Evaluation of Kohlbergs theory of moral development

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those good/right
and those that are bad/wrong. The development of morality has been a subject of
investigation for a number of decades, and our understanding of the neuro-biological and
psychological mechanisms has increased manifolds in the last few decades (Srivatsava et. al,
2013). The study of morality within the development psychology has been dominated by
Kohlbergs (1975) theory of moral development. Kohlbergs conception of stages and
predictions of consistency in reasoning is based on Piagets theory of cognitive development.
From the viewpoint of Piaget and Kohlberg, moral development means a change in how
children reason regarding moral issues, their attitudes towards law breaking and their
behaviour when facing moral issues. The present essay thus aims at evaluating the theory of
moral development proposed by Kohlberg. The essay is evaluated by providing an account of
what the cognitive factor implies in the development of morality, the stages proposed by
Kohlberg and finally the strengths and weakness of the theory.

For decades Piagets theory of cognitive development has had a strong impact on the
development of other theories, assessment and clinical work with children. Piaget (1997)
argues that all children develop through three universal stages, developing schemas (abstract
concepts) to understand the world. Piaget and his colleagues (1952) used two methods to
investigate moral development (Krebs & Denton, 2005). They observed playing games such
as marbles and they interviewed children using short scenarios involving moral issues such as
lying, obedience, responsibility and punishment. The question was how children came to
respect rules and how childrens understanding of the nature of these rules changed through
different stages. Piaget found that young children tend to conceptualize morality in terms of
obedience to adults whereas older children tend to conceptualize it in terms of cooperation
with peers. He reasoned this by stating that young children viewed morality in terms of
obedience because of their concrete physical and egocentric ways while their social worlds
were dominated by adults. Older children on the other hand viewed morality in terms of
cooperation among equals because of their cognitive ability to comprehend others
perspectives (Carpendale, 2000).

Kohlberg(1975) further elaborated and modified Piagets work and determined that the
process of attaining moral maturity took longer and was more gradual than Piaget had
proposed. He believed and was able to demonstrate through studies that people progressed in
their moral reasoning through a series of six identifiable stages that could be more generally
classified into three levels. The theory asserts that there are six chronological stages of
change within three levels of moral development (preconventional, conventional and
postconventional) which broadly categorized the way in which children adolescents and
adults view the world (Jenks, 2000). Occurring in sequence, each stage of moral development
develops by encompassing each stage as it increases in cognitive complexity (Wolf, Ron &
Walkters,1996). Specifically, the preconventional level is representative of the child who
interprets cultural labels of good and bad in terms of his or her physical consequences or in
terms of the physical power of those who make the rules of good and bad. In the first stage of
this level children behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do
so. At this stage the child thinks of morality in terms of consequences of disobedience in
order to avoid punishment. The second stage of this level is characterised by a view that right
behaviour means acting in ones best interest. The second conventional level is representative
of the child who maintains the expectations and rules of his or her family groups and
perceives them as valuable. The concern at the stage is not only to conforming but also
maintaining, supporting and justifying as the child begins to grasp social rules and gains a
more objective perspective of right and wrong. Finally, the third stage, the postconventional
stage is characterized by a seeking towards autonomous moral principles that goes beyond
what people say (Davis & Palladino, 2000). Kohlberg (1975) felt that people rarely reached
this level of moral cognitive development. The first stage of this level is an understanding of
social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. Laws are viewed as good but
open to interpretation and change. And the last stage is based on respect for universal
principles and the demands of individual conscience (Barger,2000). Decisions are well-
founded on ones personal conscience transcending laws and regulations (Kirst-Ashman &
Zastrow, 2004)

