DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING

To read up on the development of thinking, refer to pages 347–358 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.

Ask yourself

  • How do young children judge right from wrong? How does their judgement differ from that of adults (if it does)?
  • Is it ever right to break the law? If so, under what circumstances?
  • When it comes to morality, do you and others say one thing and do another?

What you need to know

KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING / EISENBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING
  • Description, research findings, evaluation
/
  • Description, research findings, evaluation

Morality implies “a set of principles or ideals that help the individual to distinguish right from wrong and act on this distinction” (Shaffer, 1993).

KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING

This theory is mainly concerned with the cognitive component of morality—of how we think about moral issues and decide between right and wrong. It consists of six stages on three levels as shown in the table below. According to Kohlberg:

  • Everyone passes through the stages in the same order (1–6) with no stages being skipped.
  • Progression through the stages depends on cognitive development. For example, an individual must have a certain level of abstract reasoning before the later stages can be reached.

LEVEL / THE BASIS OF MORALITY / CHARACTERISICS OF THE STAGES
Level 1:
Pre-conventional morality / Right and wrong determined by rewards and punishment / Stage 1:Punishment and obedience
If an action is punished it is wrong.
Stage 2:Reward
The right way to behave is the way that is rewarded.
Level 2:
Conventional morality / Morality based on what others think: avoidance of blame; seeking approval / Stage 3:Good boy/nice girl
Acting morally consists of doing what other people approve of.
Stage 4:Law and order
Morality is what the law says is right or wrong. You should do your duty.
Level 3:
Post-conventional morality / Abstract notions of justice.
Rights of others can override obedience to laws and rules / Stage 5: Social contract, legalistic
Laws and rules should be upheld in order to preserve social order but they can be changed.
Stage 6: Universal ethical principles
Morality involves following self-chosen ethical principles. Your own conscience is more important than the law.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
  • Kohlberg (1976; see A2 Level Psychology page 350) studied 72 boys aged 10–16 using the Heinz dilemma and other dilemma stories. All participants progressed through the moral stages in the predicted sequence. Only about 10% of people in their 30s reached stage 5; all the rest remained at level 2, mainly stage 4. There were virtually none in stage 6.
  • Walker, de Vries, and Trevethan (1987; see A2 Level Psychology page 351) found agreement with Kohlberg but put forward nine stages to account for the fact that people often fell between two stages.
  • Kohlberg (1969; see A2 Level Psychology page 351) studied several other cultures and found the same stages but slower progress in the non-industrialised countries.
  • Snarey (1985; see A2 Level Psychology page 351) reviewed 44 studies from 27 cultures and found that people went through the first four stages at approximately the same age but there was more evidence of stage 5 reasoning in Western cultures than in most rural or village cultures. Snarey argues that this does not imply superior moral reasoning in Western cultures but greater emphasis on individualistic ideals and less on the collectivist ideal of doing what is expected by others (stages 3, 4).
  • Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey (1974; see A2 Level Psychology page 351) found that girls aged 11–12 who showed stage 5 moral reasoning were also good at abstract reasoning (supporting Kohlberg’s view that it is necessary to reach a certain level of cognitive development in order to progress through the stages of moral development). However, some girls with high abstract reasoning ability did not show high level moral reasoning indicating that the ability to think abstractly is a necessary but not a sufficient requirement for someone to attain stage 5 of post-conventional morality.
  • Denton and Krebs (1990; see A2 Level Psychology page 352) found that moral reasoning is not consistent across different problems and in different contexts. For example, it is lower in a social setting when students had been drinking than in a more formal sober setting. This contradicts Kohlberg’s theory.
  • Kutnick and Brees (1982; see A2 Level Psychology page 352), in a review, found little relationship between what people say and what they actually do. This means that moral reasoning does not closely predict moral behaviour.
EVALUATION
  • Androcentric bias. Gilligan criticised Kohlberg for producing a theory centred around how men approach moral decisions. She believes that males develop a morality of justice (based on laws and moral principles) whilst girls develop a morality of care (based on human wellbeing and compassion for others). Gilligan and Attanucci (1988; see A2 Level Psychology page 353) demonstrated this using real-life dilemmas rather than hypothetical ones but their numbers were small and their method of interviewing open to bias. Jaffee and Hyde (2000; see A2 Level Psychology page 353), in a large scale review, found only small differences between men and women in the direction predicted by Gilligan and concluded that, although different moral orientations exist, they are not associated with gender.
  • Detailed and accurate account of moral reasoning well supported by research.
  • Cross-cultural support. Children in nearly all cultures go through the same stages of moral reasoning as predicted by the theory.
  • Evidence of predicted relationship between cognitive development and moral reasoning.This was demonstrated by Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey (1974).
  • Not all stages are equally important. Few people progress beyond stage 4, suggesting that stages 5 and 6 are less important in real life.
  • Evidence based on artificial dilemmas. This may be why there is only a very weak relationship between behaviour and moral reasoning. This means the theory has little predictive value in terms of predicting how people will actually behave.
  • Moral reasoning not consistent across different problems.
  • Emotional component of morality (e.g. shame and guilt) not considered.
  • Too little attention to differences in moral reasoning across cultures.
EISENBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING

Eisenberg concentrated on pro-social moral reasoning: acting in a positive way when someone is in need. Eisenberg’s theory concentrates on the emotional component of moral understanding.
She argued that:

  • Empathy is a fundamental part of moral development. Empathy is the power to feel as someone else does and therefore to understand how they are feeling. There are two components of empathy:
  • Sympathy—a feeling of sorrow or concern for someone else.
  • Personal distress—a feeling of discomfort, misery, or anxiety to someone else’s situation.
  • Sympathy leads to pro-social behaviour whereas personal distress does not.
  • Moral reasoning progresses in stages that parallel cognitive abilities.
The stages of Eisenberg’s theory
LEVEL / MAIN ORIENTATION / DESCRIPTION / AGE (approx.)
Level 1 / Self-centred / Concern only for oneself / Up to 7 years
Level 2 / Needs orientated / Considers needs of others but experiences little guilt if no help is given / 7–11 years
Level 3 / Approval orientated / Will only help others if rewarded by praise and approval / 11–14 years
Level 4 / Empathic / Is concerned to do what is right. Has sympathy for the person in need and feels guilty if help is not given / 12 years
Level 5 / Internalised / Helping behaviour is based strongly on internalised beliefs and values / 16 years and over
RESEARCH EVIDENCE

Eisenberg used moral dilemma stories in which a child (adult) is give a situation and asked if they would help (see A2 Level Psychology page 355 for an example).

  • Eisenberg et al. (1983; see A2 Level Psychology pages 355–356) assessed the same children at 4½, 6, and 7½ years and found a steady decrease in self-centredness reasoning. There was only a small relationship between pro-social reasoning and moral reasoning, as assessed by Kohlberg-type dilemmas, indicating that they are measuring different aspects of moral reasoning.
  • With respect to mothering, younger children develop pro-social reasoning when they receive supportive and empathic mothering; older children develop it if given non-authoritarian mothering with encouragement to be independent.
  • Eisenberg et al. (1999; see A2 Level Psychology page 356) followed up some of these children at 19–20 years of age. Children showing the most pro-social behaviour had the highest levels of sympathy. Personal distress was negatively correlated with pro-social behaviour but only moderately. Both of these findings support the theory.
  • Radke-Yarrow and Zahn-Waxler (1984; see A2 Level Psychology page 356) found evidence of empathy and sympathy in children as young as 18 months. Other studies support this.
EVALUATION
  • Focuses on positive aspects of moral development. It provides an alternative view from many theorists, including Kohlberg, who focus on breaking the law or rules (on doing wrong, not on doing right).
  • Provides new dimensions in moral reasoning. It has extended our knowledge of moral reasoning to include emotional aspects.
  • Supported by research findings. As reported above.
  • Has important applications. It has demonstrated what type of parenting best produces pro-social behaviour so can be used in providing advice to parents.
  • It is difficult to distinguish between various emotional states. The distinction between empathy, sympathy, and personal distress is difficult yet essential to the theory.
  • It ignores important aspects of morality. It does include rule/law breaking, which is an important part of moral reasoning.
  • Empathy starts earlier than the theory predicts.
  • It uses artificial dilemmas. This means that the response to a dilemma only weakly predicts moral behaviour as behaviour depends on additional factors.

So what does this mean?

The study of moral development has traditionally been concerned with the breaking of rules and laws and the circumstances, if any, under which people believe this to be acceptable. The research of Eisenberg took a different tack and looked at pro-social morality, the conditions under which people would help others in need. Both approaches have used dilemma stories and have therefore accessed attitudes to how people believe they and others should behave rather than how they actually behave. The relationship between attitudes and behaviour has always been tenuous and morality is no exception—it is often difficult to predict how an individual will behave from their attitudes as they often do not behave as they believe they would or should. This is because there are numerous factors other than attitudes that determine behaviour. Therefore, useful as these theories are, they tell us more about the development of moral thinking than of the actual moral behaviour of individuals.

Over to You

Describe and evaluate one theory of moral understanding. (25 marks)