1 t"in$ing 9precon(entional9 'ecause c"ildren do not )et spea$ as e 'ers o! societ). 3>>) .

His ans#er deser(es t"e la'el 9con(entional 9 oralit)9 'ecause it assu es t"at t"e attitude expressed #ould 'e s"ared ') t"e entire co unit)H9an)one9 #ould 'e rig"t to do #"at HeinB did (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. 19). At t"is stage c"ildren--#"o are ') no# usuall) entering t"eir teens--see oralit) as ore t"an si ple deals.W"at is rig"t !or HeinB+ t"en+ is #"at eets "is o#n sel!-interests. HeinB lo(ed "is #i!e and #anted to sa(e "er. are still said to reason at t"e precon(entional le(el 'ecause t"e) spea$ as isolated indi(iduals rat"er t"an as e 'ers o! societ).). 36-5. 7"is is a notion o! fair exchange or !air deals. A t)pical stage 3 response is t"at o! <on+ age 13A 2t #as reall) t"e druggist*s !ault+ "e #as un!air+ tr)ing to o(erc"arge and letting so eone die. 0ou ig"t "a(e noticed t"at c"ildren at 'ot" stages 1 and .+ 1983+ pp. C !ve!"# !$l M r$l#"% Stage 3.9 4(en i! HeinB doesn*t lo(e "is #i!e+ t"ese su'=ects o!ten sa)+ "e s"ould steal t"e drug 'ecause 92 don*t t"in$ an) "us'and s"ould sit 'ac$ and #atc" "is #i!e die9 (?i''s et al. respondents so eti es sound a oral+ t"e) do "a(e so e sense o! rig"t action.8 &o"l'erg+ 1958'). 7"e p"ilosop") is one o! returning !a(ors--92! )ou scratc" ) 'ac$+ 2*ll scratc" )ours.+ 1983+ p. 7"e druggist+ stage 3 su'=ects e p"asiBe+ #as 9sel!is"+9 9greed)+9 and 9onl) interested in "i sel!+ not anot"er li!e. . At stage . 2 don*t t"in$ t"e) #ould put "i in =ail. HeinB+ t"e) t)picall) argue+ #as rig"t to steal t"e drug 'ecause 9He #as a good an !or #anting to sa(e "er+9 and 9His intentions #ere good+ t"at o! sa(ing t"e li!e o! so eone "e lo(es.9+ 5>-5. He tal$s a'out t"e lo(ing "us'and+ t"e un!air druggist+ and t"e understanding =udge. (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. Ho#e(er+ t"e) percei(e it di!!erentl).5). At stage 1 punis" ent is tied up in t"e c"ild*s ind #it" #rongness8 punis" ent 9pro(es9 t"at diso'edience is #rong. . 7"e) 'elie(e t"at people s"ould li(e up to t"e expectations o! t"e !a il) and co unit) and 'e"a(e in 9good9 #a)s.9 3o eti es t"e respondents 'eco e so angr) #it" t"e druggist t"at t"e) sa) t"at "e oug"t to 'e put in =ail (?i''s et al. 2! HeinBGs oti(es #ere good+ t"e druggist*s #ere 'ad.+ in contrast+ punis" ent is si pl) a ris$ t"at one naturall) #ants to a(oid.+ 1983+ pp. 7"e) see indi(iduals exc"anging !a(ors+ 'ut t"ere is still no identi!ication #it" t"e (alues o! t"e !a il) or co unit). :espondents at stage . 2 t"in$ an)one #ould. 7"e =udge #ould loo$ at all sides+ and see t"at t"e druggist #as c"arging too uc". . ?ood 'e"a(ior eans "a(ing good oti(es and interpersonal !eelings suc" as lo(e+ e pat")+ trust+ and concern !or ot"ers.9 7o t"e HeinB stor)+ su'=ects o!ten sa) t"at HeinB #as rig"t to steal t"e drug 'ecause t"e druggist #as un#illing to a$e a !air deal8 "e #as 9tr)ing to rip HeinB o!!+9 Fr t"e) ig"t sa) t"at "e s"ould steal !or "is #i!e 9'ecause s"e ig"t return t"e !a(or so e da)9 (?i''s et al.6-.5) We see t"at <on de!ines t"e issue in ter s o! t"e actors* c"aracter traits and oti(es. . Level II. tal$ a'out punis" ent. Good Interpersonal Relationships. Alt"oug" stage .

At stage 5+ people 'egin to as$+ 9W"at a$es !or a good societ)D9 7"e) 'egin to t"in$ a'out societ) in a (er) t"eoretical #a)+ stepping 'ac$ !ro t"eir o#n societ) and considering t"e rig"ts and (alues t"at a societ) oug"t to up"old. W"at #ould "appen i! #e all started 'rea$ing t"e la#s #"ene(er #e !elt #e "ad a good reasonD 7"e result #ould 'e c"aos8 societ) couldn*t !unction. 3uper!iciall)+ stage 1 and stage 5 su'=ects are gi(ing t"e sa e response+ so #e see "ere #") &o"l'erg insists t"at #e ust pro'e into t"e reasoning 'e"ind t"e o(ert response. !aintaining the Social Order. . Eor &o"l'erg+ "o#e(er+ t"ese s"i!ts occur in t"ree stages rat"er t"an t#o. 7"e onl) t"ing 2 t"in$ #e "a(e in ci(iliBation no#ada)s is so e sort o! legal structure #"ic" people are sort o! 'ound to !ollo#. 15>-51) .ecause stage 5+ su'=ects a$e oral decisions !ro t"e perspecti(e o! societ) as a #"ole+ t"e) t"in$ !ro a !ull-!ledged e 'er-o!-societ) perspecti(e (Col') and &o"l'erg+ 1983+ p. As one su'=ect explained+ 2 don*t #ant to sound li$e 3piro Agne#+ la# and order and #a(e t"e !lag+ 'ut i! e(er)'od) did as "e #anted to do+ set up "is o#n 'elie!s as to rig"t and #rong+ t"en 2 t"in$ )ou #ould "a(e c"aos. Stage . 3tage 5 respondents 'asicall) 'elie(e t"at a good societ) is 'est concei(ed as a social contract into #"ic" people !reel) enter to #or$ to#ard t"e 'ene!it o! all 7"e) recogniBe t"at di!!erent social groups #it"in a societ) #ill "a(e di!!erent (alues+ 'ut t"e) 'elie(e t"at all rational people . 2n 'ot" se@uences t"ere is a s"i!t !ro un@uestioning o'edience to a relati(istic outloo$ and to a concern !or good oti(es. Ho#e(er+ a s oot"l) !unctioning societ) is not necessaril) a good one. A totalitarian societ) ig"t 'e #ell-organiBed+ 'ut it is "ardl) t"e oral ideal. (?i''s et al. Level III. 3tage 1 c"ildren sa)+ 92t*s #rong to steal9 and 92t*s against t"e la#+9 'ut t"e) cannot ela'orate an) !urt"er+ except to sa) t"at stealing can get a person =ailed. 2n response to t"e HeinB stor)+ an) su'=ects sa) t"e) understand t"at HeinB*s oti(es #ere good+ 'ut t"e) cannot condone t"e t"e!t.).+ 1983+ pp. 3tage 3 reasoning #or$s 'est in t#o-person relations"ips #it" !a il) e 'ers or close !riends+ #"ere one can a$e a real e!!ort to get to $no# t"e ot"er*s !eelings and needs and tr) to "elp. . At stage 5+ in contrast+ t"e respondent 'eco es ore 'roadl) concerned #it" society as a whole.As entioned earlier+ t"ere are si ilarities 'et#een &o"l'erg*s !irst t"ree stages and Piaget*s t#o stages. At stage 5+ people #ant to $eep societ) !unctioning. P &"c !ve!"# !$l M r$l#"% Stage ". Social #ontract and Individual Rights.. I3ociet) needsJ a centraliBing !ra e#or$. 3tage 5 respondents+ in contrast+ "a(e a conception o! t"e !unction o! la#s !or societ) as a #"ole--a conception #"ic" !ar exceeds t"e grasp o! t"e )ounger c"ild. 0ou #ill recall t"at stage 1 c"ildren also generall) oppose stealing 'ecause it 'rea$s t"e la#. /o# t"e e p"asis is on o'e)ing la#s+ respecting aut"orit)+ and per!or ing one*s duties so t"at t"e social order is aintained. 7"e) t"en e(aluate existing societies in ter s o! t"ese prior considerations. 7"e) are said to ta$e a 9prior-to-societ)9 perspecti(e (Col') and &o"l'erg+ 1983+ p.-).

