Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Overview

Piaget provided a set of stages a child goes through during cognitive development. Kohlberg expanded on that, suggesting moral reasoning also progresses in stages. Kohlberg's stages apply from childhood until adulthood.

Kohlberg suggested that there are three levels of moral development. Each level has two of its own 'stages' within it, which expand on the areas of moral understanding the person is going through or has reached. So, we can say that Kohlberg has six stages of moral development overall.

Fig. 1. Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development.

These levels are:

1. Preconventional Reasoning
2. Conventional Reasoning
3. Postconventional Reasoning

As we mentioned above, each level has stages within it.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Theory: The Study Behind It

Kohlberg developed this idea from his study (based on Piaget's initial theories), using a sample of 75 American boys between 10 and 16. He also collected data from boys from Britain, Mexico, Turkey, Canada and Taiwan.

It was a cross-cultural, longitudinal study, occurring over 12 years (they were interviewed every three years up until they were 22 and 28), where the boys were given ten moral dilemmas in the form of stories.

These dilemmas varied and were used to engage the boys in philosophical debates, asking them to think about their morals and how they would approach the situation.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development: Examples

A famous example of one of the stories is the Heinz dilemma.

Kohlberg would then ask the boys in an interview if Heinz was right or wrong in stealing the drug (so the data is qualitative), framing the question differently. He asked if Heinz was justified in his decision or if Heinz should be punished for it.

Alternatively, should the pharmacist be punished for willingly letting a woman die and refusing to give medication that could save her life?

From this, Kohlberg developed his stages of moral development.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development: The 3 Levels and 6 Stages

Kohlberg's stages roughly correspond with certain ages. The ages aren't the most important information, though. Pay attention to the type of reasoning present in each stage.

Level 1: Preconventional Morality

Usually, children aged 4 to 10 revolve around this level, and moral reasoning is based on the following two stages:

Level 2: Conventional Morality

At this level, moral reasoning is based on the next two stages:

Level 3: Postconventional Morality

At this level, moral reasoning is based on the final two stages:

If we were to apply the sixth stage, 'conscience and ethical principle orientation,' to Heinz's dilemma, would it be the correct choice for Heinz to steal the medication for his wife? Is it morally justified? Interestingly, his study found that children of different cultures all pass through the same stages; however, they do so at different rates.

• Taiwanese boys who were aged around 10 to 13 gave stage 2 responses.
• In American boys, those aged 16 had rarely progressed to stage 6. Also, they had not reached stage 3 at age 13.
• 16-year-old American boys gave more stage 5-oriented thinking than Mexico and Taiwan.
• Middle-class children went through the stages more quickly and were more advanced in moral reasoning than working-class children.
• There were no differences in the moral development of children of different religious backgrounds, such as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, or atheists.

People go through the stages of moral development in a fixed order. The order of the stages is universal for all cultures. Middle-class children progress through the stages faster compared to working-class children. The stages are not affected by religious beliefs.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Ages

Issues with Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development Study

As with all studies, we need to assess their reliability and validity. One major issue with Kohlberg's study is that it was gender-biased. It was performed on boys, and thus the results cannot be generalised to girls, significantly reducing the applicability and generalisability of the results! Thus, it also has issues with being androcentric.

The model also has issues with ecological validity in that these hypothetical scenarios are just that - hypothetical. How the boys would actually respond when facing real-life scenarios could differ. It brings into question self-reflection, and social desirability bias is a real concern here. The boys may have answered in a way that makes them appear more morally correct to the researcher.