Choosing a cognitive approach in line with Kohlbergs theory implies that mature thinking
does not depend upon either the genetic or social factors rather, it is a result of the
reorganization of the psychological structures. The theory reflects the idea that people tend to
acquire increasingly sophisticated structures of moral reasoning as they develop (Krebs &
Denton, 2005). Emphasis can thus be seen on not what the participants in the experiment in
each stage answered but rather the reasoning behind the answer. The theory takes a cognitive
approach because it recognizes that moral education has its basis in stimulating the active
thinking of the child about moral issues and decisions (Smith & Pellegrini, 2000). Logic of a
persons reason influences moral behaviour in accordance with his or her judgement from the
view of a cognitive development approach Furthermore, it implies that the way people
conceptualize these issues are grounded in their understanding of justice, rights, fairness and
welfare of other individuals. Moral judgement is hence a direct consequence of cognitive
development where each stage lead to a certain type of behaviour (Soderhamn et. al. 2011).
These stages are structured wholes or organized systems of thought that emerge from our
thinking about the moral problems. Social experiences do promote development but they do
so by stimulating our mental processes. As we progress through stages we find our views
questioned and challenged and are therefore motivated to come up with new more
comprehensive positions. Kohlberg (1971) thus believes that children go though a sequence
from stage 1 to stage 2 and so on without skipping stages. Kohlberg also asserted that the
theory was universal stating that different cultures do teach different beliefs but that his
stages refer not to specific beliefs but to underlying modes of reasoning (Kohlberg &
Gilligan, 1971).

Accordingly, the strength of the theory lies in the fact that it is simplistic and comprehensive
across development and cultures that are explained through six qualitatively different
sequential stages that are very useful in evaluating a clients or students current functioning.
Individuals can be seen to be consistence in their level of moral judgement thus making the
empirical study of moral judgement valid and reliable (Vozzola, 2014). Kohlbergs theory can
be used as a common ground that can serve as a guidance for individuals in various setting
like education. Kohlbergs theory has provided us with a multifaceted conception of morality
that includes analysis of the integration of thoughts, emotions, actions and development.
Necessary aspects of morality are captured through the emphasis on how, starting at an early
age individuals attempt to understand their social worlds, deal with how people should relate
to each other, engage in reciprocal interactions and construct judgements about welfare,
justice and rights (Turiel, 2008). It should also be noted that Kohlbergs theory was not just
descriptive but also prescriptive, in that his study could be an aid for the parenting and
education (Gibbs & Simpson, 2003). The theory has widespread influence and has been
embraced by many educators and child development practitioners. By describing structure
rather than content, the theory provides a strong challenge to moral relativism as well as
criteria for evaluating why some moral standpoints are cognitively superior to others
(Vozzola, 2014).
Nevertheless, in spite of the widespread application of the cognitive development of morality,
the theory is subject to various criticisms. Firstly, Kohlbergs study relies heavily on moral
reasoning in responding to hypothetical dilemmas as compared to everyday circumstances.
The resulting stages proposed by him in the theory of moral development was concluded by
asking questions of what one should or would do in the scenario along with explanations
(Saltzstein, 1983). Although the scenarios presented in the study could be applied to
participants at some point they were not relevant in daily moral dilemmas that people come
across in their everyday life. Moral thoughts about hypothetical situations may not adequately
reflect moral thought about practical situations. Often practical moral thoughts lag behind
hypothetical moral thought. The fact that Kohlbergs theory is heavily dependent on an
individuals response to an artificial dilemma one could bring to question the validity of the
results obtained from the research (Vozzola, 2014).

Secondly, the sole focus on the cognitive development of morality has lead to one important
implication: that Kohlberg emphasised more on moral judgement than on moral behaviour
(Gibbs, 1995). Although making moral judgements may be seen as an end in itself, in more
practical everyday life what people do is more important than what they say. Therefore, there
is no guarantee about certainty between individuals intelligence with his or her moral
behavior. Social psychologists have come to recognize the tremendous power of situations in
determining the course of behavior as opposed to belief of abstract principles of morality.
People respond to different kinds of situations by applying different levels of morality and
these are based on societal expectations. For example, people in a business world operate at a
stage 2 while in a marriage situation may work at stage 3 (Fleming, 2006). Research on
prohibited and prosocial behaviors have suggested that structures of moral reasoning
identified by Kohlberg play relatively minor role in the determination of moral behavior
(Krebs & Janicki, 2004).