&o"l'erg*s conception o! =ustice !ollo#s t"at o! t"e p"ilosop"ers &ant and :a#ls+ as #ell as great oral leaders suc" as ?and"i and 1artin %ut"er &ing. At stage 5+ too+ su'=ects !re@uentl) tal$ a'out t"e 9rig"t to li!e+9 'ut !or t"e t"is rig"t is legiti iBed ') t"e aut"orit) o! t"eir social or religious group (e.. Stage $% &niversal Principles. Ho#e(er+ de ocratic processes alone do not al#a)s result in outco es t"at #e intuiti(el) sense are =ust.#ould agree on t#o points. 7"is )oung an #ent on to sa) t"at 9!ro a oral standpoint9 HeinB s"ould sa(e t"e li!e o! e(en a stranger+ since to 'e consistent+ t"e (alue o! a li!e eans an) li!e. %i!e is ore i portant t"an propert).g. 7"us+ &o"l'erg 'elie(es t"at t"ere ust 'e a "ig"er stage--stage 6-#"ic" de!ines t"e principles ') #"ic" #e ac"ie(e =ustice.t"en+ tal$ a'out 9 oralit)9 and 9rig"ts9 t"at ta$e so e priorit) o(er particular la#s.+ ') t"e . At stage 5+ in contrast+ people are a$ing ore o! an independent e!!ort to t"in$ out #"at an) societ) oug"t to (alue. According to t"ese people+ t"e principles o! =ustice re@uire us to treat t"e clai s o! all parties in an i partial anner+ respecting t"e 'asic dignit)+ o! all people as indi(iduals. A a=orit)+ !or exa ple+ a) (ote !or a la# t"at "inders a inorit). 3tage 5 respondents are #or$ing to#ard a conception o! t"e good societ). 2n actual practice+ &o"l'erg sa)s+ #e can reac" =ust decisions ') loo$ing at a situation t"roug" one anot"er*s e)es. (&o"l'erg+ 19-6+ p.i'le). &o"l'erg insists+ "o#e(er+ t"at #e do not =udge people to 'e at stage 5 erel) !ro t"eir (er'al la'els. 38) 3tage 5 su'=ects+. 7"e principles o! =ustice are t"ere!ore uni(ersal8 t"e) appl) to all. We need to loo$ at t"eir social perspecti(e and ode o! reasoning.1-. /e(ert"eless+ t"e #i!eGs rig"t to li(e is a oral rig"t t"at ust 'e protected. 7"us+ stage 5 respondent so eti es de!end HeinBGs t"e!t in strong languageA 2t is t"e "us'and*s dut) to sa(e "is #i!e.8 ?i''s et al. 7"e) suggest t"at #e need to (a) protect certain indi(idual rig"ts and (') settle disputes t"roug" de ocratic processes. W"en as$ed i! t"e =udge s"ould punis" HeinB+ "e repliedA 6suall) t"e oral and legal standpoints coincide. 83). 7"e !act t"at "er li!e is in danger transcends e(er) ot"er standard )ou ig"t use to =udge "is action.+ 1983+ p. 7"e principles o! =ustice guide us to#ard decisions 'ased on an e@ual respect !or all. 7"e) are tr)ing to deter ine logicall) #"at a societ) oug"t to 'e li$e (&o"l'erg+ 1981+ pp. 7"e =udge s"ould #eig"t t"e oral standpoint ore "ea(il) 'ut preser(e t"e legal la# in punis"ing HeinB lig"tl). Here t"e) con!lict. 7"us+ !or exa ple+ #e #ould not (ote !or a la# t"at aids so e people 'ut "urts ot"ers. 2n response to t"e HeinB dile a+ stage 5 respondents a$e it clear t"at t"e) do not generall) !a(or 'rea$ing la#s8 la#s are social contracts t"at #e agree to up"old until #e can c"ange t"e ') de ocratic eans. Eirst t"e) #ould all #ant certain 'asic rights. Presu a'l)+ i! t"eir group (alued propert) o(er li!e+ t"e) #ould too. 7"e) o!ten reason+ !or exa ple+ t"at propert) "as little eaning #it"out li!e. . suc" as li'ert) and li!e+ to 'e protected 3econd+ t"e) #ould #ant so e democratic procedures !or c"anging un!air la# and !or i pro(ing societ). 2n t"e HeinB dile a+ t"is #ould ean t"at all parties--t"e druggist+ HeinB+ .

&ing also recogniBed+ o! course+ t"e general need !or la#s and de ocratic processes (stages 5 and 5)+ and "e #as t"ere!ore #illing to accept t"e penalities !or "is actions. At stage 6+ in contrast+ a co it ent to =ustice a$es t"e rationale !or ci(il diso'edience stronger and 'roader. At stage . 2! t"e druggist did t"is+ e(en "e #ould recogniBe t"at li!e ust ta$e priorit) o(er propert)8 !or "e #ouldn*t #ant to ris$ !inding "i sel! in t"e #i!e*s s"oes #it" propert) (alued o(er li!e. 53). Conse@uentl)+ "e "as te poraril) dropped stage 6 !ro "is scoring anual+ calling it a 9t"eoretical stage9 and scoring all postcon(entional responses as stage 5 (Col') and &o"l'erg+ 1983+ p. At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned #it" aintaining societ) !or it o#n sa$e+ and ore concerned #it" t"e principles and (alues t"at a$e !or a good societ). 7o do t"is in an i partial anner+ people can assu e a 9(eil o! ignorance9 (:a#ls+ 19-1)+ acting as i! t"e) do not $no# #"ic" role t"e) #ill e(entuall) occup). 3uc" a solution+ #e ust note+ re@uires not onl) i partialit)+ 'ut t"e principle t"at e(er)one is gi(en !ull and e@ual respect. S'(($r% At stage 1 c"ildren t"in$ o! #"at is rig"t as t"at #"ic" aut"orit) sa)s is rig"t. He 'elie(es t"at stage 6 "as a clearer and 'roader conception o! uni(ersal principles (#"ic" include =ustice as #ell as indi(idual rig"ts)+ 'ut !eels t"at "is inter(ie# !ails to dra# out t"is 'roader understanding.8). At stage 3+ t"e) e p"asiBe 'eing a good person+ #"ic" 'asicall) eans "a(ing "elp!ul oti(es to#ard people close to one At stage 5+ t"e concern s"i!ts to#ard o'e)ing la#s to aintain societ) as a #"ole. 6ntil recentl)+ &o"l'erg "ad 'een scoring so e o! "is su'=ects at stage 6+ 'ut "e "as te poraril) stopped doing so+ Eor one t"ing+ "e and ot"er researc"ers "ad not 'een !inding su'=ects #"o consistentl) reasoned at t"is stage. /e(ert"eless+ "e 'elie(ed t"at t"e "ig"er principle o! =ustice re@uired ci(il diso'edience (&o"l'erg+ 198 1+ p. 3tage 5 #ould 'e ore "esitant to endorse ci(il diso'edience 'ecause o! its co it ent to t"e social contract and to c"anging la#s t"roug" de ocratic agree ents. 1artin %ut"er &ing+ !or exa ple+ argued t"at la#s are onl) (alid inso!ar as t"e) are grounded in =ustice+ and t"at a co it ent to =ustice carries #it" it an o'ligation to diso'e) un=ust la#s. 7"eoreticall)+ one issue t"at distinguis"es stage 5 !ro stage 6 is ci(il diso'edience.+ c"ildren are no longer so i pressed ') an) single aut"orit)8 t"e) see t"at t"ere are di!!erent sides to an) issue. 3ince e(er)t"ing is relati(e+ one is !ree to pursue one*s o#n interests+ alt"oug" it is o!ten use!ul to a$e deals and exc"ange !a(ors #it" ot"ers. <oing t"e rig"t t"ing is o'e)ing aut"orit) and a(oiding punis" ent. .and "is #i!e--ta$e t"e roles o! t"e ot"ers. At stage 5 t"e) e p"asiBe . 2! t"e #i!e #ere considered o! less (alue t"an t"e ot"ers+ a =ust solution could not 'e reac"ed. At stages 3 and 5+ )oung people t"in$ as e 'ers o! t"e con(entional societ) #it" its (alues+ nor s+ and expectations. Fnl) #"en an indi(idual rig"t is clearl) at sta$e does (iolating t"e la# see =usti!ied. 7"us+ t"e) #ould all agree t"at t"e #i!e ust 'e sa(ed--t"is #ould 'e t"e !air solution. Also+ &o"l'erg "as concluded t"at "is inter(ie# dile as are not use!ul !or distinguis"ing 'et#een stage 5 and stage 6 t"in$ing.

