W.C. Crain. (1985). Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136.

CHAPTER SEVEN KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION An outstanding exa ple o! researc" in t"e Piagetian tradition is t"e #or$ o! %a#rence &o"l'erg. &o"l'erg "as !ocused on oral de(elop ent and "as proposed a stage t"eor) o! oral t"in$ing #"ic" goes #ell 'e)ond Piaget*s initial !or ulations. &o"l'erg+ #"o #as 'orn in 19,-+ gre# up in .ronx(ille+ /e# 0or$+ and attended t"e Ando(er Acade ) in 1assac"usetts+ a pri(ate "ig" sc"ool !or 'rig"t and usuall) #ealt") students. He did not go i ediatel) to college+ 'ut instead #ent to "elp t"e 2sraeli cause+ in #"ic" "e #as ade t"e 3econd 4ngineer on an old !reig"ter carr)ing re!ugees !ro parts o! 4urope to 2srael. A!ter t"is+ in 1958+ "e enrolled at t"e 6ni(ersit) o! C"icago+ #"ere "e scored so "ig" on ad ission tests t"at "e "ad to ta$e onl) a !e# courses to earn "is 'ac"elor*s degree. 7"is "e did in one )ear. He sta)ed on at C"icago !or graduate #or$ in ps)c"olog)+ at !irst t"in$ing "e #ould 'eco e a clinical ps)c"ologist. Ho#e(er+ "e soon 'eca e interested in Piaget and 'egan inter(ie#ing c"ildren and adolescents on oral issues. 7"e result #as "is doctoral dissertation (1958a)+ t"e !irst rendition o! "is ne# stage t"eor). &o"l'erg is an in!or al+ unassu ing an #"o also is a true sc"olar8 "e "as t"oug"t long and deepl) a'out a #ide range o! issues in 'ot" ps)c"olog) and p"ilosop") and "as done uc" to "elp ot"ers appreciate t"e #isdo o! an) o! t"e 9old ps)c"ologists+9 suc" as :ousseau+ ;o"n <e#e)+ and ;a es 1ar$ .ald#in. &o"l'erg "as taug"t at t"e 6ni(ersit) o! C"icago (196,-1968) and+ since 1968+ "as 'een at Har(ard 6ni(ersit). PIAGET'S STAGES OF MORAL JUDGMENT Piaget studied an) aspects o! oral =udg ent+ 'ut ost o! "is !indings !it into a t#o-stage t"eor). C"ildren )ounger t"an 1> or 11 )ears t"in$ a'out oral dile as one #a)8 older c"ildren consider t"e di!!erentl). As #e "a(e seen+ )ounger c"ildren regard rules as !ixed and a'solute. 7"e) 'elie(e t"at rules are "anded do#n ') adults or ') ?od and t"at one cannot c"ange t"e . 7"e older c"ild*s (ie# is ore relati(istic. He or s"e understands t"at it is per issi'le to c"ange rules i! e(er)one agrees. :ules are not sacred and a'solute 'ut are de(ices #"ic" "u ans use to get along cooperati(el).

