Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
OVERVIEW
American Psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), developed a comprehensive stage theory of moral development in 1958. Based on Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment for children, Kohlberg’s theory is cognitive in nature and focuses on the thinking process that occurs when one decides whether a behavior is “right or wrong.” Emphasis is on how one decides to respond to a moral dilemma – not what one decides or how they proceed/act.[1]
BACKGROUND
For decades, moral psychology primarily utilized various developmental models (i.e., psychoanalytic theories, social-learning theory, cognitive-developmental theory, etc.) which focused on different socialization experiences to both explain and interpret an individual’s moral development over time.[2-7] Particularly in the moral judgment of mature adults, these developmental models emphasized reasoning and higher cognition (not intuition).[8-10]
Herzog and Einat note that developmental theories of moral reasoning maintain five common mutual principles; as development can cease at any point along the continuum, a cross-section of any population would theoretically show a distribution of persons each of the following stages.:
Development involves modifications in cognitive structures or qualitative reasoning patterns;
Development takes place through an invariant sequence of stages that is similar for all human beings;
Development occurs across a continuum, in which structures become gradually more complex;
The fundamental logic used at each developmental phase appears to be akin across situations;
The stages are hierarchical integrations that enable persons to understand all stages below and one stage above their diagnosed stage of reasoning.[11]
In the 1930s, psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) developed a theory of cognitive development to explain how a child constructs a mental model of the world. Piaget disagreed with the notion that intelligence was a fixed and innate trait, regarding cognitive development as a process which occurs due to biological maturation and interaction with the environment. By observing that interaction, Piaget was able to perceive how children created schemas that shaped their perceptions, cognitions, and judgment of the world. In Piaget’s model, a child’s development fell into four sequential periods:[12,13]
The sensorimotor period from birth through the first 18 to 24 months;
The pre-operations period between the approximate ages of two and seven years old;
The concrete operations period that begins around age seven and continues through about 11 years old
The formal operations period that begins around age 11 and continues through adolescence.
Piaget found that children develop the ability to distinguish between the harmfulness of an act and its moral wrongness as they age. Consequently, children 12 years and older can consider an action as morally wrong even when it generally causes no concrete harm, such as in the case of lying. Children of this age can also perceive an action that results in substantial harm as morally blameless, if it occurs by accident or is committed under duress or in self-defense.[14]
THEORETICAL COMPONENTS
Kohlberg’s schema or moral stage theory expands upon Piaget’s work and hypothesizes that (a) all individuals in all cultures progress in moral reasoning through a sequence of six separate chronological stages, (b) moral values and codes are developed from the interaction between the individual and the environment, and (c) moral judgment is characterized in accordance with how a person reasons their delinquent behavior rather than what a person thinks about its content.[15-17]
Kohlberg theorized the following three levels with six successive stages of moral development[18,19]:
Level 1: (Stages 1 & 2) Pre-Conventional Level
At the preconventional level, morality is externally controlled. Rules imposed by authority figures are conformed to in order to avoid punishment or receive rewards. This perspective involves the idea that what is right is what one can get away with or what is personally satisfying.
Stage 1: Punishment/obedience orientation
Behavior is determined by consequences. An individual’s right course of action involves blind compliance to authority to avoid punishment and keep away from trouble. The well-being of other people is not acknowledged at this stage;
Stage 2: Instrumental purpose orientation
Behavior is still determined by consequences, however this time the individual focuses on receiving rewards or satisfying personal needs. Moral decisions are predicated on concerns as the prevention of punishment and the furtherance of one’s own self-interests. To do so, one must engage in interactions and agreements with other individuals. Consequently, others are important in an instrumental sense, in deal-making scenarios;
Level 2: (Stages 3 & 4) Conventional Level
At the conventional level, conformity to social rules and norms remain important. However, the emphasis now shifts from self-interest to relationships with other people and social systems. In an effort to win approval or to maintain social order, one strives to follow guidelines set forth by socializing agents.
Stage 3: Moral reasoning is internally motivated by faithfulness to other individuals and by a desire to live up to what is expected by significant others. Behavior is determined by social approval as one desires to be viewed as a “good person.”
Stage 4: Social rules and laws determine behavior. One begins to take into consideration a larger perspective: societal laws. Believing that the rules and laws maintaining social order are worth preserving, decisions become based in adherence of the norms and regulations of varied social institutions (such as the family, the community, and the country).
Level 3: (Stages 5 & 6) Post-Conventional or Principled Level
At the postconventional level, one moves beyond the perspective of his or her own society. Morality becomes defined in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies. The individual attempts to take the perspective of all individuals.
Stage 5: Moral reasoning follows the utilitarian concept of a social contract: weighing certain rights, morals, and legal principles against the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. Individual rights determine one’s behavior as laws and rules become flexible tools (i.e. there are exceptions to rules.) When laws are not consistent with individual rights, interests of the majority, nor do they bring about good for people, then alternatives should be considered.