+ 19688 198 1+ C". 7"e stages e erge+ instead+ !ro our o#n t"in$ing a'out oral pro'le s. 3) sa)s t"at "is stages are not t"e product o! aturation. 7"e an sa)s t"at e(er)one s"ould o'e) it+ li$e it or not+ 'ecause la#s are (ital to social organiBation (stage 5). As c"ildren interact #it" ot"ers+ t"e) learn "o# (ie#points di!!er and "o# to coordinate t"e in cooperati(e acti(ities. 7"at is+ socialiBing agents (e. 7"e #o an notes+ "o#e(er+ t"at so e #ell-organiBed societies+ suc" as /aBi ?er an)+ #ere not particularl) oral.g. 3ocial experiences do pro ote de(elop ent+ 'ut t"e) do so ') sti ulating our ental processes. &o"l'erg also so eti es spea$s o! c"ange occurring t"roug" role-ta$ing opportunities+ opportunities to consider ot"ers* (ie#points (e.'asic rig"ts and t"e de ocratic processes t"at gi(e e(er)one a sa)+ and at stage 6 t"e) de!ine t"e principles ') #"ic" agree ent #ill 'e ost =ust.e C !ce*" Piaget+ )ou #ill recall+ proposed t"at true ental stages eet se(eral criteria.g. 7"e an t"ere!ore sees t"at so e e(idence contradicts "is (ie#.g. 7"e less c"ildren !eel pressured si pl) to con!or to aut"orit)+ t"e !reer t"e) are to settle t"eir o#n di!!erences and !or ulate t"eir o#n ideas. THEORETICAL ISSUES H ) Devel *(e!" Occ'r& &o"l'erg+ it is i portant to re e 'er+ is a close !ollo#er o! Piaget.+ parents and teac"ers) do not directl) teac" ne# !or s o! t"in$ing. We ig"t i agine+ !or exa ple+ a )oung an and #o an discussing a ne# la#. /e# stages re!lect t"ese 'roader (ie#points (&o"l'erg et al. /eit"er+ &o"l'erg aintains+ are "is stages t"e product o! socialiBation.+ 19-6). We #ill discuss &o"l'erg*s e!!orts to induce de(elop ental c"ange in t"e section on i plications !or education.+ 19-5). T+e S"$. As #e get into discussions and de'ates #it" ot"ers+ #e !ind our (ie#s @uestioned and c"allenged and are t"ere!ore oti(ated to co e up #it" ne#+ ore co pre"ensi(e positions. As t"e) discuss t"eir pro'le s and #or$ out t"eir di!!erences+ t"e) de(elop t"eir conceptions o! #"at is !air and =ust. &o"l'erg (e. 7"e) (1) are @ualitati(el) di!!erent #a)s o! t"in$ing+ (. 7"at is+ t"e stage structures and se@uences do not si pl) un!old according to a genetic 'lueprint.) are structured #"oles+ (3) progress in an in(ariant . 2ndeed+ it is di!!icult to i agine t"e s)ste aticall) teac"ing eac" ne# stage structure in its particular place in t"e se@uence. W"ate(er t"e interactions are speci!icall) li$e+ t"e) #or$ 'est+ &o"l'erg sa)s+ #"en t"e) are open and de ocratic. He experiences so e cogniti(e con!lict and is oti(ated to t"in$ a'out t"e atter ore !ull)+ per"aps o(ing a 'it to#ard stage 5. Accordingl)+ &o"l'erg*s t"eoretical positions+ including t"at on de(elop ental c"ange+ re!lect t"ose o! "is entor.

. 7"us+ t"e data support t"e stage se@uence. to stage 3 and so !ort". &o"l'erg "as ta$en t"ese criteria (er) seriousl)+ tr)ing to s"o# "o# "is stages t"e all.g. !ocus on exc"anging !a(ors t"at are in one*s sel!-interest (e. 3tages 1 and . 7"e) do not s$ip stages or o(e t"roug" t"e in ixed-up orders.+ 90ou ne(er $no# #"en )ou*re going to need t"at person to do so et"ing !or )ou9). 2. . 2n addition+ &o"l'erg and "is co-#or$ers (Col') et al. 1ore conclusi(e e(idence ust co e !ro longitudinal studies+ in #"ic" t"e sa e c"ildren are !ollo#ed o(er ti e. /e(ert"eless+ &o"l'erg !ound t"at su'=ects scored at t"eir do inant stage across nine dile as a'out t#o-t"irds o! t"e ti e. &o"l'erg 'elie(es t"at "is stages un!old in an in(ariant se@uence. Eor exa ple+ one ite as$s+ 9W") s"ould a pro ise 'e $eptD9 As on t"e HeinB dile a+ c"ildren at stage 1 again spea$ in ter s o! o'edience to rules+ #"ereas t"ose at stage . . 2n a cross-sectional stud)+ di!!erent c"ildren are inter(ie#ed at eac" age+ so t"ere is no guarantee t"at an) indi(idual c"ild actuall) o(es t"roug" t"e stages in order. in order #"en "e #as )ounger. Cross-sectional !indings+ "o#e(er+ are inconclusi(e.+ 1983+ pp. 315-8. %et us consider t"ese points one at a ti e. responses+ #"ic" argue t"at eac" person is !ree to 'e"a(e as "e or s"e #is"es. 3i ilarl)+ as c"ildren proceed t"roug" t"e stages t"e) $eep gi(ing responses t"at are si ilar to t"ose to t"e HeinB dile a (?i''s et al. 7"e t#o stages do not see to di!!er along an) @uantitati(e di ension+ t"e) see @ualitati(el) di!!erent. 3ince so e su'=ects ig"t 'e in transition 'et#een stages+ one does not expect per!ect consistenc). Fne gets a sense t"at t"is is true ') reading t"roug" "is scoring anual8 one !inds t"e sa e $inds o! t"in$ing reappearing on di(erse ite s. Eor exa ple+ stage 1 responses+ #"ic" !ocus on o'edience to aut"orit)+ sound (er) di!!erent !ro stage .). Structured )holes.) 9structured #"oles+9 &o"l'erg eans t"at t"e stages are not =ust isolated responses 'ut are general patterns o! t"oug"t t"at #ill consistentl) s"o# up across an) di!!erent $inds o! issues. 3.+ 1983) "a(e o'tained @uantitati(e esti ates o! t"e extent to #"ic" su'=ects respond in ter s o! one particular stage. are pri aril) !ound at t"e )oungest age+ #"ereas t"e "ig"er stages 'eco e ore pre(alent as age increases. 1ost o! &o"l'erg*s e(idence on "is stage se@uence co es !ro cross-sectional data. 'ualitative di((erences.ut to t"e extent t"e) do go t"roug" t"e stages+ t"e) proceed in order. and (5) are cross-cultural uni(ersals.se@uence+ (5) can 'e c"aracteriBed as "ierarc"ic integrations. 7"is see s to 'e a !air degree o! consistenc)+ suggesting t"e stages a) re!lect general odes o! t"oug"t. 7"at is+ "e inter(ie#ed di!!erent c"ildren at (arious ages to see i! t"e )ounger ones #ere at lo#er stages t"an t"e older ones. Eor exa ple+ t"ere is no guarantee t"at a 'o) #"o is coded at stage 3 at age 13 actuall) passed t"roug" stages 1 and . eet 1. 2t see s !airl) clear t"at &o"l'erg*s stages are @ualitati(el) di!!erent !ro one anot"er. C"ildren al#a)s go !ro stage 1 to stage . /ot all c"ildren necessaril) reac" t"e "ig"est stages8 t"e) ig"t lac$ intellectual sti ulation. Invariant se*uence.

