Lawrence Kohlbergs Moral Development Theory By Karly Girod

Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory: By: Karly Girod and Haley Golden

Who was Lawrence Kohlberg? – Kohlberg grew up in Bronxville, New York in 1927 – Right after high school he did not go straight to college – In 1948 Kohlberg enrolled at the University of Chicago – Kohlberg was going to become a clinical psychologist until he became interested in Piaget theory, he then started interviewing children and adolescents on moral issues – Kohlberg taught at the University of Chicago from 1962 -1968 and at Harvard from 1968 -until his death in 1987. – Kohlberg suffered from a tropical disease and bouts of depression during his last 20 years of his life – At the age of 59 Kohlberg committed suicide by drowning.

Key Terms Preconventional morality- concerns a child-like approach to right and wrong. Conventional morality- To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations Postconventional Morality- is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles.

Key Terms Continued: Socializing agents- is an agent in the human system, such a people, nations, organizations, cultures, and ideologies. These socializing agents influence the moral development of children and adolescents. Unverbalizable Prescriptions- notion of rule or principle in turn requires logical moral judgment In doing so I provided the best optimal customer service. I was also in charge of training some of my peers and helping organize and restock supplies. I have received many promotions from this job

Kohlberg’s theory Kohlberg believed that there are three levels of moral development. Within those three levels there are two stages in each one. The three levels and their components are: 1 2 3 Preconventional stage: (410) II. Conventional stage (ages 10 -13). III. Post Conventional (adolescents- adulthood) • Stage 1: Order and Punishment • Stage 2: Instrumental- Relativist Orientation • Stage 3: Good Boy: Nice Girl Orientation • Stage 4: Law and order orientation • Stage 5: Social contract • Stage 6: Universal and ethnical Principles

Pre- Conventional: Ages 4 -10 Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment A child’s moral judgment is motivated by a need to avoid judgement. An example of this is, If I obey it is right and if I disobey it is bad. In this approach you can see a child has no excess opinion they are only doing as they are told, because they want to follow the rules to avoid punishment. Stage 2: Instrumental- Relativist Orientation: A child’s moral judgment is motivated by a need to satisfy ones own desire. An example, of this would to be to clean their room, so that they can watch tv, play video games etc. . In this approach the child only seeks the choice that will bring the most rewards to them.

Conventional: Ages 10 -13 Stage 3 Good Boy: Nice Girl A child's moral judgment is motivated by a need to avoid rejection or disapproval from others. An example of these are tattle tales, and anything that seems pleasing to an adolescent. Childs moral judgment is motivated by a need to not be criticized by an authority figure (parent/ teacher. ) The approach children and adolescents have is that they choice the most common answer instead of being original because of the fear in rejection and being criticized for what they truly believe. Stage 4: Law and Order orientation

Postconventional Ages: adolescence- adulthood Stage 5: Social Contract An individuals moral judgment is motivated by community respect, respecting social order and respect for legal and determined laws. Stage 6: Universal and Ethical Principles An individual’s moral judgment is motivated by his or her own conscience.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s study: – -Kohlberg did a experiment on a dilemma called “Heinz Steals the Drug”. He originally started with 72 boys from middle and low class families, aging 10, 13, and 16. As time progressed, he added younger children, delinquents and boys and girls from other cities and countries. – -Kohlberg gave the children a dilemma about a man stealing a drug for his wife in need, and then he asks them questions like, “Should he have stolen the drug? ” or “Was he violating the druggists rights? ” – -Kohlberg was interested in seeing how people would justify their actions regarding their morality. – - He gave them the dilemma and would record their responses and scored them based on the 6 stages. – - He believed that most of them would have fallen in the 4 th stage and that people could not go in reverse in the stages and could not “leap” forward. As time people live through life, people will go through all the stages. –

Heinz Dilemma: – In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid #400 for the radium and charged $4, 000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tired every legal means, but he could only get together about $2, 000, which I half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it. ” So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.

Our Case Study: Purpose – The purpose of the research study is to find out if there is a significant difference between student athletes and non-student athletes, between male or female, and between the student’s grade level in the moral development of adolescents by using the Heinz dilemma.

Hypothesis: – When evaluated using a Kohlberg moral dilemma, are the responses of student athletes and non-student athletes likely to result in placement in the same or in different stages of moral reasoning? After researching this question, We believe there will be a difference. We believe the athletes will be held to a higher standard because they are on a team and their responses to certain situations will be held by their coaches or their teammates rather than just themselves. This is an example of the third stage of Kohlberg’s theory. It shows how children can tend to make decisions based on their loved ones or their surroundings and not necessarily for themselves. Whether or not they let someone affect their decision. – When evaluated using a Kohlberg moral dilemma, are the responses of male students and female students likely to result in placement in the same or in different stages of moral reasoning? At the high school level, We believe there will be a difference between the male and female responses. Males in high school may not take dilemmas or situations as seriously as females and think deeply in their decisions. With that being said it could be possible for males to be placed in the same stage of moral development because of Kohlberg’s recognition of invariant sequence. Since everyone develops at invariant rate males and females can both be placed in the similar and different stage of moral reasoning. – When evaluated using a Kohlberg moral dilemma, are the responses of students in grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 likely to result in placement in the same or in different stages of moral reasoning? We believe during there will be a difference between grade levels because the higher grades will not only be more mature but have more experience dealing with certain dilemmas and situations throughout their high school years. Again, it's going to depend on factors such as social agents and whether or not they are allowing others around them to dictate their opinion on how they would respond to a dilemma. It can also show constructivism, because as they get older they will actively construct and reconstruct reality. (p. 4). So, throughout their years of high school and growing up, they will learn how to face reality and choices acting in the world. –