Thirdly, Kohlbergs claims of universality have also been questioned on numerous occasions.
Analysis of this claim in various studies have found that the model does not take into account
indigenous concepts that were fundamental to a specific culture. Baek (2002) conducted a
cross cultural study from which it was deduced that Kohlbergs model in itself was
insufficient to explain moral reasoning of children. He suggested that cultural influences were
to be considered as it played an important role in the development of moral reasoning. In
another study conducted on Indian children using Kohlbergs scale of moral development it
was found that the model failed to consider some important parameters of culture that
influenced moral reasoning and development (Lakhani,2014). Kohlbergs framework thus
does not incorporate the higher morals that some cultures embrace such as values of
relatedness to communal equity, unity and sacredness of all life forms in India and so on
(Halstead & Taylor, 2000). The concepts of postconventional morality reflect western
philosophical ideal based on individual freedom and rights. Kohlberg himself questioned the
universality of the last two stages finding that people rarely reached stage 6 (Fleming, 2006).
Responses to moral dilemmas in different communities fall at varying positions on this scale
with lower performance in communities other than those in which the scale was developed.
In many societies most adults respond in such moral dilemmas in Kohlbergs stage 3. They
refer this notion that society is built on mutual resilience, interdependence and agreements
associated with special role relations such as parent to child or friend to friend. Most justify
morality as conformity to the groups preferences and do not report that there are higher
order obligations that take priority over the will of the group (as in the higher stages of
Kohlbergs systems). The research often treats peoples justifications for their statements as
an indicator of their moral approach to life (Lakhani,2014). Cultural research has suggested
that moral reasoning scale may also reflect the system of values and political structure of the
societies of the researchers. The scale may not apply to people functioning in other political
systems (Lotfabadi, 2008). Kohlbergs theory is thus biased to western individualistic
cultures as opposed to collectivists cultures. It is not possible to correctly assess the moral
development of adolescents, youths and adults in different cultures by tests that are prepared
for the western culture.

Fourthly, Kohlbergs methodology has been criticised as being gender biased. Kohlbergs
theory contented that men were generally seen to develop higher morality than women.
Gilligan (1982) observed that Kohlbergs stages were derived exclusively from interviews
with males and thus the stages reflect the moral viewpoints of male participants. For males,
advanced moral thought revolved around rules, rights and abstract principles. The conception
of morality in Kohlbergs theory fails to capture female view points. Gillian (1982) argues
that men and women frequently score at different stages because for women, morality centres
not around rights and rules but on interpersonal relationships and the ethics of compassion
and care. She contrasted her morality of care with Kohlbergs morality of justice and
criticized the theory for stressing just on one side of the equation (Dubas, Dubas &
Mehta,2014). The ideal is not impersonal justice but more affliliative ways of living. Women
thus typically score at stage three while men score at 4 or 5 as the scales in the theory were
solely focused on the concept of justice. Thus the scale developed by Kohlberg has been
criticised for being discriminated against women by generally placing them lower based on
the scores on his morality scale.

And finally, emphasis of this one sidedness reflected in Kohlbergs theory implies that justice
encompasses all aspects of what is to be moral neglecting other motivational dimensions of
moral life. Qualities like sympathy, compassion and concerns do not feature in cognitive
biased account of moral development (Arnold, 2001). It is restricted to the way that children
respond to moral dilemmas in relation to justice and is thus not sufficiently complete to
identify and reflect the various aspects and complexities of moral life. Gillians (1982)
objection of Kohlbergs account not only focuses on the way women have been excluded
from the construction of the theory but also brings to lights the striking omissions. In
emphasizing solely on justice he has been accused of disregarding other factors that also
typically associated with morality such as emotion (Arnold, 2000).