3o "e #ants to s"o# "o# eac" ne# stage pro(ides a 'roader !ra e#or$ !or dealing #it" oral issues.+ 1983) !ound no stage-s$ipping+ and onl) a'out 6 percent o! t"e su'=ects s"o#ed signs o! regressing. &o"l'erg*s response to t"ese trou'leso e !indings #as to re(ise "is scoring et"od. 3tage 5+ in turn+ sees t"e #ea$ness o! stage 58 a #ell-organiBed societ) is not necessaril) a oral one. Eor exa ple+ people at stage 5 can still understand stage 3 argu ents+ 'ut t"e) no# su'ordinate t"e to #ider considerations.+ 1983) #or$ed #it" se(en 'o)s !ro "is original (1958) sa ple #"o "ad 'een retested e(er) t"ree or !our )ears !or . . 2n general+ t"en+ t"e ne# longitudinal studies see to support t"e in(ariant-se@uence ")pot"esis.+ 1983). 2t #as during t"is #or$ t"at &o"l'erg decided to drop stage 6.> )ears. He "ad alread) 'eco e unco !orta'le #it" "is !irst (1958') scoring anual+ 'elie(ing t"at it relied too "ea(il) on t"e content o! su'=ects* ans#ers rat"er t"an t"eir underl)ing reasoning. and "e "ad ade so e i pro(e ents on it. +ierarchic integration. &o"l'erg t"en exa ined t"e ")pot"esis o! in(ariant se@uence !or 51 ot"er 'o)s !ro "is original sa ple+ #"o also "ad 'een retested at least t#ice (e(er) t"ree or !our )ears) o(er t"e . 7o create t"e latest scoring anual+ &o"l'erg and "is co-#or$ers (Col') et al.>-)ear period. 7"ese studies produced a 'iguous results. 7"is ti e+ &o"l'erg and "is colleagues (Col') et al.7"e !irst t#o a=or longitudinal studies (&o"l'erg and &ra er+ 19698 Holstein+ 19-3) 'egan #it" sa ples o! teenagers and t"en tested t"e at t"ree-)ear inter(als. 3tage 5+ as entioned+ transcends t"e li itations o! stage 3 and 'eco es ore 'roadl) concerned #it" social organiBation. &o"l'erg*s ne#+ longitudinal stud) "as also c"anged t"e earlier picture o! oral de(elop ent in ot"er #a)s. 3tage 5 "ad 'eco e t"e do inant stage ') age 16. W"en &o"l'erg sa)s t"at "is stages are "ierarc"icall) integrated+ "e eans t"at people do not lose t"e insig"ts gained at earlier stages+ 'ut integrate t"e into ne#+ 'roader !ra e#or$s.>s and 3>s.>s and ne(er 'eco es (er) pre(alent. 7"e) understand t"at HeinB "ad good oti(es !or stealing+ 'ut t"e) point out t"at i! #e all stole #"ene(er #e "ad a good oti(e+ t"e social structure #ould 'rea$ do#n. Eurt"er ore+ t"ese studies indicated t"at so e su'=ects "ad regressed+ and t"is !inding also 'ot"ered &o"l'erg+ 'ecause "e 'elie(es t"at o(e ent t"roug" "is stages s"ould al#a)s 'e !or#ard. 3ince "e is not a aturationist+ "e cannot si pl) sa) t"at t"e se@uence is #ired into t"e genes. 2n t"e ne# scoring s)ste + "o#e(er+ it is ore di!!icult to ac"ie(e t"e "ig"er stages--t"e reasoning ust 'e ore clearl) de onstrated--and &o"l'erg !inds t"at stage 5 does not 'eco e do inant until t"e 'o)s are in t"eir . 7"us stage 5 su'ordinates a concern !or oti(es to a #ider concern !or t"e societ) as a #"ole. Eour recent longitudinal studies "a(e o'tained si ilar results alt"oug"+ t#o "a(e !ound so e#"at ore regression (up to 15 percent) (see Col') et al. 3o+ #"en t"ese longitudinal !indings e erged+ "e decided to de(elop a uc" ore precise and ade@uate scoring s)ste and+ to so e extent+ to re(ise "is de!initions o! t"e stages. 2n 'ot"+ ost su'=ects eit"er re ained at t"e sa e stage or o(ed up one stage+ 'ut t"ere #ere also so e #"o ig"t "a(e s$ipped a stage. 3tage 5+ too+ onl) appears in t"e id-. 3tage . 7"e concept o! "ierarc"ic integration is (er) i portant !or &o"l'erg 'ecause it ena'les "i to explain t"e direction o! "is stage se@uence.

1). %ater on+ t"e !irst c"ild ig"t argue t"at !ig"ting is 'ad 9'ecause i! e(er)one !oug"t all t"e ti e t"ere #ould 'e anarc")+9 #"ile t"e second c"ild argues t"at 9people ust de!end t"eir "onor+ 'ecause i! t"e) don*t e(er)one #ill 'e insulting e(er)one+ and t"e #"ole societ) #ill 'rea$ do#n. At !irst glance+ t"is proposal ig"t 'e surprising. 7"e) do so 'ecause t"is is #"at t"e) can cogniti(el) grasp.)+ t"e a!!ection it arouses in us (stage 3)+ or its (alue #it"in a particular social order (stage 5). ". &o"l'erg+ t"en+ proposes t"at "is stage se@uence #ill 'e t"e sa e in all cultures+ !or eac" stage is conceptuall) ore ad(anced t"an t"e next. 2! &o"l'erg is rig"t a'out t"e "ierarc"ic nature o! "is stages+ #e #ould expect t"at people #ould still 'e a'le to understand earlier stages 'ut consider t"e in!erior+ 2n !act+ #"en :est (:est et al. C"ildren+ regardless o! t"eir 'elie!s+ #ill al#a)s o(e to stage 5 t"in$ing so e ti e a!ter stage 1 t"in$ing 'ecause it is cogniti(el) so uc" ore sop"isticated. and &o"l'erg 'elie(es "is stages represent increasingl) di!!erentiated structures as #ell. &o"l'erg+ li$e all stage t"eorists+ aintains t"at "is stage se@uence is uni(ersal8 it is t"e sa e in all cultures. W"at t"e) pre!erred #as t"e "ig"est stage t"e) "eard+ #"et"er t"e) !ull) understood it or not. Werner+ #e re e 'er !ro C"apter 5+ descri'ed "ierarc"ic integration as a process t"at occurs alongside differentiation.5 t"ere!ore considers t"e rig"ts and orderl) processes t"at a$e !or a oral societ). 1-1).9 7"e 'elie!s di!!er+ 'ut 'ot" c"ildren reason a'out t"e in t"e sa e underl)ing #a)+ in ter s o! t"e p")sical conse@uences (punis" ent). 1ost o! t"e studies "a(e 'een cross sectional+ 'ut a .+ 19698 :est+ 19-3) presented adolescents #it" argu ents !ro di!!erent stages+ t"is is #"at "e !ound. &niversal se*uence.a"a as+ and 2ndia. As a result+ c"ildren #ill "a(e di!!erent 'elie!s a'out !ig"ting+ 'ut t"e) #ill still reason a'out it in t"e sa e #a) at t"e sa e stage.9 Fnce again+ t"e speci!ic 'elie!s di!!er+ re!lecting di!!erent cultural teac"ings+ 'ut t"e underl)ing reasoning is t"e sa e--in t"is case it is stage 5+ #"ere people can consider so et"ing as a'stract as t"e social order. &o"l'erg points out t"at t"e stage 5 (alue on li!e+ !or exa ple+ "as 'eco e di!!erentiated !ro ot"er considerations. He and ot"er researc"ers "a(e gi(en "is inter(ie# to c"ildren and adults in a (ariet) o! cultures+ including 1exico+ 7ai#an+ 7ur$e)+ 2srael+ t"e 0ucatan+ &en)a+ t"e . 7"eir t"in$ing+ &o"l'erg sa)s+ is 'eco ing li$e t"at o! t"e oral p"ilosop"ers in t"e &antian tradition (1981+ p. At stage 1+ !or exa ple+ one c"ild ig"t sa) t"at it is #rong to !ig"t #"en insulted 9'ecause )ou #ill get punis"ed !or it+ 9#"ile anot"er sa)s t"at 9it is all rig"t to !ig"t8 )ou #on*t get punis"ed. 7"is !inding suggests+ per"aps+ t"at t"e) "ad so e intuiti(e sense o! t"e greater ade@uac) o! t"e "ig"er stages. 3tage 5 su'=ects "a(e a'stracted t"is (alue !ro ot"er considerations and no# treat it as a purel) oral ideal. 7"e) understood lo#er-stage reasoning+ 'ut t"e) disli$ed it. 2n t"is sense+ eac" ne# stage is ore cogniti(el) ade@uate t"an t"e prior stage. <on*t di!!erent cultures socialiBe t"eir c"ildren di!!erentl)+ teac"ing t"e (er) di!!erent oral 'elie!sD &o"l'erg*s response is t"at di!!erent cultures do teac" di!!erent 'elie!s+ 'ut t"at "is stages re!er not to speci!ic 'elie!s 'ut to underl)ing odes o! reasoning (&o"l'erg and ?illigan+ 19. Eor exa ple+ one culture ig"t discourage p")sical !ig"ting+ #"ile anot"er encourages it ore. 4ac" ne# stage retains t"e insig"ts o! t"e prior stage+ 'ut it recasts t"e into a 'roader !ra e#or$. 3tage 5 respondents sa) t"at #e oug"t to (alue li!e !or its o#n sa$e+ regardless o! its (alue to aut"orities (stage 1)+ its use!ulness to onesel! (stage .