What We Did: – We gave the Heinz Dilemma to: – 13 athletes, 16 non athletes – 2 freshmen, 7 sophomores, 11 juniors and 9 seniors – 18 females, and 11 males – When then gave the students the Heinz Dilemma and asked them to answer the following questions: 1. Should Heinz steal the drug? Yes or No (Circle one) Explain why or why not? 2. Is it right or wrong for Heinz to steal the drug? Yes or No (Circle one) Why 3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? Yes or No (Circle one) Explain why or why not. 4. If Heinz doesn’t love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Yes or No (Circle one) Explain why or why not 5. Suppose Heinz’ beloved pet animal were dying instead of his wife. Should Heinz steal to save the pet animal? Yes or why not. No (Circle one) Explain why or 6. Is it against the law for Heinz to steal? Does that make it morally wrong? Yes or No (Circle one) Explain why or why not. 7. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing for Heinz to do? Explain:

Athletes versus Non Athletes: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Female versus Male 8 7 6 5 4 1 2 3 Score 4 Athlete 3 5 2 Non- Athelte 1 0 1 2 3 Score Grade Levels 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 Score Freshmen 3 Sophmore Male Results: 6 0 Female 4 4 Junior 5 Senior 5

Scoring: We Used the following Rubric: – * We disregarded question 5, because they could be bias dependent upon if they liked animals or not. – Then to determine the stage the students we took the average of all questions.

Stage Evidence 1 Kohlberg’s example Our Examples Score of Stage “Stealing is wrong” “Killing is worse than stealing” p. 40 “Wrong cuz stealing is bad. ” “He doesn’t HAVE to. "I'll let him figure that out. ” 1 point 2 Reasons for stealing drugs focus upon interests, needs and exchanges. “His wife needs it, or she will die” “You’d do it if you’d want your wife to stay alive” The druggist was ripping him off. 5 “Because the wife is dying, and if does nothing about it, he will lose her. “ He should steal because it is for a good cause. ” 2 points 3 Stealing drugs centers on motives and norms, for their own sake. “All people are human and deserve to live” “He will feel guilty if he doesn’t” “He has a family and they’ll be upset too” p. 6 -7 Yes, I feel like even if he didn’t love her, he should still steal it because it’s a human life in your hands. ” “It states in the paragraph that the drug could save her, but they don’t know for sure, Therefore, if Heinz steals it he would likely have a guilty conscience even if the drugs works” 3 points 4 Steals drugs to appeal to generalized practices, responsibilities and values. “ His wife is a member of society” People would do anything to save someone’s life, they have a responsibility” “The druggists failed to show responsibility to his fellow man's. 9 -10 “It’s wrong because he is stealing something that is not his property. ” He has an obligation because he loves her and is married to her. ” “Because if his wife lives and he gets caught and goes to court, he may not go to jail. ” “He should steal the drug because the druggist wants to make money from it, denying his wife a chance to live. ” 4 points 5 Steals drugs for the right to or value of life as the fundamental presupposition to social legal values. “The right to life supersedes the right to property” p. 11 No one reached this stage. 5 points

Conclusion: – Our hypothesis that athletes would score higher on the dilemma was true as the average score for athletes was 2. 16. whereas the average score for non-athletes was 2. 15 – Our hypothesis that seniors would score higher on the dilemma was also proven true as the average score for seniors was 2. 61. the average score for juniors are 2, and the average for sophomores was 1. 64. However, the freshmen we interviewed scored higher than the sophomores with an average score of 2. 5. Which we did not think was going to happen. – Our hypothesis that females would score higher was also valid. The average score for females was 2. 19, and the males average score was 2. 01.

– Some of the students we interviewed did not take the dilemma seriously. Limitations: – Some of the students just wrote a yes or no response rather than explaining it, which made it harder to accurately score. – There was a lot of talking when we asked the students to work independently and quietly on the dilemma. – There were not as many freshmen as well as boy as we intended to be in the study.

Extensions: If we did this study again, we would want to go to a private school to see if their scores would have been higher. We would make sure they weren’t sitting at the same table, so they couldn’t turn their answers into a group discussion We would make sure to plan it better next time, and have an equal number of ages and genders.

Nature versus Nurture Nature Rousseau Nurture Kohlberg Locke – The side to which Kohlberg falls on its not very clearly because it can be both. But because Kohlberg’s theory has to do more on the moral development through his six stage theory, it would make it seem as if he was more on the nature side of the line. However, ones moral development is partially dependent upon the up bring of the child. For instance, being taught right and wrong, being held to a high standard etc. .