KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF

MORAL REASONING

By Lindsey Busker and Sydney Thomson

Lawrence Kohlberg

Born in Bronxville, New York on October 25, 1927

Attended high school at Phillips Academy and then served in the Merchant Marine at the end of World War II

Earned his bachelor’s degree in 1948 Completed his doctoral degree in psychology

in 1958 Died on January 19, 1987 in Massachusetts

Six Stages of Moral Reasoning Level I: Pre-conventional

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation

Stage 2: Instructional Relativist Orientation Level II: Conventional

Stage 3: “Good Boy/ Nice Girl” Orientation Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation

Level III: Post-conventional Stage 5: Social Contract Stage 6: Universal, Ethical Principles

Problematizing Literature

Ford  and Lowery (1986) - young adults only

Myyry, Juåujärvi, and  Pesso  (2013) - higher education  only

White, Bushnell, and Regnemer (1978) - not contemporary

Our Two Hypotheses

Based on Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning, we predict that a higher level of education correlates to a higher level of moral reasoning.

We predict that there are gender differences based on Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning.

We predict that with regularly attending religious service, there would be an increase in level of moral reasoning

Methodology

Participants convenience sample of 24

6 seniors 6 freshmen 6 eighth graders 6 fourth graders

Setting Holy family classroom Braniff classroom, Anselm

classroom Measures

paper-based Gender, Age, classification, religious service Dilemma VIII 

Procedure administer moral dilemma VIII

Moral Dilemma VIII

In a country in Europe, a poor man named Valjean could find no work, nor could his sister and brother. Without

money, he stole food and medicine that they needed. He was captured and sentenced to prison for 6 years. After a couple of years, he escaped from the prison and went to live in another part of the country under a new name.

He saved money and slowly built up a big factory. He gave his workers the highest wages and used most of his profits to build a hospital for people who couldn't afford good medical care. Twenty years had passed when a tailor recognized the factory owner as being

Valjean, the escaped convict whom the police had been looking for back in his hometown.

Moral Dilemma VIII Questions1. Should the tailor report Valjean to the

police?   Why or why not?

2. Does a citizen have a duty or obligation to report an escaped convict?

  Why or why not?

Questions 3 & 4

3. Suppose Valjean were a close friend of the tailor. Should he then report Valjean?

Why or why not?

4. If Valjean were reported and brought before the judge, should the judge send him back to jail or let him go free?

  Why or why not?

Questions 5 & 6

5. Thinking in terms of society should people who break the law be punished?

  Why or why not?

6. Valjean was doing what his conscience told him to do when he stole the food and medicine. Should a lawbreaker be punished if he is acting out of conscience? 

  Why or why not?

Glossary of Terms Choice

Autonomous choices support and justify the solution to a dilemma that is just and fair from the standpoint of post-conventional stages of moral judgment (i.e., they are based on principles of justice, fairness, equity.)

 Hierarchy Autonomous judgments reflect a clear hierarchy of moral values and prescriptive

duties that supersede pragmatic, descriptive, consequential or aesthetic considerations.

Freedom Autonomous judgments are made without reference to external parameters

(such as authority, tradition, or law) for justification or validation

Reversibility judgments are characterized by the ability to engage in mutual or reciprocal role

taking. Heteronomous judgments are constrained by considering only one perspective on a problem.

Constructivism Autonomous judgments consider rules and laws as humanly constructed

guidelines, and as such are flexible and adaptable to special situation and circumstances. Heteronomous judgments construe laws and rules as emanating from some higher authority and therefore must remain rigid and inflexible

Grading Rubric

Stages of Moral Reasoning

Defined by Kohlberg How we determined which stage each

student is in

Stage 1 • Concern on a fixed set of unchanging rules

• Worry about what authorities will permit and punish

• Gave a very black and white answer

• Did not explain or justify their answer

Stage 2 • Punishments are now a risk• Fair exchange policy

• Mentioning what benefits others listed in the dilemma

Stage 3 • Character traits described• Motives of each party involved

• Mentions redemption/lesson learned

Stage 4 • Emphasis on obeying laws, respecting authority, and preforming one’s duties so social order is maintained

• Explore the reasons why we say something is wrong

• Solely focused on law and order

Stage 5 • Stress on basic rights and democratic procedures to change unfair laws

• Student is primarily concerned with the individual rights, and how citizens agree as a whole.

• Anything to do with Valjean making a difference, benefiting society, promoting social justice,

Stage 6 • Look at problems through all eyes- clear concept of universal principles

• We did not look at this stage

Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment

Stage 2: Instructional Relativist

Stage 3: “Good Boy/ Nice Girl”

Stage 4: Law and Order

Stage 5: Social Contract

Results: Seniors

Participant

Gender

Age

Classification

Religious Service

Moral Reasoning

1 Male 22 Senior Yes 4

2 Female

22 Senior No 4

3 Female

21 Senior Yes 4

4 Male 22 Senior Yes 4

5 Female

21 Senior No 3

6 Female

21 Senior Yes 4

Results: Freshman

Participant

Gender

Age Classification

Religious Service

Moral Reasoning

7 Male 24 Freshman Yes 4

8 Male 18 Freshman Yes 4

9 Female

18 Freshman Yes 4

10 Male 18 Freshman Yes 3

11 Female

18 Freshman Yes 4

12 Female

18 Freshman Yes 3

Results: Eighth Graders

Participant

Gender

Age Classification

Religious Service

Moral Reasoning

19 Female

13 8th Grade Yes 4

20 Female

13 8th Grade Yes 4

21 Male 14 8th Grade No 3

22 Female

14 8th Grade Yes 3

23 Female

13 8th Grade Yes 4

24 Female

13 8th Grade Yes 3

Results: Fourth Graders

Participant

Gender

Age

Classification

Religious Service

Moral Reasoning

13 Male 10 4th Grade Yes 1

14 Female

9 4th Grade Yes 1

15 Female

9 4th Grade Yes 3

16 Female

9 4th Grade Yes 2

17 Female

10 4th Grade Yes 1

18 Female

9 4th Grade No 2

Treatment of Data

Averaged each class Seniors

3.83 Freshmen

3.66 Eighth graders

3.50 Fourth Graders

1.66

Averaged college group &

elementary group Freshmen & Seniors

Males - 3.8 Females - 3.71

4th & 8th graders Males – 2.00 Females – 2.70

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2

Conclusion

Accept our first hypothesis in which we predicted that a higher level of education correlates to a higher level or moral reasoning.

  Accept our second hypothesis that there

would be gender differences for the college population, reject for based on Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning.

Limitations

Convenience sample Understanding of the questions asked Misinterpretation of religious service Time Control of extraneous variables Participant bias

Works Cited

Ford, M. R., & Lowery, C. R. (1986). Gender differences in moral reasoning: A comparison of the use of justice and care orientations. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 50(4), 777-783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.777

Myyry, L., Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Change in values and moral reasoning during higher education. European Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 269-284. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.757217

White, C. B., Bushnell, N., & Regnemer, J. L. (1978). Moral development in Bahamian school children: A 3-year examination of Kohlberg's stages of moral development.  Developmental Psychology, 14(1), 58-65. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.14.1.58