&o"l'erg (/isan and &o"l'erg+ 198. 2n t"e 6nited 3tates ost ur'an iddle-class adults reac" stage 5+ #it" a s all percentage using so e stage 5 reasoning. 3till+ &o"l'erg t"in$s t"at t"ere s"ould 'e so e relations"ip. 7"e) see t"at group nor s o! care and e pat") "a(e little i pact on t"e i personal interactions o! cit) li!e+ and t"e) see t"e need !or a !or al legal structure to ensure oral conduct.lasi+ 198>8 . 2n traditional (illages+ "o#e(er+ t"ere a) 'e little to c"allenge a stage 3 oralit)8 t"e nor s o! care and e pat") #or$ (er) #ell in go(erning t"e !ace-to-!ace interactions o! t"e group. ?enerall) spea$ing+ t"ere is so e researc" support !or t"is ")pot"esis (e. As e(er)one $no#s+ people #"o can tal$ at a "ig" oral le(el a) not 'e"a(e accordingl).+" $!. .lasi+ 198>). Conse@uentl)+ #e #ould not expect per!ect correlations 'et#een oral =udg ent and oral action.ro#n and Herrnstein+ 19-5). Eurt"er ore+ as &eniston (19-1) notes+ i! )oung people attend t"e uni(ersities+ t"e) a) ta$e classes in #"ic" t"e teac"ers deli'eratel) @uestion t"e unexa ined assu ptions o! t"eir c"ild"oods and adolescences.)+ rat"er t"an identi!)ing #it" societ)*s con(entional expectations (stages 3 and 5). 7"us+ #e can expect t"at oral 'e"a(ior+ too+ #ill 'eco e ore consistent as people o(e up t"e se@uence. M r$l T+ '. 2n t"e isolated (illages and tri'al co unities o! an) countries+ "o#e(er+ it is rare to !ind an) adult 'e)ond stage 3 (4d#ards+ 198>).+ 19-5)+ 'ecause t"e stages t"e sel(es increasingl) e plo) ore sta'le and general standards. 7"e) 'egin to t"in$ in ter s o! stage 5 oralit). 7"us !ar+ t"e studies "a(e supported &o"l'erg*s stage se@uence.+ #it" respect to c"eating)+ 'ut t"e e(idence is not clear-cut (.!e# "a(e 'een longitudinal.g. and responsi'le at t"e "ig"er stages (&o"l'erg et al. 2n ur'an areas o! ot"er countries t"e picture is !airl) si ilar.+ (ie#ing oralit) as so et"ing i posed !ro #it"out (stage 1) or as a atter o! sel!-interest (stage . 3ocial experiences can c"allenge c"ildren*s ideas+ oti(ating t"e to co e up #it" ne# ones. W"en+ in contrast+ )oung people lea(e t"e (illage and go o!! to t"e cit)+ t"e) #itness t"e 'rea$do#n o! interpersonal ties. 7o t"e extent t"at c"ildren o(e t"roug" t"e stages+ t"e) appear to o(e in order (4d#ards+ 198>).M r$l Be+$v# r &o"l'erg*s scale "as to do #it" oral t"in$ing+ not oral action. Cultural !actors+ in t"is t"eor)+ do not directl) s"ape t"e c"ild*s oral t"oug"t+ 'ut t"e) do sti ulate t"in$ing. Eor exa ple+ #"ereas stage 3 'ases decisions on ot"ers* !eelings+ #"ic" can (ar)+ stage 5 re!ers to set rules and la#s. At t"e sa e ti e+ people in di!!erent cultures see to o(e t"roug" t"e se@uence at di!!erent rates and to reac" di!!erent end-points. 3o e researc" "as !ocused on t"e relations"ips 'et#een particular stages and speci!ic $inds o! 'e"a(ior. As a general ")pot"esis+ "e proposes t"at oral 'e"a(ior is ore consistent+ predicta'le. 7"us t"e) are sti ulated to t"in$ a'out oral atters in ne# #a)s. Eor exa ple+ one ig"t expect t"at =u(enile delin@uents or cri inals #ould t)picall) reason at stages 1 or . Again+ so e researc" supports t"is ")pot"esis+ 'ut t"ere also are so e a 'iguous results (. 7"us+ t"ere is little to sti ulate t"in$ing 'e)ond t"is stage.) suggests t"at one can understand t"ese !indings in ter s o! Piagetian t"eor).

3o !ar+ t"e e pirical e(idence suggests t"at ad(ances in oral t"in$ing a) rest upon prior ac"ie(e ents in t"ese ot"er real s (&o"l'erg+ 19-68 &u"n et al.. (1968) exa ined t"e oral reasoning o! t"ose #"o participated in t"e .+ in contrast+ t"e) recogniBe t"at people "a(e di!!erent interests and (ie#points.lasi (198>)+ a!ter re(ie#ing -5 studies+ concludes t"at o(erall t"ere is a relations"ip 'et#een oral t"oug"t and action+ 'ut "e suggests t"at #e need to introduce ot"er (aria'les to clari!) t"is relations"ip. 7"e oral stages+ t"en+ re!lect expanded insig"ts into "o# perspecti(es di!!er and ig"t 'e coordinated. Haan !ound t"at t"eir t"in$ing #as ore strongl) postcon(entional t"an t"at o! a atc"ed sa ple o! nonparticipants+ 'ut t"is ! inding #as not replicated !or so e ot"er protests+ apparentl) 'ecause oral principles #ere not at sta$e (&eniston+ 19-1+ pp. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION . 7"e) also 'egin to consider "o# indi(iduals ig"t coordinate t"eir interests in ter s o! utuall) 'ene!icial deals.6>-6 1). 2n a land ar$ stud)+ Haan et al.3e(eral studies "a(e exa ined t"e relations"ip 'et#een postcon(entional t"in$ing and student protest. As suc"+ t"e oral stages ig"t 'e related to stages o! logical and social t"oug"t #"ic" contain si ilar insig"ts. Fne (aria'le a) si pl) 'e t"e extent to #"ic" indi(iduals t"e sel(es !eel t"e need to aintain consistenc) 'et#een t"eir oral t"oug"ts and actions (.+ o(erco ing t"eir egocentris in t"e oral sp"ere+ onl) a!ter t"e) "a(e ade e@ui(alent progress in t"eir logical and social t"oug"t. 2! t"is pattern is correct+ #e can expect to !ind an) indi(iduals #"o are logical and e(en sociall) insig"t!ul 'ut still underde(eloped in t"eir oral =udg ent. He "as !irst anal)Bed "is stages in ter s o! t"eir underl)ing cogniti(e structures and "as t"en loo$ed !or parallels in purel) logical and social t"oug"t. 3tage 5+ in turn+ "as a 'roader+ societ)-#ide conception o! "o# people coordinate t"eir roles t"roug" t"e legal s)ste . C . M r$l T+ '.+" $!. 7"e) see to 'e o(erco ing egocentris 8 t"e) see t"at perspecti(es are relati(e to t"e indi(idual . At stage . 3tage 5 e p"asiBes de ocratic processes+ and stage 6 considers "o# all parties ta$e one anot"er*s perspecti(es according to t"e principles o! =ustice. 3tages 5 and 6+ !inall)+ ta$e a ore idealiBed loo$ at "o# people ig"t coordinate t"eir interests. At stage 3+ people conceptualiBe role-ta$ing as a deeper+ ore e pat"ic process8 one 'eco es concerned #it" t"e ot"er*s !eelings. .O"+er F r(& . capacities to consider ot"ers* (ie#points (&o"l'erg+ 19-68 see also 3el an+ 19-6+ and :est+ 1983). Eor exa ple+ c"ildren see to ad(ance to stage .!#"# ! &o"l'erg "as also tried to relate "is oral stages to ot"er !or s o! cognition. Eor t"is purpose+ "e "as anal)Bed "is o#n stages in ter s o! i plicit role-taking capacities.lasi+ 198>+ &o"l'erg and Candee+ 1981). At !irst+ at stage 1+ c"ildren "ardl) see to recogniBe t"at (ie#points di!!er. 7"e) assu e t"at t"ere is onl) one rig"t (ie#+ t"at o! aut"orities. .er$ele) Eree 3peec" 1o(e ent in 1965.+ 19--).

