THINKING THROUGH THEFT: A STUDY OF ADOLESCENT MORAL REASONING ON THE HEINZ DILEMMA

By Elizabeth Hinchley

The Questions

Are middle school students more likely, less likely, or as likely to be influenced by peer discussion as they are to be influenced by the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Through this, will middle school students increase their level of moral reasoning on Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning?

Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)• Doctorate at the University of Chicago• Built off of Piaget’s work• 6 stages of moral development• Believed to have committed suicide

(Crain 157-158)

Theoretical Foundations

Terminology

Phenominalism Structure v. Content Constructivism

Inability to internalize higher stages “socially desirable effect”

Invariant & Universal Moral Judgments Justice Sociomoral Perspective(Colby 1-22)

Six Stages of Moral Development

Level 1: Preconventional Stage 1: Herteronomous

morality

Level 2: Conventional Stage 3: Relationships and

interpersonal expectations & conformity

Level 3: Postconventional Stage 5: Social contract or

utility and individual rights

Stage 2: Individualism, instrumental purpose, and exchange

Stage 4: Social system and conscience

Stage 6: Universal ethical principles

(Colby 18-19)

A Seventh Stage?

Stages 1-5: Justified by human social order

Stage 6 “requires” religious orientation “Stage 7”: Metaphor

Life’s meaning Ex: Marcus Aurelius

Agape- “ethic that presupposes justice principles”

(Kohlberg344-352)

Connection to my study

My Hypothesis

Are middle school students more likely, less likely, or as likely to be influenced by peer discussion as they are to be influenced by the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Students are less likely to be affected by peer discussion than by hearing the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Through this, will middle school students increase their level of moral reasoning on Kohlberg’s stage theory of moral reasoning?

Both factors will increase participants’ level of moral reasoning.

Setting & Participants

Convenient sample Sister & friends Eight participants

In-depth study Hinchley residence Two over-the-phone

Oral Interviews

Procedure

Heinz Dilemma 1st individual interviews Group discussion (2 groups of 3; 1 group of

2/3*) (Read Catholic Church response) 2nd individual interviews Over-the-phone participants

Two phones *Prior participant included

Software recording device

Heinz Dilemma

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging the times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: 'No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.' So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)" (Crain 159)

DataParticip

antGrou

p

Catholic (C)

Response (*)

1st WASPeer &

Catholic WAS

Peer WAS

Catholic

(isolated) WAS

Self-Identified Peer

& C*

M1 1 C* 1.33 2.10 (+0.77)

G1.94(+0.61)

G1.49(+0.16)

2 v. 1/2(+0.67 v. +0.17)

F2 1 (3) C* 2.76 2.92 (+0.16)

G2.84(+0.08)

G2.84(+0.08)

3 v. 3(+0.24)

F3 1 C 2.09 -- 3.03 (+0.94)

-- 4(+1.91*)

M4 2 C* 1.86 2.73 (+0.87)

G1.96(+0.10)

G2.63(+0.77)

2 v. 3(+0.14 v. +1.14)

F5 2 - 2.61 -- 2.83 (+0.22)

-- n/a

F6 2 C 2.44 -- 2.85 (+0.41)

-- 3(+0.56)

M7 3 C 1.63 -- 2.15(+0.52)

-- n/a

F8 3 - 2.63 -- 2.74 (+0.11)

-- 3(+0.37)

WAS Comparison

M1 F2 F3 M4 F5 F6 M7 F8Average0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1st WAS2nd WAS

Isolated Increases

M1* F2* F3* M4* F5 F6 M7 F80

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

PeerSelf-Identified PeerCatholic GuessSelf-Identified Catholic

Evidence of Stages-Life

Level 1: Preconventional Stage 1: n/a

Level 2: Conventional Stage 3: “Because it’s his wife,

and he really loves her, and he’s very close to her, and so he’s probably do anything he can to protect her” (1_F3)

Level 3: Postconventional Stage 5: not substantial evidence

– only a split guess score

Stage 2: “She was going to die” (1_F5)

Stage 4: “A life is more important than money, which in this case it was about money versus a life, and it should not be about money; it should be about somebody saving somebody else’s life” (1_F2)

Stage 6: n/a

(Colby 18-19)

Evidence of Stages-Law

Level 1: Preconventional Stage 1: “Because, well, I mean,

it’s the law” (1_F3)

Level 2: Conventional Stage 3: “Because laws are there

to keep people safe, and like to help keep order, and they should always try to obey the law” (1_F2)

Level 3: Postconventional Stage 5: n/a (Though may have

been evident in the group discussion)

Stage 2: “It’s still not right to steal it from the man who discovered it because…he should have the right to sell it for however much he wants” (1_F8)

Stage 4: “One of the foundations of our society is to help one another to progress and by stealing from somebody, you just hurt the bridge of like friendship or just human interaction” (2_M4)

Stage 6: n/a

(Colby 18-19)

Data

1st Interview-Low

Stage 1Stage 2

1st Interview-High Stage 1

Stage 2Stage 3Stage 4

2nd Interview-Low

Stage 1Stage 2

2nd Interview-High

Stage 1 Stage 2Stage 3 Stage 4Stage 5

Analysis

WAS Increases: C* Participants (+0.60) > Non-C*

Participants (+0.44) For C* Participants:

isolated C* (+0.34) > isolated peer (+0.26)

Self-IdentifiedChurch

Response Peer

C* (3) +0.52 > +0.35

Non-C* (3) weighted -- = +0.52

w/o F3 -- > +0.47

un-weighted

-- < +0.95

All (6) weighted -- > +0.45

w/0 F3 -- > +0.40

un-weighted -- < +0.65

Which means…

…students are less likely to be influenced by peer discussion than by hearing the Catholic Church response.

…peer discussion and hearing the Catholic Church response both increase the participant’s stage score.

Limitations

Sample size Group 3

F3 Phone/static

Likelihood of dilemma Did not consider student responses from

group discussion as part of scoring Potential higher reasoning Not guided like interview process

Percent error of self-identified v. actual

New Questions

What would be the increase in WAS if the Catholic Church response was actually isolated?

What would increases in WAS be for a larger sample population? Or for a more varied sample population?

What would be the long-term affect of peer discussions or Catholic Church teaching?

Bibliography

Colby, Anne, and Lawrence Kohlberg. The Measurement of Moral Judgment: Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.

Colby, Anne, and Lawrence Kohlberg. The Measurement of Moral Judgment: Vol. 2, Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. 4-100. Print.

Crain, William C. "Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development." Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, 2011. Print.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. Essays on Moral Development: Vol. 1. The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row, 1981. Print.