Experiment 1

Hypothetical Deductive Reasoning in Adolescents

Problem: is to study the hypothetical deductive reasoning ability of adolescents.

Introduction:

Piaget believed that adolescence is the period in which new and powerful forms of reasoning

emerge (Piaget, 1972; Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). These abilities and talents are so unique that

Jean Piaget identified a context and a period of time for the budding adult to cultivate these

skills. These abilities are so encompassing that they are thought to result in fundamental changes

in how teens think, forever transforming their views of themselves, others, and the world

(Erikson, 1968; Kohlberg, 1984; Selman. 1980).

Piaget’s period of time when hypothetical reasoning develops is formal operational stage which

begins at approximately age twelve and lasts into adulthood. As adolescents enter this stage, they

gain the ability to think in an abstract manner by manipulating ideas in their head, without any

dependence on concrete manipulation (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958).

An indication of the abstract quality of adolescents’ thought is their increased tendency to think

about thought itself, meta-cognition. This stage characterizes the adolescent’s enhanced focus on

thought and its conceptual qualities (Santrock, 2002).

Accompanying the abstract nature of formal operational thought, it is perceived full of idealism

and possibilities. Adolescents define and discover ideal characteristics that they aspire towards or

base their standards on for the world. They can now contemplate such abstract constructs as

beauty, love, freedom, and morality and are eager to attain them (Santrock, 2002).

In addition to the ability to perform abstract mental operations, teens become more scientific and

logical in the way they approach problems. Piaget (1972) called this methodical, scientific
approach to problem-solving, "hypothetico-deductive reasoning." Hypothetical thinking is

defined as the ability to reason about alternatives to the way the world is believed to be (Rescher,

1961, 1964; St. B. T. Evans, 2007). The definition highlights three general components: utilizing

the imagination, making inferences about imagined states of affairs, and interpreting the real

world consequences of the states imagined. Hypothetical thinking as the process of generating

hypotheses, arguments, fictions, alternative event sequences, or pretend scenarios involves the

imagination. The imagination is used to create alternatives to reality that are distinguished from

reality (Amsel, 2011).

Youth can now consider a problem, or situation, and can identify the many variables that may

influence or affect the outcome. They can also estimate the most likely outcome if one or more

variables are changed or manipulated. This ability has very practical applications because it

enables adolescents to select the most logical or sensible solution to a problem.

Adolescents understand the concept of transitivity, which means that a relationship between two

elements is carried over to other elements logically related to the first two, such as if A<B and

B<C, then A<C (Thomas, 1979). An example of the distinction between concrete and formal

operational stages is the answer to the question “If Kelly is taller than Ali and Ali is taller than

Jo, who is tallest?” This is an example of inferential reasoning, which is the ability to think about

things which the child has not actually experienced and to draw conclusions from its thinking. 

The child who needs to draw a picture or use objects is still in the concrete operational stage,

whereas children who can reason the answer in their heads are using formal operational thinking.

Instruments : 30 colored pictures.

Procedure : A boy of 15 years was given a very simple task of verbal reasoning . The
experimenter verbally explained that Jamal is taller than kamal and kamal is taller than Salman

which is the tallest of all .He correctly answered Jamal. After that he was tested on a hypothetical

task to identify the picture that an experimenter carries in his mind. The subject was shown thirty

pictures coloured pictures of different objects. These 30 pictures were arranged in five rows and

each row consisted of 6 pictures. The hypothetical thinkers can guess it correctly in six or seven

questions. The experimenter answered the subject’s questions only in Yes OR No. The Subject

correctly identified the picture in six questions.