2n so doing+ "e ig"t "a(e ro''ed 3tudent . . 3tudent . 7"is is #"at &o"l'erg ig"t "a(e expected+ !or "e 'elie(es t"at i! c"ildren are to reorganiBe t"eir t"in$ing+ t"e) ust 'e ore acti(e. 7"e &o"l'erg-.ones #"o "ad a seriousl) in=ured son and #anted to rus" "i to t"e "ospital.latt and &o"l'erg+ 19-5).ones s"ould "a(e done t"at.latt et"od o! inducing cogniti(e con!lict exe pli!ies Piaget*s e@uili'ration odel. . #as in a $ind o! con!lict. He ig"t "a(e done 'etter to as$ a @uestion or to si pl) clari!) t"e student*s con!lict (e.latt t"en as$ed #"et"er 1r. 3tudent C pointed out t"at t"e stranger (iolated no la#.9).+ !elt t"at 1r. 7"e 'est possi'le societ) #ould contain indi(iduals #"o not onl) understand t"e need !or social order (stage 5) 'ut can entertain (isions o! uni(ersal principles+ suc" as =ustice and li'ert) (stage 6) (&o"l'erg+ 19->).ones too$ t"e car ') !orce. 2n essence+ "e tried to i ple ent one o! &o"l'erg*s ain ideas on "o# c"ildren o(e t"roug" t"e stages. He tried to lea(e uc" o! t"e discussion to t"e c"ildren t"e sel(es+ stepping in onl) to su ariBe+ clari!)+ and so eti es present a (ie# "i sel! (p. . 1r. He #as c"allenged to t"in$ a'out t"e pro'le ore deepl).latt+ to lead discussion groups in #"ic" c"ildren "ad a c"ance to grapple acti(el) #it" oral issues (.latt said+ #as not legall) #rong+ 'ut orall) #rong--#rong according to ?od*s la#s (t"is #as a 3unda) 3c"ool Class). .latt 'egan a t)pical discussion ') telling a stor) a'out a an na ed 1r.ones "ad a good cause !or ta$ing t"e car and also 'elie(ed t"at t"e stranger could 'e c"arged #it" urder i! t"e son died. 2n an) case+ it see s clear t"at part o! t"is discussion #as (alua'le !or t"is student. . 7"e stranger*s 'e"a(ior+ . 7"e) do so ') encountering (ie#s #"ic" c"allenge t"eir t"in$ing and sti ulate t"e to !or ulate 'etter argu ents (&o"l'erg et al.latt presented oral dile as #"ic" engaged t"e classes in a good deal o! "eated de'ate.ones "ad no car+ so "e approac"ed a stranger+ told "i a'out t"e situation+ and as$ed to 'orro# "is car. still !elt t"at t"e stranger*s 'e"a(ior #as so e"o# #rong+ e(en t"oug" "e no# realiBed t"at it #as not legall) #rong. .latt #as an aut"orit) teac"ing t"e 9correct9 (ie#. 2n t"e discussion t"at !ollo#ed+ one c"ild+ 3tudent . o! t"e c"ance to !or ulate spontaneousl) "is o#n position.+ 19-5). 7"us+ 3tudent .latt ga(e "i t"e ans#er. . 133). 7"e stranger+ "o#e(er+ re!used+ sa)ing "e "ad an i portant appoint ent to $eep. 3o 1r. At t"is point+ . He encouraged argu ents t"at #ere one stage a'o(e t"ose o! ost o! t"e class.&o"l'erg #ould li$e to see people ad(ance to t"e "ig"est possi'le stage o! oral t"oug"t. 7"e c"ild ta$es one (ie#+ 'eco es con!used ') discrepant in!or ation+ and t"en resol(es .g++ 93o it*s not legall) #rong+ 'ut )ou still "a(e a sense t"at+ it*s so e"o# #rong. 2n t"e end+ . 3ince "e "i sel! struggled to !or ulate a distinction t"at could "andle t"e o'=ection+ "e could !ull) appreciate and assi ilate a ne# (ie# t"at "e #as loo$ing !or. Accordingl)+ &o"l'erg encouraged anot"er student+ 1os"e . . Ho#+ t"en+ can one pro ote oral de(elop entD 7uriel (1966) !ound t"at #"en c"ildren listened to adults* oral =udg ents+ t"e resulting c"ange #as slig"t. He "ad a sense o! t"e #rongness o! t"e stranger*s 'e"a(ior+ 'ut "e could not articulate t"is sense in ter s t"at #ould eet t"e o'=ection. . .

C"ildren de(elop not 'ecause t"e) are s"aped t"roug" external rein!orce ents 'ut 'ecause t"eir curiosit) is aroused. Alt"oug" &o"l'erg re ains co itted to t"e cogniti(e-con!lict odel o! c"ange+ "e "as also 'eco e interested in ot"er strategies. Fne o! . .t"e con!usion ') !or ing a ore ad(anced and co pre"ensi(e position. Here t"e !ocus is not t"e indi(iduals 'ut groups.latt !ound t"at o(er "al! t"e students o(ed up one !ull stage a!ter t"e 1. 7"e) 'eco e interested in in!or ation t"at does not @uite !it into t"eir existing cogniti(e structures and are t"ere') oti(ated to re(ise t"eir t"in$ing Anot"er &o"l'erg student--1. EVALUATION .5.latt and ot"ers "a(e tried to replicate t"ese !indings+ so eti es using ot"er age groups and lengt"ier series o! classes. 2t #ill 'e interesting to see i! t"e =ust co unit) approac" can pro ote !urt"er ad(ances in oral t"in$ing. 7"e students gi(e a (ie#+ t"e teac"er as$s @uestions #"ic" get t"e to see t"e inade@uacies o! t"eir (ie#s+ and t"e) are t"en oti(ated to !or ulate 'etter positions. 2n particular+ :ei er et al. :ei er sa)s t"at "e "as tal$ed to &o"l'erg a'out t"is+ and "e "as co e a#a) con(inced t"at &o"l'erg is co itted to de ocratic groups in #"ic" students are encouraged 9to t"in$ criticall)+ to discuss assu ptions+ and. A!ter a )ear+ "o#e(er+ t"e group nor s ad(anced to stage 38 t"e students no# considered stealing to 'e a co unit) issue t"at re!lected on t"e degree o! trust and care in t"e group. #ee$s. 2n t"e eanti e+ t"is approac" "as aroused so e uneasiness a ong so e o! &o"l'erg*s associates. . 2! a 'o) "ad so et"ing stolen+ it #as too 'ad !or "i . 7"is !inding is in $eeping #it" Piagetian t"eor). 2n . (1983) "a(e #ondered #"et"er &o"l'erg+ ') explicitl) encouraging t"e students to t"in$ o! t"e sel(es as a co unit)+ is not practicing a !or o! indoctrination. 7"e et"od is also t"e dialectic process o! 3ocratic teac"ing. Eor exa ple+ &o"l'erg and so e o! "is colleagues (Po#er and :ei er+ 19-9) set up a special de ocratic "ig" sc"ool group and acti(el) encouraged t"e students to t"in$ o! t"e sel(es as a co unit). 2nitiall)+ little co unit) !eeling #as present. . #ee$l) discussion groups.). Fne is t"e 9=ust Co unit)9 approac".latt*s supple entar) !indings #as t"at t"ose students #"o reported t"at t"e) #ere ost 9interested9 in t"e discussions ade t"e greatest a ount o! c"ange. . 7"us+ oral de(elop ent re ains a product o! t"e students* o#n t"in$ing. #"en t"e) !eel it is necessar)+ to c"allenge t"e teac"er*s suggestions9 (p.latt*s !irst experi ent+ t"e students (sixt" graders) participated in 1.8 it treated pro'le s suc" as stealing as purel) indi(idual atters.er$o#itB (198>)--is exa ining actual dialogues to see i! t"ose #"o 'eco e ost c"allenged and in(ol(ed in t"e tensions o! oral de'ate are also t"ose #"o o(e !or#ard. 7"e group*s do inant orientation #as stage . As o!ten "appens #it" replications+ t"e results "a(e not 'een @uite so success!ul8 up#ard c"anges "a(e 'een s aller--usuall) a t"ird o! a stage or less+ 3till+ it generall) see s t"at 3ocratic classroo discussions "eld o(er se(eral ont"s can produce c"anges t"at+ #"ile s all+ are signi!icantl) greater t"an t"ose !ound in control groups #"o do not recei(e t"ese experiences (:est+ 1983).

