488 PART IV © PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ‘wormablongrancomfbar Kohlberg's Extension of Piaget's Theory Like Piaget, Kohlberg used a clinical interviewing procedure to study moral development. But svhereas Piaget asked children to judge and explain which of two children in a pair of stories ‘was nanghtier, Kohlberg used a more open-ended approach: He presented people with hypo- thetic moral dilemmas and asked what the main actor shoutd do and why. + THE CLINICAL INTERVIEW * In Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview, individuals resolve dilemmas that present conflicts between Ivo moral values and justify theit decisions ‘The best known of these isthe "Heinz dilemma,” which pits the value of obeying the law (not stealing) against the value of human life (saving a dying person): In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. There was one drug the doctors thought might save her. A druggist ia the same town had discovered it, but he was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make, The sick wornan's husband, Heine, went to every tone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together half of what it cost. The druggist refused to sell the drug for lessor let Heinz pay later So Heinz got desperate and ‘brake into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife, Should Heinz have done that? Why ‘or why not? (paraphrased from Coby tal, 1983, p.77) In addition to explaining their answer, participants are asked to evaluate the conflicting moral values on which the dilemna is based. Scoring of responses is intricate and demanding—per haps the most complex of any interview scoring system (Gibbs, Basinger, & Grime, 2003; Mller, 1998). ‘Moral matusityis determined by the way ar individual reasons about the dilemma, not the content ofthe response (whether oF not to steal) Individuals who believe that Heinz should Steal the drug and those who think he should not can be found at each of Kohlberg’ first four Stages. At the highest two stages, moral reasoning and content come together. Individuals do fot just agcee on why certain actions are justified; they also agree on what people ought to do ‘when faced with a moral dilemma, Given a choice between obeying the law and preserving individual rights, the most advanced moral thinkers support individual rights (in the Heinz cllemma, stealing the drug to save a life). As we look at devclopmeat in Kohlberg echeme, we will se that moral reasoning and content are independent a firs, but eventually they are inte~ grated into a coherent ethical system (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, 1983). = A QUESTIONNAIRE APPROACH ¢ For more efficient gathering and scoring of moral reasoning, researchers have devised short-answer questionnaires, The most recent is the Sociomoral Reflection Measuire-Short Form (SRM-SF). Like Kohlberg’ clinical interview, the SRM-SP asks individuals to evaluate the importance of moral values and produce moral reasoning, Here are 4 of its 11 quest ‘Let's say a friend of yours needs help and may even die, and you're the only person who can sive him of her, How important i it fora person (without losing his or her ow life) to save the life of a fiend? ‘¢ What about saving th life of anyone? How important it for a person (without losing his ‘or her ov life) to save the life of e stranger? ‘¢ Hove important is it for people not to take things that belong to other people? How important is it for people to cbey the lav? (Gibbs, Basinger, & Fuller, 1992, pp. 151-152) “After reading each question, participants rate the importance of the value it addresses (as * very important? "important o “not important”) and write a brief explanation of thei rat- ing. The explanations are coded aecording toa revised rendition of Kohlberg’s stages. ‘The SRM-SE is far less time consuming than the Moral Judgment Interview because it does not require people to read and think about lengthy descriptions of moral dilemmas. Instead, participants merely evaluate moral values and justify ther evaluations. Nevertheless, scores on the SRM-SF correlate well with those obtained from the Moral judgment Interview and show similar age tcends (Basinger, Gibbs, & Puller, 1995; Gibbs, Basinger, & Grime, 2003). ‘Appareatly, moral reasoning can be measured without using dilemmas—a discovery that is likely to ease the task of conducting moral development research,CHAPTER 12 © MORAL DEVELOPMENT + KOHLDERG’S STAGES OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING © In his initial investigation, Kohlberg (1958) extended the age range Piaget studied, including participants who were well into adolescence by administering the Moral Judgment Interview to 10-,13- and 16-year-old boys. Then he followed the participants longitudinally, reinterviewing them at 3- to 4-year intervals over the next 20 years (Colby ta. 1983). Analyzing age-related changes inthe boys? ‘oral judgments, Kohlberg generated his six-stage sequence. As with Piage’s progression of development, Kohlberg’ first three stages characterize children as mnoving ftom @ morality Focused on outcomes to a morality based on ideal reciprocity. Inclusion of older adolescenis yielded the fourth stage, in which young people expand theie notion of ideal reciprocity to encompass societal rules and less vitl for ensuring that people treat one another justly On the basis of the moral judgment responses of a small minority of adolescents, Kohlberg extended his sequence farther, positing the Fifth and sixth stages. As we will se, these stages hhave remained infrequent in subsequent research, ‘Kohlberg organized his six stages into three general levels and made stronger claims than Piaget about a fixed order of moral change. In doing so, however, Kohlberg, drew on charac teristics that Piaget used to describe his cognitive stage sequence: f Kohlberg regarded his moral stages as invariant and universal-a sequence of steps that people everywhere miove through ina fixed ovder. 