RESULTS

Questions asked by the subject to guess the picture the experimenter carries in his mind

Questions Answers

Is it an animal? Yes
Is it a pet? No
Does it live in Water? No
Does it live in Jungle? Yes
Is it a Leapord Yes

Discussion

The results of the study supported what Piaget proposed about adolescents developing

hypothetical deductive reasoning. The subject no longer required concrete objects to reason; he

was very capable of carrying out a methodical, step-by-step, mental calculation to reach the

answer inside the experimenter’s mind. The subject was able to infer the conclusion by

exterminating alternative answers and contemplating over the answers (in form of yes or no to

the questions asked by the subject) that the experimenter gave. Hypothetical reasoning requires
making inferences about the imagined states of affairs. The inferential process includes formally

drawing conclusions from premises whose status is unknown (Rescher, 1964) as is exhibited by

the subject when he tried to reach the image in the mind of the experimenter.

Piaget said, that the imagination of an adolescent is under the control of an abstract logical

system, giving hypothetical reasoning the status of an objective and systematic tool by which to

consider possibilities, likewise the subject considered the animals objectively, pondered over

their characteristics and traits to reach a systematic and deductive conclusion about the identity

of the animal but all of this was done in mental space away from the tangible reality although the

proponents of thoughts and deduction were borrowed from objective reality, just like Piaget

(1972) proposed adolescents become able to reason objectively and systematically about

possibilities, resulting in them inverting the relationship between the real and possible such that

there is a “subordination of the real to the realm of the possible”.

A lot of other researches corroborate the results of this experiment. In 1970, Piaget devised

several tests to demonstrate formal operational thought. The third eye problem is a simple

exercise in which teenagers are asked where they would put a third eye on their body if they

could and why. Schaffer (1988) reported that when asked this question, 9-year-olds all suggested

that the third eye should be on the forehead. However, 11-year-olds were more inventive, for

example suggesting what a third eye placed on the hand would be useful for seeing round

corners. This showed that 11-years-old could manipulate the situation in their minds and were

able to conceive creative ways of utilizing the ‘third eye’ mentally. Their answers had the same

hypothetical deductive reasoning that the 15-years-old boy in the experiment did. Formal

operational thinking has also been tested experimentally using the pendulum task (Inhelder &

Piaget, 1958). The method involved a length of string and a set of weights. Participants had to
consider three factors (variables) the length of the string, the heaviness of the weight and the

strength of push.

To find the correct answer the participant has to grasp the idea of the experimental method -that

is to vary one variable at a time (e.g. trying different lengths with the same weight). The teens’

test results were of no importance but their ability to use abstract reasoning.

Children in the formal operational stage approached the task systematically, testing one variable

(such as varying the length of the string) at a time to see its effect. However, younger children

typically tried out these variations randomly or changed two things at the same time.

Piaget concluded that the systematic approach indicated the children were thinking logically, in

the abstract, and could see the relationships between things. These are the characteristics of the

formal operational stage as exhibited by the subject in the experiment. However, psychologists

who have replicated this research, or used a similar problem, have generally found that children

cannot complete the task successfully until they are older.

Robert Siegler (1979) gave children a balance beam task in which some discs were placed either

side of the center of balance. The researcher changed the number of discs or moved them along

the beam, each time asking the child to predict which way the balance would go.

Like Piaget, he found that eventually the children were able to take into account the interaction

between the weight of the discs and the distance from the center, and so successfully predict

balance. This did not happen until participants were between 13 and 17 years of age. And as the

age of the subject in this study is 15 years old, it not only confides with Piaget’s findings about

adolescents being able to perform hypothetical deductive thinking but Siegler’s as well.

Conclusion
This experiment led us to conclude that adolescents are hypothetical deductive thinkers.

Reference

Santrock, J. W. (2002). Life-Span Development. (8th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill Company.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). Adolescent thinking.

Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman.
Schaffer, H. R. (1988). Child Psychology: the future. In S. Chess & A. Thomas (eds), Annual
Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development. NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Siegler, R. S. & Richards, D. (1979). Devlopment of time, speed and distance
concepts. Developmental Psychology, 15, 288-298.
Amsel, E. (2011). Hypothetical thinking in adolescence: Its nature, development, and
applications. In E. Amsel & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on knowledge
and development: The Jean Piaget Symposium series. Adolescent vulnerabilities and
opportunities: Developmental and constructivist perspectives (p. 86–113). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139042819.007

Experiment 2
Counterfactual thinking and Future Hypothetical Thinking in Children

Problem : To examine the ability of a 5 year old child to engage in counterfactual thinking and

future hypothetical thinking.

Introduction

Counterfactual thoughts are mental representations of alternatives of past events, actions, or

states (Byrne, 2005; Roese, 1997). These counterfactual and future hypothetical thoughts

allow humans to entertain alternatives to reality. For example, to say that a Pakistani cricket

team “almost” won a game is to specify a counterfactual outcome with a particular (although

not necessarily exact) level of probability. In everyday life, an individual’s counterfactual

musings often take the form of a conditional proposition, in which the antecedent

corresponds to an action and the consequent corresponds to an outcome (e.g., “If only I had
studied, I would have passed the exam”). Crucially, counterfactual thoughts are often

evaluative, specifying alternatives that are in some tangible way better or worse than the real

events (Markman, Gavanski, Sherman, & McMullen, 1993; Roese, 1994). When

counterfactuals focus on personal choice that would have been a better alternative, the

resulting emotion is termed regret and when it focuses how the worse scenario did not

happen, it results in relief. Counterfactual events are not merely events that did not happen;

they could have replaced the actual. Thus, the understanding that at any point in time

multiple possible events could occur in the relative future underpins both future hypothetical

and counterfactual thoughts (Beck et.al, 2006). Byrne (1997) emphasized that counterfactual

and actual possibilities are closely related and that counterfactuals are ‘‘grounded in the

factual reality from which they depart.’’ Byrne (1997; also 2005) is clear that thinking about

a counterfactual requires one to hold in mind two possibilities. A similar description is given

by Perner (2000) who describes a counterfactual ‘‘not just as a possibility but as a point for

point alternative to real events.’’

The mental models perspective (Byrne, 1997, 2002, 2005; Byrne & McEleney, 2000; Feeney

& Handley, 2006) has approached counterfactual thinking in terms of the basic building

blocks of reasoning and how particular pieces of information are chained together to form

inferences. Counterfactual thinking has an adaptive significance for humans in that it allows

us to learn from past negative experiences and to avoid negative outcomes in the future

(Byrne, 2005, Byrne, 2016, Epstude and Roese, 2008). Counterfactual thinking has an

important role in children’s cognitive development. Counterfactual thinking during early

childhood is closely associated with the following key abilities: understanding causal

relations (German, 1999, Harris et al., 1996), acquiring theory of mind (Guajardo and
Turley-Ames, 2004, Rafetseder and Perner, 2018, Riggs et al., 1998), and understanding

regret and relief (e.g., Beck and Crilly, 2009, Guttentag and Ferrell, 2004). One of the main

areas explored in the previous studies is the question of when the capacity for counterfactual

thinking is acquired. Studies (Beck et al., 2010, German, 1999, German and Nichols,

2003, Nakamichi, 2011, Riggs et al., 1998) have demonstrated that children are capable of

counterfactual thinking by around 5 or 6 years of age.

Hypothesis: A 5 year old child can think about the counterfactual and future hypothetical

possibilities.

Procedure:

The child was seated comfortably. The experimenter asked him about his family, siblings and

school to develop rapport with the child. The experimenter told him the two stories based on

counterfactual and future hypothetical possibilities respectively. After that experimenter asked

the child questions related to counterfactual and future hypothetical possibilities to determine his

ability to reflect on multiple possibilities. The experimenter noted down the responses of the

children.

Results

Story I

Salman was making a picture of a house. He was sitting in the house garden. His mother

called him to attend his friend’s phone call. He left the picture on the table. He went inside

the house to attend the call in the mean while the wind blew and the picture got stuck in the

tree.