&o"l'erg+ a !ollo#er o! Piaget+ "as o!!ered a ne#+ ore detailed stage se@uence !or oral t"in$ing. 7"e ideal is !or al =ustice+ in #"ic" all parties e(aluate one anot"er*s clai s in an i partial anner. 7"e suggestion o! a postcon(entional oralit) is unusual in t"e social sciences. Ft"ers "a(e argued t"at &o"l'erg*s stages are culturall) 'iased.). Fne #onders "o# #ell &o"l'erg*s stages appl) to t"e great 4astern p"ilosop"ies. W"ereas Piaget 'asicall) !ound t#o stages o! oral t"in$ing+ t"e second o! #"ic" e erges in earl) adolescence+ &o"l'erg "as unco(ered additional stages #"ic" de(elop #ell into adolescence and adult"ood. Anot"er criticis is t"at &o"l'erg*s t"eor) is sex-'iased+ a (ie# t"at "as 'een t"oug"t!ull) expressed ') one o! &o"l'erg*s associates and co-aut"ors+ Carol ?illigan (198. :esearc"ers !ind t"at (illagers stop at stage 3+ 'ut per"aps t"e) continue to de(elop oralities in directions t"at &o"l'erg*s stages !ail to capture. Hogan (19-3+ 19-5)+ !or exa ple+ !eels t"at it is dangerous !or people to place t"eir o#n principles a'o(e societ) and t"e la#. &o"l'erg*s t"eor) "as pro(o$ed a good deal o! criticis . 2t a) 'e t"at an) ps)c"ologists react to &o"l'erg in a si ilar #a)+ and t"at t"is reaction underlies an) o! t"e de'ates o(er t"e scienti!ic erits o! "is researc". 2! c"ildren engage in enoug" independent t"in$ing+ &o"l'erg suggests+ t"e) #ill e(entuall) 'egin to !or ulate conceptions o! rig"ts+ (alues+ and principles ') #"ic" t"e) e(aluate existing social arrange ents. 7"is criticis a) "a(e erit. Eor #"ereas ost social scientists "a(e 'een i pressed ') t"e #a)s in #"ic" societies old and s"ape c"ildren*s t"in$ing+ cogniti(ede(elop entalists are ore i pressed ') t"e capacities !or independent t"oug"t. Eor ales+ ad(anced oral t"oug"t re(ol(es around rules+ rig"ts+ and a'stract principles. 3i pson (19-5)+ !or exa ple+ sa)s t"at &o"l'erg "as de(eloped a stage odel 'ased on t"e Western p"ilosop"ical tradition and "as t"en applied t"is odel to non-Western cultures #it"out considering t"e extent to #"ic" t"e) "a(e di!!erent oral outloo$s. Wo en*s oralit)+ in addition+ is ore contextualiBed+ it is tied to real+ ongoing relations"ips rat"er t"an a'stract solutions to ")pot"etical dile as. 7"is conception o! oralit)+ ?illigan argues+ !ails to capture t"e distinctl) !e ale (oice on oral atters. /ot e(er)one+ !irst o! all+ is ent"usiastic a'out t"e concept o! a postcon(entional oralit). Per"aps it too$ a cogniti(e de(elop entalist list to suggest suc" a t"ing. He "as suggested t"at so e people e(en reac" a postcon(entional le(el o! oral t"in$ing #"ere t"e) no longer accept t"eir o#n societ) as gi(en 'ut t"in$ re!lecti(el) and autono ousl) a'out #"at a good societ) s"ould 'e. ?illigan o'ser(es t"at &o"l'erg*s stages #ere deri(ed exclusi(el) !ro inter(ie#s #it" ales+ and s"e c"arges t"at t"e stages re!lect a decidedl) ale orientation. Eor #o en+ ?illigan sa)s+ oralit) centers not on rig"ts and rules 'ut on interpersonal relations"ips and t"e et"ics o! co passion and care. Fne also #onders i! "is stages do =ustice to oral de(elop ent in an) traditional (illage cultures. 7"e ideal is not i personal =ustice 'ut ore a!!iliati(e #a)s o! li(ing. . Per"aps so e #ill e(en ad(ance to t"e $inds o! t"in$ing t"at c"aracteriBe so e o! t"e great oral leaders and p"ilosop"ers #"o "a(e at ti es ad(ocated ci(il diso'edience in t"e na e o! uni(ersal et"ical principles.

7"us+ #o en score lo#er t"an en. :est (1983)+ in particular+ argues t"at ?illigan "as exaggerated t"e extent o! t"e sex di!!erences !ound on &o"l'erg*s scale. 7"roug" t"ese inter(ie#s+ ?illigan "as tried to s"o# t"at #o en o(e !ro a con(entional to a postcon(entional ode o! t"in$ing. Fne line o! oral t"oug"t !ocuses on logic+ =ustice+ and social organiBation+ t"e ot"er on interpersonal relations"ips. (1983+ pp. 2!+ "o#e(er+ &o"l'erg*s scale #ere ore sensiti(e to #o en*s distinctl) interpersonal orientations+ it #ould s"o# t"at #o en also continue to de(elop t"eir t"in$ing 'e)ond stage 3. /e(ert"eless+ #"ate(er criticis s and @uestions #e ig"t "a(e+ t"ere is no dou't t"at &o"l'erg*s acco plis" ent is great.. 3tage 6.+ C". 7"at is+ t"e) no longer consider t"eir responsi'ilities in ter s o! #"at is con(entionall) expected+ o! t"e 'ut in ter s o! t"eir o#n insig"ts into t"e et"ics o! care and responsi'ilit). 3tage 6 #ould as$ us to consider t"e p")sical li!e o! t"e !etus as #ell as all t"e parties* rig"t to !ul!illing li(es+ 'ut does stage 6 routinel) lead to decisions t"at #e !eel are rig"tD &o"l'erg*s students+ :ei er et al. He "as not =ust expanded on Piaget*s stages o! oral =udg ent 'ut "as done so in an inspiring #a). 3till+ &o"l'erg so eti es see s to s$i o(er t"e incredi'le di!!icult) t"at so e et"ical pro'le s present--a di!!icult) t"at is ore directl) expressed in t"e #riting o! &ant (1-88). Ho#e(er+ t"ere a) 'e issues t"at t"e principles o! =ustice !re@uentl) !ail to resol(e. Wo en t)picall) score at stage 3+ #it" its !ocus on interpersonal !eelings+ #"ereas en ore co onl) score at stages 5 and 5+ #"ic" re!lect ore a'stract conceptions o! social organiBation.a$ing. 2! t"is is so+ t"ere is t"e !urt"er possi'ilit) t"at t"ese t#o lines at so e point 'eco e integrated #it"in eac" sex. 2n t"e eanti e+ ?illigan "as raised an interesting t"eoretical possi'ilit).ung*s t"eor) o! adult de(elop ent. Fne suc" issue is a'ortion. 7"e decision+ t"e) sa)+ #ill "a(e to (ar) #it" t"e situation. o! course+ is not intended to pro(ide a set o! ans#ers--it is a ode o! decision. 6)+ t"is integration is a a=or tas$ o! t"e adult )ears. 3ince 2 "a(e entioned t"ese earlier+ 2 #ould li$e to conclude #it" a ore general @uestion. ?illigan "as ade an initial e!!ort to trace #o en*s oral de(elop ent. Per"aps+ as ?illigan 'rie!l) suggests (198. He "as studied t"e de(elop ent o! oral reasoning as it ig"t #or$ .a$ing tools #e need !or t"e toug"est et"ical dile as. (Eor !urt"er t"oug"ts in t"is (ein+ see C"apter 15 on .ecause o! t"ese sex di!!erences+ ?illigan sa)s+ en and #o en !re@uentl) score at di!!erent stages on &o"l'erg*s scale. An e(aluation o! t"is @uestion+ "o#e(er+ ust a#ait closer re(ie#s o! t"e literature. 1an) o! t"ese "a(e to do #it" e pirical atters+ suc" as t"e pro'le o! in(ariant se@uence+ t"e pre(alence o! regression+ and t"e relations"ips 'et#een t"oug"t and action. %i$e Werner+ s"e is suggesting t"at de(elop ent a) proceed along ore t"an one line. 56-5-+ 88-89) discuss a stage 6 approac" to a ")pot"etical a'ortion decision #it"out reac"ing uc" o! a conclusion. &o"l'erg #rites in a !orce!ul anner and "e pro otes stage 6 as i! it pro(ides t"e decision. 3ince s"e 'elie(es t"at #o en*s conceptions o! care and a!!iliation are e 'edded in real-li!e situations+ s"e "as inter(ie#ed #o en !acing a personal crisis--t"e decision to "a(e an a'ortion.) 7"ere are ot"er criticis s o! &o"l'erg*s #or$. /ot e(er)one agrees #it" ?illigan*s criti@ue. 7"at is+ eac" sex ig"t 'eco e ore responsi(e to t"e do inant orientation o! t"e ot"er.

easily recogni(able reward. most of us have asked ourselves those fundamental 'uestions about the ways we make decisions. scores of undergraduate psychology students have been introduced to the work of Lawrence Kohlberg in their Introductory sychology courses and Lifespan !evelopment courses. http://faculty. "is research. )s human beings living in societies.its #a) to#ard t"e t"in$ing o! t"e great oral p"ilosop"ers. or those decisions that do not reward us with a tangible. and demands that we use a more discerning system to criti'ue the systems of *ustice that are in place in our societies. 3o+ alt"oug" !e# people a) e(er 'egin to t"in$ a'out oral issues li$e 3ocrates+ &ant+ or 1artin %ut"er &ing+ &o"l'erg "as nonet"eless pro(ided us #it" a c"allenging (ision o! #"at de(elop ent ig"t 'e. %hether or not we have had the opportunity to learn about Kohlberg&s work. such as #arol $illigan. and the research of several of his contemporaries and colleagues.plts. Who What When How . particularly those decisions that cannot be linked to the reduction of a primary drive.htm Lawrence Kohlberg 1927-1987 Throughout the course of the last two decades.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg. many of us have struggled with the ways decisions and policies are implemented in our *ustice system. was the first of its kind to foster a contemporary understanding of how individuals develop as moral beings. Kohlberg&s work aids both our understanding of the ways in which individuals make moral decisions.

Legacy +eferences: http://www.edu/news/features/larry/00/1000.ripon..Kohlberg http://www. it also has links to criticisms of his theory and additional details on his stages of moral development.htm http://faculty.psy.edu/academics/leadership/#L2/LaurenceKohlberg.htm-)bout http://en.gse.4 !eveloped by +obyn Long for 5#6 7/80: "istory of sychology !r.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.edu/ si#afe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.pd.psy. +oger Thomas .htm-+esearch 3This is a good place to ac'uire the moral dilemmas that Kohlberg used.edu/ si#afe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.harvard.htm http://www.html http://www.page/.plts.wikipedia.pd.org/wiki/Lawrence..