At approxi atel) t"e sa e ti e--1> or 11 )ears--c"ildren*s oral t"in$ing undergoes ot"er s"i!ts. 2n particular+ )ounger c"ildren 'ase t"eir oral =udg ents ore on conse@uences+ #"ereas older c"ildren 'ase t"eir =udg ents on intentions. W"en+ !or exa ple+ t"e )oung c"ild "ears a'out one 'o) #"o 'ro$e 15 cups tr)ing to "elp "is ot"er and anot"er 'o) #"o 'ro$e onl) one cup tr)ing to steal coo$ies+ t"e )oung c"ild t"in$s t"at t"e !irst 'o) did #orse. 7"e c"ild pri aril) considers t"e a ount o! da age--t"e conse@uences--#"ereas t"e older c"ild is ore li$el) to =udge #rongness in ter s o! t"e oti(es underl)ing t"e act (Piaget+ 193,+ p. 13-). 7"ere are an) ore details to Piaget*s #or$ on oral =udg ent+ 'ut "e essentiall) !ound a series o! c"anges t"at occur 'et#een t"e ages o! 1> and 1,+ =ust #"en t"e c"ild 'egins to enter t"e general stage o! !or al operations. 2ntellectual de(elop ent+ "o#e(er+ does not stop at t"is point. 7"is is =ust t"e 'eginning o! !or al operations+ #"ic" continue to de(elop at least until age 16. Accordingl)+ one ig"t expect t"in$ing a'out oral issues to continue to de(elop t"roug"out adolescence. &o"l'erg t"ere!ore inter(ie#ed 'ot" c"ildren and adolescents a'out oral dile as+ and "e did !ind stages t"at go #ell 'e)ond Piaget*s. He unco(ered six stages+ onl) t"e !irst t"ree o! #"ic" s"are an) !eatures #it" Piaget*s stages. KOHLBERG'S METHOD &o"l'erg*s (1958a) core sa ple #as co prised o! -, 'o)s+ !ro 'ot" iddle- and lo#er-class !a ilies in C"icago. 7"e) #ere ages 1>+ 13+ and 16. He later added to "is sa ple )ounger c"ildren+ delin@uents+ and 'o)s and girls !ro ot"er A erican cities and !ro ot"er countries (1963+ 19->). 7"e 'asic inter(ie# consists o! a series o! dile HeinB 3teals t"e <rug 2n 4urope+ a #o an #as near deat" !ro a special $ind o! cancer. 7"ere #as one drug t"at t"e doctors t"oug"t ig"t sa(e "er. 2t #as a !or o! radiu t"at a druggist in t"e sa e to#n "ad recentl) disco(ered. 7"e drug #as expensi(e to a$e+ 'ut t"e druggist #as c"arging ten ti es #"at t"e drug cost "i to a$e. He paid C,>> !or t"e radiu and c"arged C,+>>> !or a s all dose o! t"e drug. 7"e sic$ #o an*s "us'and+ HeinB+ #ent to e(er)one "e $ne# to 'orro# t"e one)+ 'ut "e could onl) get toget"er a'out C 1+>>> #"ic" is "al! o! #"at it cost. He told t"e druggist t"at "is #i!e #as d)ing and as$ed "i to sell it c"eaper or let "i pa) later. .ut t"e druggist saidA 9/o+ 2 disco(ered t"e drug and 2* going to a$e one) !ro it.9 3o HeinB got desperate and 'ro$e into t"e an*s store to steal t"e drug-!or "is #i!e. 3"ould t"e "us'and "a(e done t"atD (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. 19) &o"l'erg is not reall) interested in #"et"er t"e su'=ect sa)s 9)es9 or 9no9 to t"is dile a 'ut in t"e reasoning 'e"ind t"e ans#er. 7"e inter(ie#er #ants to $no# #") t"e su'=ect t"in$s HeinB s"ould or s"ould not "a(e stolen t"e drug. 7"e inter(ie# sc"edule t"en as$s ne# @uestions #"ic" "elp one understand t"e c"ild*s reasoning. Eor exa ple+ c"ildren are as$ed i! HeinB "ad a rig"t to steal t"e drug+ i! "e #as (iolating t"e druggist*s rig"ts+ and #"at sentence t"e =udge s"ould gi(e as suc" as t"e !ollo#ingA