1 He viewed each new stage as building on reasoning ofthe preceding stage resulting ina more logically consistent and morally adequate concept of justice. «© Kohlberg sav each stage as an organized whole—a qualitatively distinct structure of moral thought that a person apples across a wide range of situations (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). Recall from Chapter 6 that those theorists who continue to adhere to a stogewise view of cog. nitive development accept a flexible notion of stage. Similary, we will see that Koblberg's claims about a tightly organized sequence of moral stages have been challenged. Furthermore, Kolberg believed that moral understanding s promoted by the same factors that Piaget considered important for cognitive development: (1) disequilibrium, or actively grappling with moral isues and noticing weaknesses in one's current thinking, and (2) gains in perspective taking, which permit individuals to resolve moral cooflicis in increasingly com plex and effective ways. As we examine Kohlberg’ developmental sequence and illustrate it ‘with responses to the Heinz dilemma, look for changes in cognition and perspective taking ‘hat each stage assures, > The Preconventional Level. At the preconventional level, morality is externally con- ‘rolled, As in Piaget’ heteronomous sage, children accept the rules of authority figures, and actions are judged by their consequences, Behaviors that result in punishment are viewed as ‘bad, and those that lea to rewards are seen as good. © Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. Children at this stage Find it difficult to consider two points of view in a moral dllernma. As a result they ignore people's inte focus on fear of authority and svoidance of punishment as reasons, for behaving morally. Prosteaing: "IE you let your wife de, you will get in trouble. You'll be blamed for not spending the money to help her and there'll be an investigation of you and the druggist for your wife's death” (Kohlberg, 1969, p. 381) Antistealing: “You shoulder steal the drug because youll be caught and sent to jail if you do. If you do get away, [you'd be scared that} the police would catch up with you any minute” (Kolberg, 1968, p.381) (© Stage 2: The instrumental purpose orientation. Children become aware that people can have different perspectives in a moral lemma, but at first this understanding is very concrete, They view right action as flowing from self-interest. Recipe understood as equal exchange of favors: "You do this for me and Tl do that for you" 489 @ row does thisbayemin hisdecison to helps cass- rate pick Up her books and papers?ifhe expecis esto do 23 Favor frm nets is Feasoning fas at Kakbengs preconvetional ive iS actions are governed bythe Golden Rule, "Do urt others seyou woul have thers do Unto you then hehas vanced to Kahr’ con ‘enon eve {ce Neat490 © rallying abanst tobacco us, these young people evalu ate the ues anew of thie sacle onthe bass of how vel they seve the interests ofthe majority They express 2 principe level of moray PART IV © PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL DEvELOPMENT eemuablengmanconvierk Prosteting: “The druggist can do what he wants and Heinz can do what be wants to do... But if Hein decides to risk ail to save his wif, it's life e's risking; he can do what he wants witht, And the same goes for the druggist’ upto him to decide what he wants to do.” (Rest, 1979, p.26) Antisteating“[Heina] i (Rest, 1979, p.27) vunning more risk than its worth [to save a wife who is near death)” > The Conventional Level. At the conventional level, individuals continue to regard conform ity to socal rules a important, but not for reasons of self-interest. Rather, they believe that actively maintaining the cuttent social system ensures postive human relationships and societal order. © Stage 3: The “good boy-goed gil” orientation, o the morality of interpersonal cooperation. “The desire to obey rules because they promote social haemony fist appears in the context ‘of close personal ties. Sage 3 individuals want to maintain the affection and approval of fiends and relatives by being a “good person”—trustwarthy, loyal, respectful, helpful, and nice, The capacity to view a two-person relationship from the vantage point ofan impar~ tial, outside observer supports this new approach to morality. At this tage the individual understands ideal reciprocity, as expressed in the Golden Role. Prostealing: “No one will think you're bad if you steal the drug, but your family will think you're an inhuman husband if you don't. Ifyou let your wife de, you'll never be able to look. anyone in the face again” (Kohlberg, 1969, p. 381) Antistening: "It isn't just the druggist who will think you're a criminal, everyone ese will too. ‘After you steal it, you'l fel bad thinking how you brought dishonor on your family and your- self (Kobiberg, 1969, p.381) © Stage 4: The socal-onder- maintaining orientation. At this stage, the individual takes into account a larger perspective—that of societal laws, Moral choices no longer depend on lose testo others. Instead, rules must be enforced in the same evenhanded fashion for everyone, and each member of society has a pecsonal duty to uphold them. The Stage individual believes that laws cannot be disobeyed under any cicumstances because they are