Kohlberg grew increasingly fascinated by the cognitive development work proposed by 5wiss theorist <ean iaget.lockade into alestine. Kohlberg enrolled at The ?niversity of #hicago and completed his bachelor&s degree in psychology in *ust one year 3/9@94. Kohlberg and his compatriots were successful in smuggling <ews from >urope to alestine by placing beds inside banana crates. and focused his efforts on the moral development of . )s a teenager. and. and later remarked that he had been better known for his mischief at hillips than his scholarship.Who… Lawrence Kohlberg was born in /91: in . . however. This illustration of a theorist&s personal choices in regard to a moral decision must surely have impacted his later work and the direction of his scholarship. working to smuggle <ews through the . following his graduation. a prestigious private preparatory school. It was upon his graduation from hillips. he enlisted as an engineer on a carrier ship. later.ron. >lecting to pursue his doctoral education at #hicago.ville. Kohlberg attended hillips )cademy. ?pon return from the war. Kohlberg displayed an early concern for the welfare of others by volunteering as a sailor in %orld %ar II and. that Kohlberg first began to recogni(e his passion for the =ionist cause. 2ew 6ork.orn into wealth.ritish .

perience inspired Kohlberg&s decision to create C*ust communitiesD. it is Kohlberg&s untimely end that is oftEremembered. 700 people gathered at the "arvard $raduate 5chool of >ducation and declared )pril /B th as Lawrence Kohlberg !ay.teen years. primarily affiliated with The #ommittee on "uman !evelopment. and drowned himself. until /978. %illiam !amon. but it is widely accepted that !r. 5adly. a scholar from #lark ?niversity. where he taught both education and social psychology. was born out of his doctoral dissertation. Kohlberg&s body from . Kohlberg committed suicide. Kohlberg contracted a tropical disease while he was completing research in . upon the completion of his dissertation. C<ust communitiesD were school environments in which students were encouraged and supported to form relationships of basic trust and respect with one another. In /978. and these school communities provided students the opportunity to be selfEgoverned. though it serves as a powerful reminder of how one individual makes moral decisions. a true melding of his interests in psychology. and was stunned by the advanced moral development of the youths he met that had *ourneyed the kibbut(. Kohlberg visited Israel. Fn <anuary /9 th. Kohlberg&s primary work. Fne year after they pulled !r. It is unclear whether or not <anuary /9th was the official day of his death. moral development. The effects of this disease included both physical pain and depression.D . Kohlberg accepted a position at "arvard ?niversity. and social *ustice. which persisted for si. CIt is going to take a long time to figure out what 3Kohlberg&s4 work meant in all of it&s implications.oston "arbor. upon which he modeled subse'uent communities. drove himself to the coast. In /9:/. following his marriage and the birth of two children. Kohlberg took a oneEday leave of absence from the hospital where he was being treated for the illness. his development of stages of moral development. primarily schools. and encouraged a democratic form of government within each community.eli(e. In /979. Kohlberg&s first C*ust communityD was The #luster 5chool. /98:. cementing his identity as a developmental psychologist. 3now at 5tanford ?niversity4 summed up the sentiments of many. 3although he created a C*ust communityD in a prison as well4 upon his return from Israel. This e. Kohlberg taught at The ?niversity of #hicago. Arom /9B8.children for his dissertation.

Kohlberg based his theory on interviews that he conducted in #hicago with :1 #aucasian male youths. and identified si. and. who had proposed only two stages of moral development. however. . "e later added more diversity to his sample. Kohberg observed that young children felt they had no choice but to observe the rules handed down by a society. which contrasted with the moral development theory of his primary influence. the youth began to make choices based on selfEinterest. based on the interests of a moral society. <ean iaget. stages of moral development. and would almost universally say CnoD to "ein( stealing the drug. >ach of the youth were asked to make moral decisions about CThe !ilemma of "ein(D.ut as children aged. largely lower and middle class. %hether than simply investigating a CyesD or CnoD response from the youth. stages of moral development. It is upon his empirical observation of this reasoning that Kohlberg based his theory. Kohlberg was interested in the reasoning that they youth employed in making their decisions. Kohlberg noted that the youth recogni(ed that they had additional choices. as they age. a story about a fictional and financially strapped man who must make a decision about stealing medication for his dying wife. females. including delin'uents. .What… Kohlberg&s doctoral dissertation made him a star among psychologists when he proposed his si. eventually. younger children and youth raised in other cultures.

The 5i. separate from those who enforce them. respect and attachment. 5tages of Goral !evelopment are as follows: Level I: Preconventional Morality 3age @ E /04 Goral value resides in a personHs own needs and wants tage1: Fbedience and unishment Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to avoid punishment. and in pleasing others. Kohlberg argued the children&s moral thinking was influenced instead by social relationships and emotions. Gost people never reach this last level. in maintaining the convention order. tage 2: InstrumentalE+elativist Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to satisfy own desires.oy/2ice $irlJ Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to avoid re*ection. disaffection. or disapproval from others.Kohlberg&s work began to view the Cchild as a moral philosopherD and broke from psychoanalytic traditions that viewed children simply as the recipient of their parents& moral values and the behaviorist tradition that viewed moral decisions solely as a system of rewards and punishments. The methods of research that Kohlberg employed earned him the due respect of psychology and education researchers alike. . separate from those who hold moral values in principles. tage #: Law and Frder Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to not be critici(ed by a true authority figure. such as empathy. Level II: !onventional Morality3age /0 E /I4 Goral values reside in performing good or right roles. love. Level III: Po$tconventional Morality 3adolescence E adulthood4 Goral Kalues reside in principles. tage ": J$ood . and a part from a personHs identification with the enforcing group.

tage #: I do not talk during a fire drill because that is one of the rules.es not because it is the law. tage ": I do not eat in class because my teacher does not like it. tage 2: Aor a cookie. >thical Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by oneHs own conscience '(a)*le$ o+ tage$ 1 . I will pick up my toys. and living under legally determined laws.$ level$/ tage 1: I do not say bad words because if I do. respecting social order. tage %: I pay ta. tage &: ?niversal.es because it is the law. . mommy will get mad at me. tage &: I pay ta.tage %: Legalistic Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by community respect for all.he +ollowing are e(a)*le$ o+ each $tage at each o+ Kohlberg. but because it is the right thing to do.hro-gh & .

ville. or a collective farm in Israel that once mirrored much of communist thought.ron. stages /9B8E/978: Kohlberg teaches at his alma mater. Kohlberg completes his doctoral dissertation research on the moral development of children. The ?niversity of #hicago /978: professional )s a result of his dissertation research. .panded his professional research related to moral development /979: Kohlberg travels to Israel where he is impressed by the moral development of youth participating in kibbut(. 2ew 6ork /9@8: )fter passing a number of e. where he began teaching education and social psychology and e.ams with outstanding scores. and proposes his si. Kohlberg found fame and was recruited by "arvard ?niversity.When… Timeline of Kohlberg’s Life and Work Fctober /B. /91:: Kohlberg born in . Kohlberg enters The ?niversity of #hicago and completes his bachelor&s degree in sychology in one year /9@9: Kohlberg begins his doctoral work at The ?niversity of #hicago /9B:E/9B8: ?sing the !ilemma of "eni(.

Kohlberg returns to The ?nited 5tates and founds several C*ust communitiesD..eli(e.oston "arbor.mac.com/ardeshir/KI. "e was B9 years old How… . they are often privately owned and operated because of changing forces in the economic climate. his first being The #luster 5chool /9:/: %hile conducting crossEcultural work in . often spending as little as one night a week at home.html Influenced by the kibbut(. ) secondary criticism of the kibbut( was the time that the youth who operated the kibbut( spent away from their parents.today. see: http://homepage. Kohlberg commits suicide by drowning himself in .?T=EGarch&0/.teen years /98:: Fn leave from a Gassachusetts hospital where he is seeking treatment for the above illness.t si. The creator of this website conducted a phone interview with librarian Tamra $ershonL for more information on the kibbut(. Kohlberg contracts a tropical disease that will plague him physically and mentally for the ne.

" she said. who challenged Kohlberg&s theory and its applicability to females.Kohlberg conducted his doctoral research. in #hicago. $illigan addressed an audience. !r. came as a reminder to some people as to what both his work and my work were really about. and was deeply influenced by his colleague #arol $illigan at "arvard. Kohlberg diversified the population with which he conducted this research. Fver the course of his career. sharing her impressions of her colleague: "Something of a false story had been circulating. and that what was at stake were real and serious issues on both sides. looking at the moral reasoning with which :1 youth addressed a number of dilemmas." . for example. that I was Larry's student. that we were involved in a war. "So the news that. ten years after Kohlberg&s death. but in /99:. Guch has been made of their professional rivalry. as mentioned above. we taught together about our disagreements.

uga.edu/ .!r. to 'uell rumors and revisit the past. http://relong.myweb. $illigan shared that she welcomed the opportunity to honor Kohlberg.