Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people decide what is right and what is wrong. Just as Piaget believed that children’s cognitive development follows specific age-graded stages, Kohlberg (1984) argued that we learn our moral values through active thinking and reasoning. To study moral development, Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to children, teenagers, and adults, such as the following:

    A man’s wife is dying of cancer and there is only one drug that can save her. The only place to get the drug is at the store of a pharmacist who is known to overcharge people for drugs. The man can only pay $1,000, but the pharmacist wants $2,000, and refuses to sell it to him for less, or to let him pay later. Desperate, the man later breaks into the pharmacy and steals the medicine. Should he have done that? Was it right or wrong? Why? (Kohlberg, 1984)

Kohlberg examined how individuals responded to this dilemma. The key factor was not whether the person said it was right or wrong for the man to steal the drug, but rather their reasoning. Kohlberg noticed similarities in reasoning about this moral dilemma and theorized that moral development follows a series of qualitatively different stages. Kohlberg’s six stages are generally organized into three levels of moral reasons.

Level 1.  Preconventional Morality.

Reasoning during Level one, which is broken into two stages, is based on what would happen to the man as a result of the act, that is, on the consequences of the act. In Stage 1, moral reasoning is based on concepts of punishment. The child believes that if the consequence for an action is punishment, then the action was wrong. For example, they might say the man should not break into the pharmacy because the pharmacist might find him and beat him. In Stage 2, the child bases his or her thinking on self-interest and reward. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.”  They might say that the man should break in and steal the drug and his wife will give him a big kiss. Right or wrong, both decisions were based on what would physically happen to the man as a result of the act. This is a self-centered approach to moral decision-making. He called this most superficial understanding of right and wrong preconventional morality. Preconventional morality focuses on self-interest. Punishment is avoided, and rewards are sought. Adults can also fall into these stages, particularly when they are under pressure.

Level 2. Conventional Morality

Those tested who based their answers on authority, that is, based on what other people would think of the man as a result of his act, were placed in Level Two. For instance, they might say he should break into the store, and then everyone would think he was a good husband, or he should not because it is against the law. In either case, right and wrong is determined by what other people think. In Stage 3, the person reasons based on mutual expectations and relationships. They want to please others. At Stage 4, the person acknowledges the importance of social norms or laws and wants to be a good member of the group or society. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies with the law. This he called conventional morality, people care about the effect of their actions on others. Some older children, adolescents, and adults use this reasoning.

Level 3. Postconventional Morality.

Right and wrong are based on social contracts established for the good of everyone and that can transcend the self and social convention. For example, the man should break into the store because, even if it is against the law, the wife needs the drug and her life is more important than the consequences the man might face for breaking the law. Alternatively, the man should not violate the principle of the right of property because this rule is essential for social order. In either case, the person’s judgment goes beyond what happens to the self. It is based on a concern for others; for society as a whole, or for an ethical standard rather than a legal standard. This level is called postconventional moral development because it goes beyond convention or what other people think to a higher, universal ethical principle of conduct that may or may not be reflected in the law. Notice that such thinking is the kind Supreme Court justices do all day when deliberating whether a law is moral or ethical, which requires being able to think abstractly. Often this is not accomplished until a person reaches adolescence or adulthood. In the Stage 5, laws are recognized as social contracts. The reasons for the laws, like justice, equality, and dignity, are used to evaluate decisions and interpret laws. In the Stage 6, individually determined universal ethical principles are weighed to make moral decisions. Kohlberg said that few people ever reach this stage. The six stages can be reviewed in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2 Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning

adapted from Lally & Valentine-French, 2019

Influences on Moral Development

What influences moral development? Kohlberg argued that moral development was not an automatic, maturational process, nor was it mechanistic, in that moral development couldn’t simply be taught (Crain, 1985). Instead, he proposed that it develops through repeated practice in situations where children must think together with adults or peers about moral problems: where their viewpoints are challenged or questioned; where they have to consider others’ perspectives and perhaps revise their own; and where they must try to coordinate their own desires and those of others with the help of moral rules. Moreover, it is our active engagement with these thought processes that helps our development (Berkowitz & Gibbs, 1983). This engagement can occur in many contexts; three notable ones are our caregivers, our schooling, and our peers (Berk, 2014, p. 326).

Studies suggest that caregivers’ use of an authoritative parenting style helps children reach higher stages of moral reasoning (Pratt, Skoe, & Arnold, 2010). This style emphasizes care, consistent and fair expectations, and support for autonomy in ways such as discussing the reasoning for rules and encouraging children’s own perspectives. These aspects of parenting can help children practice their own moral reasoning, allow them to internalize true moral principles, and over time to act on them under conditions of greater difficulty (aka temptation). On the other hand, use of threats and lectures do not help moral reasoning (Walker & Taylor, 1991). Studies suggest that children remember the negative affect and exertion of force, which interferes with the internalization of moral principles

Education is another important venue for practicing moral reasoning. In general, the more years individuals dedicate to schooling, the higher their average level of moral reasoning (Dawson, 2002). In particular, schools help promote moral reasoning when they offer students exposure to diverse experiences and ways of being, role-taking and perspective-taking opportunities, and chances to discuss and defend their own viewpoints (Comunian & Gielen, 2006; Mason & Gibbs, 1993).

Within schools and outside of them, peers are important relational partners for developing moral reasoning. As opposed to conversations with parents or teachers, which are hierarchical, peers are on more-equal footing. With peers, individuals need to practice communicating their own needs and considering the needs of their friends to reach decisions and resolve conflicts (Killen & Nucci, 1995).

