Psychology - Moral Development

In this video, we're learning about moral development. So we'll cover moral development and Piaget's two-stage theory, Kohlberg's 1958 study and stages of moral reasoning, and finally an evaluation of Kohlberg's theory. We use the term moral development to describe the process of how we acquire a sense of right and wrong as we grow from childhood into adulthood. This includes learning to distinguish between ethical and unethical behavior, and also understanding why certain actions are considered moral while others aren't. One of the earliest theories of moral development came from Piaget in 1932, who proposed that children progress through two distinct stages in their moral thinking. He called the first stage heteronormous morality, and this typically occurs in younger children. During this stage, children view rules as fixed and unchangeable, almost like they've been handed down by some higher authority and must be followed without question. A child in this stage might insist that the rules of a board game can never be changed, because rules are just rules. The second stage is called autonomous morality, and this develops as children get older. In this stage, children begin to understand that rules are actually social arrangements that we can negotiate and modify them if everyone agrees. So that same child, now older, might be happy to change the rules of the board game to make it more fun, as long as all the players agree to the new rules and apply them consistently. They also start to consider intentions behind actions rather than just the outcomes. So someone who accidentally steals too much money from the bank in the game might be judged less harshly than someone who deliberately steals the money when they think no one is looking. Building on Piaget's foundation, a psychologist called Kohlberg carried out a study to understand how moral reasoning develops in 1958. He presented boys aged 10, 13, and 16 with moral dilemmas and asked them to explain their thinking. The most famous of these is the Heinz dilemma, which goes like this. A woman is dying of cancer and there's a drug that can save her life, but the pharmacist charges 10 times what it costs to make. The woman's husband, Heinz, can't afford it, and he asks the pharmacist to sell it cheaper or let him pay later, but the pharmacist refuses. Should Heinz steal the drug to save his wife? Kohlberg wasn't interested in whether people said yes or no. Instead, what mattered to him was their reasoning behind their thinking. From the responses he collected, Kohlberg identified three main levels of development, pre-conventional morality, conventional morality, and post-conventional morality, and each of these contains two stages, giving us six stages in total. First, pre-conventional morality, which Kohlberg proposed is typical of young children, focuses on consequences like punishment and reward. At stage one, moral decisions are based on avoiding punishment, so someone might reason At stage two, decisions are based on self-interest and seeking rewards for yourself personally, so they might think Heinz should steal the drug because then his wife can look after him when he's ill, where here the focus is on how Heinz is rewarded from it. Second, conventional morality focuses on social approval and following rules. Kohlberg suggested conventional morality develops during adolescence and that it's also where most adults remain. In stage three, moral decisions are based on social approval and keeping good relationships, so someone might reason Heinz should steal the drug because that's what a good husband would do, or alternatively, Heinz shouldn't steal it because people will think he's a criminal. At stage four, decisions are based on following rules and maintaining social order, so the reasoning becomes Heinz shouldn't steal the drug because stealing is against the law, and if everyone broke the law whenever they wanted, society would fall apart. Then the third level, post-conventional morality, focuses on broader ethical principles, and Kohlberg believed only some adults reach this level. At stage five, people's decisions are based on recognizing that laws are social contracts that exist to serve the greater good, but they can be changeable when they conflict with more important values. Someone at this stage might reason saving a life is more important than protecting property, so even though it's normally wrong, stealing is justified for Heinz. At stage six, individuals follow universal ethical principles that they believe apply to everyone. Rather than weighing up competing interests, like in stage five, they see protecting human life as a fundamental duty. Someone at this stage might reason Heinz isn't just allowed to steal the drug, he has to, because letting someone die when you could save them is always wrong, regardless of what any law says. Based on his research, Kohlberg claimed that these stages were universal across all cultures, meaning everyone progresses through the same sequence of moral development regardless of where they grow up. Finally, let's evaluate Kohlberg's theory by considering some of the criticisms that have been raised. Gilligan in 1982 argued that Kohlberg's model was male-centered, because his original research was conducted only on male participants. Gilligan proposed that women tend to approach moral decisions differently, by focusing more on care and relationships rather than abstract principles of justice. She called this the ethics of care, and suggested that it represents a different, but equally valid form of moral reasoning that Kohlberg's model overlooks. Another limitation is that the theory may contain cultural bias. Kohlberg placed reasoning based on individual rights and personal principles at the highest stage, which reflects the values of individualistic cultures like the US and UK, where personal independence and individual achievement are highly valued. However, in collectivist cultures, which are cultures that prioritize group harmony and community over individual needs, moral reasoning focused on maintaining social relationships might actually be considered more mature. Put simply, what Kohlberg saw as lower-stage reasoning might be valued differently in other parts of the world. A further issue is the gap between moral reasoning and actual moral behavior. Just because someone can reason at a higher level doesn't mean they actually will in real-life situations. Research has shown that people's actions don't always match their stated moral principles, suggesting that understanding moral development requires more than just examining how people think about hypothetical dilemmas. If you haven't heard yet, you can find all of our videos on our website, cognito.org. You'll also find questions, flashcards, exam-style questions, and past papers. And we track all of your progress so that you always know what to study next. So sign up for free by clicking here, or browse our playlist here on YouTube.