"i once "e #as caug"t. Fnce again+ t"e ain concern is #it" t"e reasoning 'e"ind t"e ans#ers. 7"e inter(ie# t"en goes on to gi(e ore dile as in order to get a good sa pling o! a su'=ect*s oral t"in$ing. Fnce &o"l'erg "ad classi!ied t"e (arious responses into stages+ "e #anted to $no# #"et"er "is classi!ication #as reliable. 2n particular+ "e. #anted to $no# i! ot"ers #ould score t"e protocols in t"e sa e #a). Ft"er =udges independentl) scored a sa ple o! responses+ and "e calculated t"e degree to #"ic" all raters agreed. 7"is procedure is called interrater reliability. &o"l'erg !ound t"ese agree ents to 'e "ig"+ as "e "as in "is su'se@uent #or$+ 'ut #"ene(er in(estigators use &o"l'erg*s inter(ie#+ t"e) also s"ould c"ec$ !or interrater relia'ilit) 'e!ore scoring t"e entire sa ple. KOHLBERG'S SIX STAGES Level 1. Prec !ve!"# !$l M r$l#"% Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. &o"l'erg*s stage 1 is si ilar to Piaget*s !irst stage o! oral t"oug"t. 7"e c"ild assu es t"at po#er!ul aut"orities "and do#n a !ixed set o! rules #"ic" "e or s"e ust un@uestioningl) o'e). 7o t"e HeinB dile a+ t"e c"ild t)picall) sa)s t"at HeinB #as #rong to steal t"e drug 'ecause 92t*s against t"e la#+9 or 92t*s 'ad to steal+9 as i! t"is #ere all t"ere #ere to it. W"en as$ed to ela'orate+ t"e c"ild usuall) responds in ter s o! t"e conse@uences in(ol(ed+ explaining t"at stealing is 'ad 9'ecause )ou*ll get punis"ed9 (&o"l'erg+ 1958'). Alt"oug" t"e (ast a=orit) o! c"ildren at stage 1 oppose HeinBGs t"e!t+ it is still possi'le !or a c"ild to support t"e action and still e plo) stage 1 reasoning. Eor exa ple+ a c"ild ig"t sa)+ 9HeinB can steal it 'ecause "e as$ed !irst and it*s not li$e "e stole so et"ing 'ig8 "e #on*t get punis"ed9 (see :est+ 19-3). 4(en t"oug" t"e c"ild agrees #it" HeinBGs action+ t"e reasoning is still stage 18 t"e concern is #it" #"at aut"orities per it and punis". &o"l'erg calls stage 1 t"in$ing 9precon(entional9 'ecause c"ildren do not )et spea$ as e 'ers o! societ). 2nstead+ t"e) see oralit) as so et"ing external to t"e sel(es+ as t"at #"ic" t"e 'ig people sa) t"e) ust do. Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At t"is stage c"ildren recogniBe t"at t"ere is not =ust one rig"t (ie# t"at is "anded do#n ') t"e aut"orities. <i!!erent indi(iduals "a(e di!!erent (ie#points. 9HeinB+9 t"e) ig"t point out+ 9 ig"t t"in$ it*s rig"t to ta$e t"e drug+ t"e druggist #ould not.9 3ince e(er)t"ing is relative, eac" person is !ree to pursue "is or "er individual interests. Fne 'o) said t"at HeinB ig"t steal t"e drug i! "e #anted "is #i!e to li(e+ 'ut t"at "e doesn*t "a(e to i! "e #ants to arr) so eone )ounger and 'etter-loo$ing (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. ,5). Anot"er 'o) said HeinB ig"t steal it 'ecause a)'e t"e) "ad c"ildren and "e ig"t need so eone at "o e to loo$ a!ter t"e . .ut a)'e "e s"ouldn*t steal it 'ecause t"e) ig"t put "i in prison !or ore )ears t"an "e could stand. (Col') and &au!! an. 1983+ p. 3>>)

W"at is rig"t !or HeinB+ t"en+ is #"at

eets "is o#n sel!-interests.