Critiques

Although research has supported Kohlberg’s idea that moral reasoning changes from an early emphasis on punishment and social rules and regulations to an emphasis on more general ethical principles, as with Piaget’s approach, Kohlberg’s stage model is probably too simple. For one, people may use higher levels of reasoning for some types of problems but revert to lower levels in situations where doing so is more consistent with their goals or beliefs (Rest, 1979). Second, it has been argued that the stage model is particularly appropriate for Western, rather than non-Western, samples in which allegiance to social norms, such as respect for authority, may be particularly important (Haidt, 2001). In addition, there is frequently little correlation between how we score on the moral stages and how we behave in real life.

Perhaps the most important critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it emphasizes justice without incorporating compassion and other moral considerations, and in doing so might describe the moral development of males better than it describes that of females (who were not represented in Kohlberg’s initial research). Gilligan (1982) has argued that, because of differences in their socialization, males tend to value principles of justice and rights, whereas females value caring for and helping others.  She argued for an “ethic of care,” emphasizing our human responsibilities to one another and consideration for others (see Table 11.3). Although there is little evidence for a gender difference in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Turiel, 1998), there is some evidence that girls and women tend to focus more on issues of caring, helping, and connecting with others than do boys and men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). Despite these trends in the relative priorities of caring and justice, evidence suggests that people of all genders consider both justice and caring to some extent in their moral decisions (Berk, 2014; Walker, 1995).

Gilligan’s Morality of Care

Gilligan proposed three moral positions that represent different extents or breadth of ethical care. Unlike Kohlberg or Piaget, she does not claim that the positions form a strictly developmental sequence, but only that they can be ranked hierarchically according to their depth or subtlety. In this respect, her theory is “semi-developmental” in a way similar to Maslow’s theory of motivation (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995). Table 11.3 summarizes the three moral positions from Gilligan’s theory.

Table 11.3 Positions of Moral Development According to Gilligan

The most basic kind of caring is a survival orientation, in which a person is concerned primarily with his or her welfare. If a teenage girl with this ethical position is wondering whether to get an abortion, for example, she will be concerned entirely with the effects of the abortion on herself. The morally good choice will be whatever creates the least stress for herself, and that disrupts her own life the least. Responsibilities to others (the baby, the father, or her family) play little or no part in her thinking.

As a moral position, a survival orientation is obviously not satisfactory for classrooms on a widespread scale. If every student only looked out for himself or herself, classroom life might become rather unpleasant! Nonetheless, there are situations in which focusing primarily on yourself is both a sign of good mental health and relevant to teachers. For a child who has been bullied at school or sexually abused at home, for example, it is both healthy and morally desirable to speak out about how bullying or abuse has affected the victim. Doing so means essentially looking out for the victim’s own needs at the expense of others’ needs, including the bully’s or abuser’s. Speaking out, in this case, requires a survival orientation and is healthy because the child is taking care of herself.

A more subtle moral position is caring for others, in which a person is concerned about others’ happiness and welfare, and about reconciling or integrating others’ needs where they conflict with each other. In considering an abortion, for example, the teenager at this position would think primarily about what other people prefer. Do the father, her parents, and/or her doctor want her to keep the child? The morally good choice becomes whatever will please others the best. This position is more demanding than Position 1, ethically, and intellectually, because it requires coordinating several persons’ needs and values. Nevertheless, it is often morally insufficient because it ignores one crucial person: the self.

In classrooms, students who operate from Position 2 can be very desirable in some ways; they can be eager to please, considerate, and good at fitting in and at working cooperatively with others. Because these qualities are usually welcome in a busy classroom, teachers can be tempted to reward students for developing and using them. The problem with rewarding Position 2 ethics, however, is that doing so neglects the student’s development—his or her own academic and personal goals or values. Sooner or later, personal goals, values, and identity need attention and care, and educators have a responsibility for assisting students in discovering and clarifying them.

The most developed form of moral caring in Gilligan’s model is integrated caring, the coordination of personal needs and values with those of others. Now the morally good choice takes account of everyone, including yourself, not everyone except yourself. In considering an abortion, a woman at Position 3 would think not only about the consequences for the father, the unborn child, and her family but also about the consequences for herself. How would bearing a child affect her own needs, values, and plans? This perspective leads to moral beliefs that are more comprehensive but ironically are also more prone to dilemmas because the widest possible range of individuals is being considered.

In classrooms, integrated caring is most likely to surface whenever teachers give students wide, sustained freedom to make choices. If students have little flexibility in their actions, there is little room for considering anyone’s needs or values, whether their own or others’. If the teacher says simply: “Do the homework on page 50 and turn it in tomorrow morning,” then the main issue becomes compliance, not a moral choice. Suppose instead that she says something like this: “Over the next two months, figure out an inquiry project about the use of water resources in our town. Organize it any way you want—talk to people, read widely about it, and share it with the class in a way that all of us, including yourself, will find meaningful.” An assignment like this poses moral challenges that are not only educational but also moral since it requires students to make value judgments. Why? For one thing, students must decide what aspect of the topic matters to them. Such a decision is partly a matter of personal values. For another thing, students have to consider how to make the topic meaningful or important to others in the class. Third, because the timeline for completion is relatively far in the future, students may have to weigh personal priorities (like spending time with friends or family) against educational priorities (working on the assignment a bit more on the weekend). As you might suspect, some students might have trouble making good choices when given this sort of freedom—and their teachers might, therefore, be cautious about giving such an assignment. Nevertheless, the difficulties in making choices are part of Gilligan’s point: integrated caring is indeed more demanding than the caring based only on survival or on consideration of others. Not all students may be ready for it.