Story 2
Ali studies in a school which has two gates, front and the back gate. One day ali’s father

went to pick him from the school . He stood at the front gate for 45 minutes but ali came

out from the back gate.

Results

Questions Responses
Story 1 On the table

If wind had not blown where would be the

Picture of a house.
Story 2 At the back gate

At which gate ali’s father should wait if he

comes next time to pick him from school

Discussion

The results support the presupposed hypothesis that a child of 5 year would be able to

demonstrate counterfactual and future hypothetical thinking. When the child was asked about the

picture in Story 1, she was quick to say that if the wind had not blown the picture would still be

on the table. A study done by Riggs et al. (1998) found that 3-year-olds tended to give answers

about the real world ‘‘In the tree’’ whereas by 4 years children were able to speculate about the

counterfactual alternative ‘‘On the table.’’ Other authors have used similar tasks (e.g., German,

1999; Guajardo & Turley-Ames, 2004; Perner, Sprung, & Steinkogler, 2004) and all have

reached the same conclusion that typically developing 4-year-olds can entertain counterfactuals

with ease.

The subject was asked a question about a counterfactual antecedent ( e.g. in Story 1 what if the

wind had not flown) and they must work out the consequences of this change. Similarly in the
Story 2, the subject was asked to consider an alternate possibility that could define the actions set

in a hypothetical future. The subject but we speculated about an alternative that could

realistically have happened instead (in case of Story 1), or could realistically happen in the future

(in case of Story 2), as explained by Beck et al. in 2006.

There is some debate about when the child acquires the ability to think counterfactually or

indulge future hypothetical thinking. The capacity to entertain counterfactual possibilities

emerges early in life (typically by age 2) and seems to be evident as soon as children have

mastered the lexical skills to express subjunctive ideas of “if only” (Beck, Robinson, Carroll, &

Apperly, 2006; >Dias & Harris, 1990; German & Nichols, 2003; Harris, 1991; Perner, Sprung, &

Steinkogler, 2004).

But Siegler (1976) demonstrated that children of at least age 5 are capable of identifying

necessary events in creating a causal structure (see also Miller, Custer, & Nassau, 2000). We also

know that children of this age are capable of understanding the deductive consequences of an

assumption (e.g., O’Brien et al., 1998) and can identify logical inconsistencies. In addition,

research on probabilistic reasoning about uncertain events confirms that children, from the age of

5, are able to integrate new information into prior information (Girotto & Gonzalez, 2008) and

can assemble a coherent causal structure. Hence, children of at least 5 years of age possess the

necessary components for counterfactual reasoning which matches the age of the subject in this

study.

In the study the child exhibited the counterfactual and future hypothetical thinking by

considering an alternate reality where the events did not occur as mentioned before and the

consequences of those events and how events could have occurred in an hypothetical future.
Conclusion

We conclude that 5 year old child can engage in counterfactual and future hypothetical thinking.

Reference

McNamara, P., Durso,R., Brown, A. & Lynch, A. (2003). Counterfactual cognitive deficit in

persons with parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurosurg Psychiatry,74, 1065-1070

Beck, S. R., Robinson, E. J., Carroll, D. J., & Apperly, I. A. (2006). Children's thinking about

counterfactuals and future hypotheticals as possibilities. Child development, 77(2), 413–426.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00879.x

Epstude, K., & Roese, N. J. (2008). The functional theory of counterfactual thinking. Personality

and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social

Psychology, Inc, 12(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308316091

Beck, S. R., Riggs, K. J., & Gorniak, S. L. (2009). Relating developments in children’s

counterfactual thinking and executive functions. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(4), 337–354.

Experiment 3
Symbolic Activity In Children

Problem: To examine the symbolic activity of a 4 year old child in substitute pretend play.