Stage 6: Moral decisions become generated by several ethical ideologies of justice at this stage, which Kohlberg considered this is the highest stage of functioning. However, he claimed that some individuals will never reach this level. At this stage, the appropriate action is determined by one’s self-chosen ethical principles of conscience. This higher-reasoning involves taking the perspective of every person or group that could potentially be affected by the decision.
Since the development of Kohlberg’s theory, instruments measuring moral reasoning have been constructed. Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview (1969) is a comprehensive structured interview requiring trained interviewers and scorers. Other moral judgment tests include: The Defining Issues Test developed by James Rest (1974), the Sociomoral Reflection Measure by Gibbs et al. (1982), the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure by DeHaan et al. (1997), the Padua Moral Judgment Scare by Comunian (2004) and the Moral Judgment Test by Comunian and Gielen (2006). These measures, ranging from projective tests to structured, objective assessments, consist of a set of hypothetical stories involving moral dilemmas.[20,21]
DISCUSSION AND CRITICISM
Numerous studies investigating moral reasoning based on Kohlberg’s theory have confirmed its basic tenets. Cross-sectional data have shown that older individuals tend to use higher stages of moral reasoning when compared with younger individuals. Longitudinal studies report “upward” progression, in accordance with Kohlberg’s theoretical order of stages. In addition, research has revealed that comprehension of the stages is cumulative, in that a person understands the stages beneath their current level; however, they do not necessarily understand the higher stages as comprehension of these stages is increasingly difficult. Further, data support the claim that every individual progresses through the same sequence of development; however, rates of development vary.[22] Additionally, Kaplan found it is not only is it rare to rely on a single stage, it is common to use cognitive strategies that are characteristic of as many as three or four stages as dynamic motivational structures in moral judgment.[23]
In a comprehensive and systematic review, Gibbs et al. (2007) concluded, “Our review bolsters the conclusion that Kohlberg was, in principle, correct regarding the universality of basic moral judgment development, moral values, and related social perspective-taking processes across cultures.”[24]
Kohlberg’s theory, though extremely influential, has received significant theoretical and empirical criticism during the past three decades.
In the 1980s, psychologist Carol Gilligan argued Kohlberg’s theory was based on research that used only boys as subjects, universalizing patterns of moral development exhibited by boys while ignoring the distinct patterns characteristic of girls.[25]
One theoretical criticism relates to moral psychology’s emphasis on the role of intuitive and emotional processes in human moral judgment and decision making.[26] Intuitionist approaches offer that moral judgment is caused by quick moral intuitions and emotions, followed by slow, ex-post facto moral reasoning.[27] Therefore, intuitionists argue that moral judgments occur as intuitions, generated by automatic cognitive processes, and that the main role of conscious reasoning is not to generate moral judgments - but actually to provide a post-hoc basis for moral justification.[28-30]
Kohlberg’s theory assumed that moral reasoning, moral judgment, and moral behavior are directly interrelated. However, Blasi and Rothman concluded that, although moral reasoning, moral judgment, and moral behavior are interrelated, such relationships are less direct and much more complex than Kohlberg assumes. Specifically, moral reasoning and moral judgment seem to influence moral behavior, but in interaction with other situational and personal dimensions.[31,32]
Additionally, Kohlberg’s moral development theory postulated that stage development, whenever it takes place, should take place in order. Therefore, none of the stages should be skipped nor should development revert to earlier stages except possibly in cases of brain injury or illness. Although individuals’ growth may cease at any stage in the sequence, development should always do so toward the next stage. Various gerontological-developmental models[33] and life span theories[34] have pointed out that this model of moral development is not the only one, indicating multidirectional change may occur.
Kohlberg assumed that sociomoral experience, regularly investigated in adulthood via higher education, is an important prerequisite of moral development. However, Pratt, Pancer, Pratt, and Hunsberger (1994) found that postconventional reasoning remains elusive among individuals who have completed advanced education.[35] Other studies support this notion, finding higher education does not affect moral reasoning.[36-38]
Snarey (1985) did not agree with Kohlberg that cultural groups, in which some members used postconventional reasoning, were necessarily more complex or advanced cultures. Objecting to Kohlberg’s social evolutionism, Snarey pointed to anthropological evidence that economically and technologically simple cultures can be complex in many ways (e.g. in language and belief systems) and that members of these cultures, even without the experience of higher education, can reason about their customs and norms, not simply blindly conforming to them. The differences between Kohlberg and Snarey lay in the perception of the postconventional stages. Where Kohlberg saw the summit of social evolution, Snarey notes one particular philosophical tradition; thus, pointing out the problem of monocultural bias.[39,40]
Regardless of criticism, Kohlberg’s moral developmental theory has endured to become an established psychological and philosophical paradigm.[41,42] With his challenge to moral relativism, advancement of a cognitive developmental approach to morality, dilemma-based assessment method, six-stage model, and universality claims, Kohlberg has become one of the most frequently cited names in the social and behavioral sciences.[43] His stage theory of moral development continues to be represented in virtually every contemporary developmental psychology textbook.[44]
Contributed by: Jennifer (Ghahari) Smith, Ph.D.