0ou ig"t "a(e noticed t"at c"ildren at 'ot" stages 1 and , tal$ a'out punis" ent. Ho#e(er+ t"e) percei(e it di!!erentl). At stage 1 punis" ent is tied up in t"e c"ild*s ind #it" #rongness8 punis" ent 9pro(es9 t"at diso'edience is #rong. At stage ,+ in contrast+ punis" ent is si pl) a ris$ t"at one naturall) #ants to a(oid. Alt"oug" stage , respondents so eti es sound a oral+ t"e) do "a(e so e sense o! rig"t action. 7"is is a notion o! fair exchange or !air deals. 7"e p"ilosop") is one o! returning !a(ors--92! )ou scratc" ) 'ac$+ 2*ll scratc" )ours.9 7o t"e HeinB stor)+ su'=ects o!ten sa) t"at HeinB #as rig"t to steal t"e drug 'ecause t"e druggist #as un#illing to a$e a !air deal8 "e #as 9tr)ing to rip HeinB o!!+9 Fr t"e) ig"t sa) t"at "e s"ould steal !or "is #i!e 9'ecause s"e ig"t return t"e !a(or so e da)9 (?i''s et al.+ 1983+ p. 19). :espondents at stage , are still said to reason at t"e precon(entional le(el 'ecause t"e) spea$ as isolated indi(iduals rat"er t"an as e 'ers o! societ). 7"e) see indi(iduals exc"anging !a(ors+ 'ut t"ere is still no identi!ication #it" t"e (alues o! t"e !a il) or co unit). Level II. C !ve!"# !$l M r$l#"% Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. At t"is stage c"ildren--#"o are ') no# usuall) entering t"eir teens--see oralit) as ore t"an si ple deals. 7"e) 'elie(e t"at people s"ould li(e up to t"e expectations o! t"e !a il) and co unit) and 'e"a(e in 9good9 #a)s. ?ood 'e"a(ior eans "a(ing good oti(es and interpersonal !eelings suc" as lo(e+ e pat")+ trust+ and concern !or ot"ers. HeinB+ t"e) t)picall) argue+ #as rig"t to steal t"e drug 'ecause 9He #as a good an !or #anting to sa(e "er+9 and 9His intentions #ere good+ t"at o! sa(ing t"e li!e o! so eone "e lo(es.9 4(en i! HeinB doesn*t lo(e "is #i!e+ t"ese su'=ects o!ten sa)+ "e s"ould steal t"e drug 'ecause 92 don*t t"in$ an) "us'and s"ould sit 'ac$ and #atc" "is #i!e die9 (?i''s et al.+ 1983+ pp. 36-5,8 &o"l'erg+ 1958'). 2! HeinBGs oti(es #ere good+ t"e druggist*s #ere 'ad. 7"e druggist+ stage 3 su'=ects e p"asiBe+ #as 9sel!is"+9 9greed)+9 and 9onl) interested in "i sel!+ not anot"er li!e.9 3o eti es t"e respondents 'eco e so angr) #it" t"e druggist t"at t"e) sa) t"at "e oug"t to 'e put in =ail (?i''s et al.+ 1983+ pp. ,6-,9+ 5>-5,). A t)pical stage 3 response is t"at o! <on+ age 13A 2t #as reall) t"e druggist*s !ault+ "e #as un!air+ tr)ing to o(erc"arge and letting so eone die. HeinB lo(ed "is #i!e and #anted to sa(e "er. 2 t"in$ an)one #ould. 2 don*t t"in$ t"e) #ould put "i in =ail. 7"e =udge #ould loo$ at all sides+ and see t"at t"e druggist #as c"arging too uc". (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. ,5) We see t"at <on de!ines t"e issue in ter s o! t"e actors* c"aracter traits and oti(es. He tal$s a'out t"e lo(ing "us'and+ t"e un!air druggist+ and t"e understanding =udge. His ans#er deser(es t"e la'el 9con(entional 9 oralit)9 'ecause it assu es t"at t"e attitude expressed #ould 'e s"ared ') t"e entire co unit)H9an)one9 #ould 'e rig"t to do #"at HeinB did (&o"l'erg+ 1963+ p. ,5).