In conclusion, there is no doubt that Kohlbergs theory has provided remarkable insights in
the understanding of moral development in various stages. The significant weakness that exist
in the theory cannot completely over shadow the long standing contribution of the theory in
various fields especially education. The areas of consensus indicate progress in the cognitive
development contribution to our understanding of moral judgement. Yet, the application of
the theory must be done with caution. The prevailing weakness casts strong doubts as to the
applicability of the theory of moral development cross culturally. Although the theory may be
seen to be comprehensive, in the light of the existing shortcomings, the theory remains
insufficient. Thus an integration of various other factors like culture, religion compassion and
others may provide a broader and complete picture to our understanding of moral
development.
Reference

Arnold, M. L. (2000). Stage, sequence, and sequels: Changing conceptions of morality, post-
Kohlberg. Educational Psychology Review, 12(4), 365-383.

Arnold, P. J. (2001). Sport, moral development, and the role of the teacher: Implications for research
and moral education. Quest, 53(2), 135-150.

Barger, R. N. (2000). A summary of Lawrence Kohlbergs stages of moral development. University of

Notre Dame. Retrieved on August, 12, 2006.

Baek, H. J. (2002). A comparative study of moral development of Korean and British children. Journal
of moral education, 31(4), 373-391.

Carpendale, J. I. (2000). Kohlberg and Piaget on stages and moral reasoning. Developmental
Review, 20(2), 181-205.

Dubas, K. M., Dubas, S. M., & Mehta, R. (2014). Theories of Justice and Moral Behavior. Journal of
Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 17(2), 17.

Fleming, J. S. (2006). Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, and others on moral development. Retrieved August
12, 2011.

Gibbs, G. (1995). Assessing student centred courses.

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2003, September). Measuring the response of students to assessment: the
Assessment Experience Questionnaire. In 11th Improving Student Learning Symposium (pp. 1-12).

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

Halstead, J. M., & Taylor, M. J. (2000). Learning and teaching about values: A review of recent
research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(2), 169-202.

Jenks, D. A. (2000). Social developmental theory: An integrative approach.Criminal Justice

Studies, 12(4), 507-532.

Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 56(10), 670-677.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. Moral education, 23-92.

Kohlberg, L., & Gilligan, C. (1971). The adolescent as a philosopher: The discovery of the self in a
postconventional world. Daedalus, 1051-1086.

Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: a critical evaluation
of Kohlberg's model. Psychological review,112(3), 629.

Krebs, D., & Janicki, M. (2004). Biological foundations of moral norms. The psychological foundations
of culture, 125-148.

Lakhani, A. Kohlberg in Mumbai: Moral Reasoning of Twenty-first Century Indian Adolescents.

Lotfabadi, H. (2008). Criticism on moral development theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Bandura and
providing a new model for research in Iranian students' moral development.

Piaget, J. (1997). The moral judgement of the child. Simon and Schuster.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 18-1952). New York:
International Universities Press.

Sderhamn, O., Bjrnestad, J. O., Skisland, A., & Cliffordson, C. (2011). construct validity of the Moral
Development Scale for Professionals (MDSP).Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 4, 165.

Saltzstein, H. D. (1983). Critical issues in Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning. A LONGITUDINAL

STUDY OF MORAL JUDGMENT.

Srivastava, C., Dhingra, V., Bhardwaj, A., & Srivastava, A. (2013). Morality and moral development:
Traditional Hindu concepts. Indian journal of psychiatry, 55(6), 283.

Smith, P. K., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2000). Psychology of education: major themes. Taylor & Francis.

Turiel, E. (2008). The development of childrens orientations toward moral, social, and personal
orders: More than a sequence in development. Human Development, 51(1), 21-39.

Vozzola, E. C. (2014). Moral development: theory and applications. Routledge.

Wolf, Y., Ron, N., & Walters, J. (1996). Modularity in moral judgment by police officers. Policing and
Society: An International Journal, 6(1), 37-52.

Zastrow, C., & Kirst-Ashman, K. (2006). Understanding human behavior and the social environment.
Cengage Learning.