REFERENCES
1 “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development,” Britannica: Psychology & Mental Health. (accessed 7-26-2020). www.britannica.com/science/Lawrence-Kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-development
2 Dewey, J. (1930). From absolutism to empiricism. Later Works, 5, 147-160.
3 Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement of ego development. American Psychologist, 21, 195-206.
4 Mead, G. E. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5 Piaget, J. (1932). Le judgment moral chez l‘enfant (The moral judgment of the child, Gabain, M. , Trans.). London, England: Kegan Paul.
6 Sullivan, C., Grant, M. Q., Grant, J. D. (1957). The development of interpersonal maturity: Applications to delinquency. Psychiatry, 20, 373-385.
7 Walker, L., Hennig, K., Krettenauer, T. (2000). Parent and peer contexts for children’s moral reasoning development. Child Development, 71, 1033-1048.
8 Cushman, F., Young, L., Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment. Psychological Science, 17, 1082-1089.
9 Gibbs, J. C., Schnell, S. (1985). Moral development “versus” socialization: A critique. American Psychologist, 40, 1071-1080.
10 Pizarro, D. A., Bloom, P. (2003). The intelligence of the moral intuitions: Comment on Haidt (2001). Psychological Review, 110, 193-198.
11 Kohlberg, L., Colby, A., Gibbs, J., Speicher-Dubin, B., Power, C. (1977). Assessing moral stages: A manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Center for Moral Education.
12 Viarouge A, Houdé O, Borst G. The progressive 6-year-old conserver: Numerical saliency and sensitivity as core mechanisms of numerical abstraction in a Piaget-like estimation task. Cognition. 2019 Sep;190:137-142.
13 Laranjeira C, Campos C, Bessa A, Neves G, Marques MI. Mental Health Recovery Through "Art Therapy": A Pilot Study in Portuguese Acute Inpatient Setting. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2019 May;40(5):399-404.
14 Piaget, J. (1932).
15 Bartek, S. E., Krebs, D. L., Taylor, M. C. Coping, defending, and the relations between moral judgment and moral behavior in prostitutes and other female juvenile delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1993;102, 66-73.
16 Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In Lickona, T. (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 31-53). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
17 Lickona, T. (1983). Raising good children. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
18 Kohlberg, L. (Ed.). (1981). Essays in moral development: The philosophy of moral development (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
19 “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development,” Britannica: Psychology & Mental Health.
20 Ibid.
21 Gibbs, JC. Basinger, KS. Grime, RL. Snarey, JR. Moral Judgment Development Across Cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s Universality Claims. Developmental Review. 2007;27:443-500.
22 “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development,” Britannica: Psychology & Mental Health.
23 Kaplan, U. Moral Motivation Based on Multiple Developmental Structures: An Exploration of Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics. Journal of Genetic Psychology. May/Jun2014; 175:181-201.
24 Gibbs, JC. Basinger, KS. Grime, RL. Snarey, JR. (2007).
25 “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development,” Britannica: Psychology & Mental Health.
26 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.
27 Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York, NY: Free Press.
28 Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
29 Haidt, J. (2001).
30 Simon, H. A. (1992). What is an “explanation” of behavior? Psychological Science, 3, 150-161.
31 Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1-45.
32 Rothman, G. R. (1980). The relationship between moral judgment and moral behavior. In Windmiller, M., Lambert, N., Turiel, E. (Eds.), Moral development and socialization (pp. 107-127). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
33 Salthouse, T. (1993). The information-processing perspective on cognitive aging. In Sternberg, R., Berg, C. (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 261-277). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34 Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611-626.
35 Pratt, M., Pancer, M., Pratt, A., Hunsberger, B. (1994). Perspective-taking and moral reasoning in later life: A longitudinal study. Poster presented at the Canadian Psychological Association meeting, Penticton, British Columbia.
36 Commons, M. L., Armon, C., Richards, F. A., Schrader, D., Farrell, E., Tappan, M., Bauer, N. (1989). A multidomain study of adult development. In Commons, M., Sinnott, J., Richards, F., Armon, C. (Eds.), Adult development: Comparisons and applications of developmental models (pp. 33-56). New York, NY: Praeger.
37 Nucci, L., Pascarella, E. (1987). The influence of college on moral development. In Smart, J. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 271-326). New York, NY: Agathon.
38 Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
39 Gibbs, JC. Basinger, KS. Grime, RL. Snarey, JR. (2007).
40 Snarey, J., Keljo, K. Revitalizing the Meaning and Measurement of Moral Development Human Development, 37 (1994), pp. 181-186.
41 Jenks, D. (2000). Social developmental theory. Justice Professional, 12, 507-532.
42 Stevenson, S., Hall, G., Innes, J. M. (2004). Rationalizing criminal behavior: The influence of criminal sentiments on socio-moral development in violent offenders and non-offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 161-174.
43 Haggbloom, S.J., Warnick, J.E.; Jones, V.K., Yarbrough, G.L., Russell, T.M. The 100 Most Emonent Psychologists of the Twentieth Century. Review of General Psychology, 6 (2000), pp. 139-152.
44 Gibbs, JC. Basinger, KS. Grime, RL. Snarey, JR. (2007).