Introduction

Piaget’s stage that coincides with early childhood is the Preoperational Stage. According to

Piaget, this stage occurs from the age of 2 to 7 years. First, they develop Symbolic Function

between the ages of 2 and 4. During the Symbolic Function sub-stage, children master the ability

to picture, remember, understand, and replicate objects in their minds that are not immediately in

front of them. In other words, children can create mental images of objects that is not present and

store them in their minds for later use. This ability vastly expands the child’s mental world
(Carlson & Zelazo, 2008). Young children use scribble designs to represent people, houses, cars,

clouds, and so on; they begin to use language and engage in pretend play.

Symbolic/Pretend play is the ability of children to use objects, actions or ideas to represent other

objects, actions, or ideas as play. A child may pretend that floor is lava and bounce around the

sofas and avoid the floor. Symbolic play may include object substitutions (e.g., pretending a hat

is a cup), attributions of pretend properties (e.g., pretending a doll is sleepy), and imaginary

objects (e.g., pretending that they are inside a castle).

Symbolic play is one important developmental milestone achieved around 2 years of age in

typically developing children and is highly correlated with children’s language, social, and

emotional development in late childhood. A play is to a child the same as work to adults, a

principal activity that combines ideas, feelings and relationships with the development of

increasing competence and control and also enables experiencing itself as a strong self. “There is

no such activity, except for the play, which encompasses as many functions as if light was

refracting through the prism, in which various options are tried out spontaneously, voluntarily,

autotelic, and without a sense of failure.” (Duran et al., 1988,)

In the contents of symbolic play a child reflects different social situations such as family

relationships, shopping, working people, etc. in a creative way, which contributes to the adoption

of gender roles, learning the rules, socialization, mastering the culture which the child belongs to,

and the creation of children’s culture, understanding and adoption of some higher emotions,

overcoming egocentrism, moving away from the present situation (Petrović-Sočo, 2013).

Piaget (1962) maintained that play advances children’s cognitive development. Play permits

children to practice their competencies and acquired skills in a relaxed, pleasurable way. Piaget

saw a child as an egocentric “lone scientist” who, through interaction with the physical
environment, gradually creates a mental image of the world but Vygotsky (1962) set the child

and the play in a social, cultural context, seeing it as a significant role in the development of a

child’s mental functions. According to him, play stemmed primarily from the desire of children

to be included in the adult world. And for these reasons it is important to consider emotional

factors and motives that lead to symbolic play.

Daniel Berlyne (1960) described play as exciting and pleasurable in itself because it satisfies our

exploratory drive. In a symbolic play a child solves problems in an individual and specific way,

without fear of failure, and in the process it also applies and varies different types of behaviour

and puts them in new and unusual contexts in which it uses familiar patterns and evaluates them,

changes them and copes with them accordingly as Piaget proposed (1962).

More recently, play has been described as an important context for the development of language

and communication skills (Coplan & Arbeau, 2009). Language is a central area of symbolic

thought. As children are more prone to use complex language during play, substantial evidence

exists of its association with advanced language skills such as vocabulary and comprehension.

Children call on language extensively in pretend play. For example, they use language to assign

and negotiate roles (“I’m the doctor, you are the patient.”), they often narrate a ‘script’ (“You

have to come see me ‘cause your stomach is upset”) and of course they get into character

(“Please, sit down on this chair, you can trust me to fix your pain”). These types of social

interactions during play can benefit young children’s literacy skills (Coplan & Arbeau, 2009).

Subject : 4 year old child.

Instrument :

Probe questions, warm up exercises and Stories.

Procedure
Experimenter asked three types of questions probe questions, warm up exercises and practice

syllogism. Experimenter asked the child about the animals. After that the child did some warm

up exercises. The child gave all the answers correctly and was able to imagine the different

scenes that the experimenter asked him to do.

Results

Probe Questions Responses

What is the colour of the cat? Black& White

What do horse Eat ? Grass

How do Elephants move? With his foot

Where do fish live ? Water

Imaginary Warm up Excercises

Can you imagine the horse? Yes
Can you imagine horse flying? Yes
Is Horse flying on earth or Sky? Sky
Syllogism questions
All horses eat grass, Can you imagine a Yes

horse eating grass?