vital for ensuring sacital order and cooperative relations between individual Presteainge"He should steal it. Heinz has a duty to protect his wifes ifs it's 2 vow he took in rmarrage But is wrong to steal, 9 he would have to take the drug wit the idea of paying the druggist for it and accepting the penalty for breaking the lv latex.” Antstealing “I's a natural thing for Hein to want to save his wife but... Even iis wie is dying, it's his duty 28 citizen to obey the lw. No oe else sallow to steal, why should Ihe be If everyone starts breaking the lee i a am, there'd be no civilization, just crime and violence” (Res, 1979, p. 30) > The Postcouventional or Principled Level. Individuals atthe postconventional level move ‘beyond unquestioning support for the rules and laws of their own society. They define m ity in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies. © Stage 5: The social-contact orientation, At tage 5, individual regard Jaws and rules as flexible instruments for furthering human purposes. They can imagine alternatives to their own social order, and they emphasize fair proccires for interpreting and changing the law. When laws are consistent with individual rights and the interests of the majority, each person follows them because ofa social-ontractorien= tation-—fee and wiling participation in the system because it brings about more good for people than i it did not exist. rostealing “Although there isa law against stealing, the law wasn't ‘meant to violate a person’ right to life. Taking the drug does vielate the la, but Heinz i justified in stealing in this instance. If Heinz is prosecuted for stealing, the law needs to be reinterpreted to take into account situations in which it goes against people's natural right to keep on living”CHAPTER 12. © MORAL DEVELOPMENT © Stage 6 The universal ethical principle oriéntarion, At dhs highest stage, right action is efined by self-chosen ethical principles of conscience that are valid for all humanity, regardless of law and social agreement. These values are abstract, not concrete moral rules Bike the Ten Commandments. Stage 6 individuals typically mention such principles as equal consideration ofthe claims ofall human beings and respect for the worth and dig nity of each person. Prostening: “If Heinz does not do everything he can to save his wife, then he is putting some value higher than the value of life. It docsn't make sense to put respect for property above respect for life itself [People} could live together without private property at all. Respect for Inumao life nd personality is absolute, and accordingly (people) have a mutual duty to save ‘one another fiom dying” (Rest, 1979, p.37) Research on Kohilberg’s Stages Is there support for Koblber’s developmental sequence? If so, movernent through the sages shoul be related tage, cognitive development, nd gains in perspective taking. Also, moral re soning should conform tothe strict stage properties that Kohlberg assured. © AGE-RELATED CHANGE # A wealth of research reveals that progress through Kohlberg’ _stages is consistently related to age. The most convincing evidence comes from Kohiberg’s 20, year longitudinal Continuation of his fist study (Colby et al, 1983). The correlation betwee ‘age and moral judgment maturity was strong, at +.78. In addition, on the bass of responses, to Kolbers’s hypothetical dilemmas, almost all participants moved through the stages in the predicted order, without skipping steps or returning to less mature reasoning once a stage had been attained. Other longitudinal studies using hypothetical dilemmas confirm these findings (Rest, 1986; Walker, 1989; Walker & Taylor, 1991b). However, a5 will become clear in the next section, when researchers use real-life dilemmas, age-related change is less tidy and moce vaviable A striking Binding is that development of moral reasoning is slow and gradual. Figure 123, shouts the extent to which individuals used each stage of moral reasoning between ages LD and 36, in Kobberg’slongitudinal study. Notice how Stages | and 2 decrease in early adolescence, whereas Stage 3 increases through mid-adolescence and then decines. Stage 4 rises over the teenage years ‘unl by early adulthood its the typical response. Few people move beyond i to Stage 5. As noted cater, postconveational morality is so rare that no clear evidence exists that Kolberg’ Stage 6 actualy follows Stage 5."The highest stage of moral development is 2 matter of speculation. “ARE KOHLBERG'S STAGES ORGANIZED WHOLES? «If each of Kohlberg’s stages forms an organized whole, then individuals should use the same level of moral reasoning across many tasks and situations —not jst for hypothetical dlem- ‘ms but for everycay moral problems a5 well In focusing on hypothetical dileramas, Kohlberg emphasized the rational ‘weighing of alternatives but neglected other intivences on moral judgment. When researchers asked adolescents and adults to recall and discuss a reallife moral dilerama, they focused most ofen on relationships—whether to continue helping fiend who is taking advantage of ou, whether to live with your mother or with you father after their separa~ tion. Although participants mentioned reasoning 26 the most frequent strategy for resolving these dilemmas, they ‘Mean Percentage of Reasoning Longitudinal trends ia moral reasoning at cach stage a Kohiberg's 20-year study of adolescant boys. Hote that as tho lowe slages decline, Stage &ressaning increases slowly nd ‘gradual with ago, eventual becoming the ypcal response, ‘om A oy Losey Lib 6 Leber, 0,“ Laren SSG are uapmesttonoyap ote sce fr enue Delran (igen ep ty arr) Sule Pop eo Ta Sey or esmorch = ‘Agel Years 491