Tell me what does horse eat? Grass
Now in a story , salman is a horse? Can Yes

you make a picture of salman as a horse? Yes

Now tell who is Salman ? Horse
Does salman eat grass or pizza? Grass
What is the character of salman in the Horse

story?

Discussion
The subject exhibited the ability to use symbolic thought and understand and portray his

surroundings his surroundings symbolically as well. According to Piaget, symbolic play shows

the development of abstract thought. The subject was able to imagine the animal and their

associated characteristics. They used their imagination and creative thinking and reasoning to

answer whether they picture a horse flying or if it was in sky or ground and they also were able

associate the symbol or word ‘salman’ with the horse and answer questions accordingly as

explained by Carruthers (2002) and Nichols & Stich (2000) that young children’s pretend play

has usually been characterized as creating and reasoning about alternative worlds which taps the

same ability to reason about possibilities as any other form of hypothetical or creative thinking.

The subject manipulated ideas as asked by the experimenter step by step and was able to create

stories as the experiment went along. Kaufman, Singer and Singer (2012) have also defined a

symbolic play as performing stories that involve multilateral perspectives and manipulate ideas

and emotions through play.

The subject used the previous concepts about horses, elephant, sky, flying, eating, grass, pizza

and correlation of traits specific to an animal or species. The subject used his understands that he

had already internalized as explained by Ivic (1978) and conjured these images up symbolically

in their mind for the sake of the experiment. The symbolic play showed the representational

thinking through the use of substitution of objects or actions of the child (Ivić, 1978, Miljak,

1984, Duran, 1988, 2001, Rogers & Sawyers 1995, Šagud, 2002).

The subject showed excellent skills of meta-cognition thinking about their thoughts and revising

their concepts and to answer the syllogistic questions of the experimenter they portrayed

cognitive skills. Also when subject imagined the horse flying, he used cognitive flexibility as

described by Deák & Wiseheart (2015) as he transformed the object (horse) mentally and gave it
sings to fly. In the experiment, the child was motivated and challenged to think about how

objects and actions can be used in ways that are different than how they appear on the surface.

The subject was able to in symbolic substitute plays and exhibited important cognitive skills as

studied by many psychologists including Piaget.

Conclusion : We conclude that 4 year old children can engage in symbolic substitute plays.

Reference :

Santrock, J. W. (2002). Life-Span Development. (8th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill Company.

Lee, G. T., Qu, K., Hu, X., Jin, N., & Huang, J. (2020). Arranging play activities with missing
items to increase object-substitution symbolic play in children with autism spectrum disorder.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 1–13. doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1734107 

Amsel, E. (2011). Hypothetical thinking in adolescence: Its nature, development, and

applications. In E. Amsel & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on knowledge
and development: The Jean Piaget Symposium series. Adolescent vulnerabilities and
opportunities: Developmental and constructivist perspectives (p. 86–113). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139042819.007

Furth, H. G. (1967). Concerning Piaget’s View on Thinking and Symbol Formation. Child

Development, 38(3), 819. doi:10.2307/1127258 

Piaget, Jean. Psychology of Intelligence. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1966.

Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children's cognitive development. Early

Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1), n1.

Deák, G. O., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Cognitive flexibility in young children: General or task-
specific capacity?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 31-53.

Weisberg, D. S. (2015). Pretend play. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(3),

249-261.
Petrović-Sočo, B. (2013). Symbolic Play of Children at an Early Age. Croatian Journal of
Education,16, 235-251.

Experiment 4
Moral Development

Problem : To examine the moral reasoning stage of the subject with reference to kohlberg’s

theory of moral development.

Hypothesis : Adolescents’ morally reason in a conventional manner.

Introduction:

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are

distinguished as proper and those that are improper. It is recognition of the distinction between

good and evil or between right and wrong and respect for and obedience to the rules of right

conduct. Although morality has been a topic of discussion since the beginning of human

civilization, the scientific study of moral development did not begin in earnest until the late

1950s. Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), an American psychologist posited six stages of moral

development in his 1958 doctoral thesis. Since that time, morality and moral development have

become acceptable subjects of scientific research. Prior to Kohlberg's work, the prevailing

positivist view claimed that science should be" value-free"—that morality had no place in

scientific studies. By choosing to study moral development scientifically, Kohlberg broke

through the positivist boundary and established morality as a legitimate subject of scientific

research.

Seeking to expand on Jean Piaget's work in cognitive development and to determine whether

there are universal stages in moral development as well, Kohlberg conducted a long-term study.

The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at

three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).

Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was mainly

interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for

the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older.

This theory holds that moral reasoning, which is the basis for ethical behaviour, has six
identifiable developmental stages. He followed the development of moral judgment beyond the

ages originally studied by Piaget, who claimed that logic and morality develop

through constructive stages. Kohlberg expanded considerably on this groundwork, determining

that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and that its

development continued throughout the lifespan, even spawning dialogue of philosophical

implications of his research.

Kohlberg used stories about moral dilemmas—stories that present conflicting ideas about two

moral values— in his studies, and was interested in how people would justify their actions if they

were put in a similar moral crux. The best known moral dilemma created by Kohlberg is the

“Heinz” dilemma, which discusses the idea of obeying the law versus saving a life. Kohlberg

emphasized that it is the way an individual reasons  about a dilemma that determines positive

moral development.

He would then categorize and classify evoked responses into one of six distinct stages..

These six stages where broken into three levels: pre-conventional, conventional and post-

conventional. According to Kohlberg, an individual progresses from the capacity for pre-

conventional morality (before age 9) to the capacity for conventional morality (early

adolescence), and toward attaining post-conventional morality (once Piaget’s idea of formal

operational thought is attained), which only a few fully achieve. Each level of morality contains

two stages, which provide the basis for moral development in various contexts. His theory is

based on constructive developmental stages; each stage and level is more adequate at responding

to moral dilemmas than the last.

Children from the ages of seven to ten act on the pre-conventional level, at which they defer to

adults and obey rules based on the immediate consequences of their actions. The behavior of

children at this level is essentially premoral. At Stage 1, they obey rules in order to avoid

punishment, while at Stage 2 their behavior is mostly motivated by the desire to obtain rewards.

Starting at around age ten, children enter the conventional level, where their behavior is guided

by the opinions of other people and the desire to conform. At Stage 3, the emphasis is on being a

"good boy" or "good girl" in order to win approval and avoid disapproval, while at Stage 4 the

concept of doing one's duty and upholding the social order becomes predominant. At this stage,

respecting and obeying authority (of parents, teachers, God) is an end in itself, without reference

to higher principles. By the age of 13, most moral questions are resolved on the conventional

level.

During adolescence, children move beyond this level and become capable of post-conventional

morality, which requires the ability to formulate abstract moral principles, which are then obeyed

to avoid self-condemnation rather than the censure of others. At Stage 5, adolescents are guided

by a "social contract" orientation toward the welfare of the community, the rights of others, and

existing laws. At Stage 6, their actions are guided by ethical standards that transcend the actual

laws of their society and are based on such abstract concepts as freedom, dignity, and justice.

However, Kohlberg's scheme does not imply that all adolescents negotiate the passage to post-

conventional morality. Progress through the different stages depends upon the type of thinking

that a child or adolescent is capable of at a given point, and also on the negotiation of previous

stages. Kohlberg points out that many people never pass beyond the conventional level, and that

the most clearly principled response at Stage 6 was expressed by fewer than 10 percent of

adolescents over the age of 16. (In relation to the Heinz dilemma, such a response would clearly
articulate the existence of a moral law that transcends society's laws about stealing, and the

sanctity of human life over financial gain.)

Instrument : Questionnaire

Procedure :

An eighteen year old boy served as a subject. The experimenter gave him the questionnaire and

asked him to choose one option out of six options and he was asked to give reason why he

selected this option. He selected option 4 and said that we obey the rule because it is the law.

After that the experimenter analyzed his answer in the light of kohlberg’s theory of moral

development.

Results

Why Obey a Rule ?

Which of the options you think describe that why you obey the rule.

1. So I won’t get hurt. Preconventional stage 1 Heteronomous morality”

2. Because it will pay off later Preconventional Stage 2 “Individualism, instrumental purpose

and exchange”

3. Because my friends wants me to obey. Conventional Stage 3“Mutal

interpersonal,expectations ,relationships and interpersonal conformity”

4. Because it’s the law. Conventional stage 4 Social System Morality”

5. Because obeying the rule is in the best interest of most of our society. Post conventional level.

Stage5 Social Contract or utility and individuals’ rights”

6. It’s an abstract, universal rule that I have to live with, because its fair and just if it was not I

would not follow it. Stage6 “Universal Ethical Principles”

Give reason for choosing the option. (Jolley & Mitchell, 1996,p.275)
Discussion:

The adolescent answered ‘because it is the law’ which put his moral development on the fourth

stage and conventional level as described by Kohlberg. As Kohlberg said, people who reason in

a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views

and expectations and this behavior coincides with the results of the study.

As the subject, an adolescent, chose 6th stage of conventional level. This stage, according to

Kohlberg, is focused on maintaining social order. At this stage of moral development, people

begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining

law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty, and respecting authority.

Adolescence is often characterized as a time of emotional turbulence, hormonal changes, and

parent-teen rebellion (Turiel, 2010). However, this perspective fails to account for the

reflection and development of ideologies that occurs during this period. Adolescence is also

a time when youth establish a strong sense of group affiliation that has significant

implications for their developing principles of fairness, justice, and equality (Killen &

Rutland, 2011).

As peer contexts become increasingly meaningful in adolescence, youth begin to weigh

moral and emotional judgments in complex ways, as issues of group identity and group

loyalty are brought to bear on morally salient decisions. If one person violates a law, perhaps

everyone would - thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When

someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this

stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones, this argument supports the results

of the study. The subject is conscientious; his moral values are oriented towards a social

order that fosters harmonious relationships among group members. The subject understands
that laws are intended to serve everyone's best interest, and believe that societies function

best when everyone strictly adheres to the law. Moreover, Adolescents are receptive to their

culture, to the models they see at home, in school and in the mass media. These observations

influence moral reasoning and moral behavior. When children are younger, their family,

culture, and religion greatly influence their moral decision-making.

Shweder et al. (1990) did a study in India and found the duty-based moral value was culturally

dominant. Similarly, as the subject was Pakistani, and as the Pakistani culture also stresses on

duty-based moralities, the subject’s moral values were not only morally in sync with what

Kohlberg proposed but also were culturally reinforced.

Conclusion
Adolescent’s moral reasoning is influenced by the rules, laws and justice systems of the society.

Reference

Santrock, J. W. (2002). Life-span Development. (8th ed). Boston: McGraw Hill Company.

Jolley,J.M.,&Mitchell,M.L. (1996).Life span development.Chicago:Brown&Beuchpublishers.

Cooley, S., Elenbaas, L., & Killen, M. (2012). Moral judgments and emotions: adolescents'
evaluations in intergroup social exclusion contexts. New directions for youth
development, 2012(136), 41–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20037

Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. G. (1990). Culture and moral development. In J. W.
Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human
development (p. 130–204). (Reprinted from "The Emergence of Morality in Young Children,"
Jerome Kagan and Sharon Lamb, eds. (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press,
1987))Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173728.005