As entioned earlier+ t"ere are si ilarities 'et#een &o"l'erg*s !irst t"ree stages and Piaget*s t#o stages. 2n 'ot" se@uences t"ere is a s"i!t !ro un@uestioning o'edience to a relati(istic outloo$ and to a concern !or good oti(es. Eor &o"l'erg+ "o#e(er+ t"ese s"i!ts occur in t"ree stages rat"er t"an t#o. Stage . !aintaining the Social Order. 3tage 3 reasoning #or$s 'est in t#o-person relations"ips #it" !a il) e 'ers or close !riends+ #"ere one can a$e a real e!!ort to get to $no# t"e ot"er*s !eelings and needs and tr) to "elp. At stage 5+ in contrast+ t"e respondent 'eco es ore 'roadl) concerned #it" society as a whole. /o# t"e e p"asis is on o'e)ing la#s+ respecting aut"orit)+ and per!or ing one*s duties so t"at t"e social order is aintained. 2n response to t"e HeinB stor)+ an) su'=ects sa) t"e) understand t"at HeinB*s oti(es #ere good+ 'ut t"e) cannot condone t"e t"e!t. W"at #ould "appen i! #e all started 'rea$ing t"e la#s #"ene(er #e !elt #e "ad a good reasonD 7"e result #ould 'e c"aos8 societ) couldn*t !unction. As one su'=ect explained+ 2 don*t #ant to sound li$e 3piro Agne#+ la# and order and #a(e t"e !lag+ 'ut i! e(er)'od) did as "e #anted to do+ set up "is o#n 'elie!s as to rig"t and #rong+ t"en 2 t"in$ )ou #ould "a(e c"aos. 7"e onl) t"ing 2 t"in$ #e "a(e in ci(iliBation no#ada)s is so e sort o! legal structure #"ic" people are sort o! 'ound to !ollo#. I3ociet) needsJ a centraliBing !ra e#or$. (?i''s et al.+ 1983+ pp. 15>-51) .ecause stage 5+ su'=ects a$e oral decisions !ro t"e perspecti(e o! societ) as a #"ole+ t"e) t"in$ !ro a !ull-!ledged e 'er-o!-societ) perspecti(e (Col') and &o"l'erg+ 1983+ p. ,-). 0ou #ill recall t"at stage 1 c"ildren also generall) oppose stealing 'ecause it 'rea$s t"e la#. 3uper!iciall)+ stage 1 and stage 5 su'=ects are gi(ing t"e sa e response+ so #e see "ere #") &o"l'erg insists t"at #e ust pro'e into t"e reasoning 'e"ind t"e o(ert response. 3tage 1 c"ildren sa)+ 92t*s #rong to steal9 and 92t*s against t"e la#+9 'ut t"e) cannot ela'orate an) !urt"er+ except to sa) t"at stealing can get a person =ailed. 3tage 5 respondents+ in contrast+ "a(e a conception o! t"e !unction o! la#s !or societ) as a #"ole--a conception #"ic" !ar exceeds t"e grasp o! t"e )ounger c"ild. Level III. P &"c !ve!"# !$l M r$l#"% Stage ". Social #ontract and Individual Rights. At stage 5+ people #ant to $eep societ) !unctioning. Ho#e(er+ a s oot"l) !unctioning societ) is not necessaril) a good one. A totalitarian societ) ig"t 'e #ell-organiBed+ 'ut it is "ardl) t"e oral ideal. At stage 5+ people 'egin to as$+ 9W"at a$es !or a good societ)D9 7"e) 'egin to t"in$ a'out societ) in a (er) t"eoretical #a)+ stepping 'ac$ !ro t"eir o#n societ) and considering t"e rig"ts and (alues t"at a societ) oug"t to up"old. 7"e) t"en e(aluate existing societies in ter s o! t"ese prior considerations. 7"e) are said to ta$e a 9prior-to-societ)9 perspecti(e (Col') and &o"l'erg+ 1983+ p. ,,). 3tage 5 respondents 'asicall) 'elie(e t"at a good societ) is 'est concei(ed as a social contract into #"ic" people !reel) enter to #or$ to#ard t"e 'ene!it o! all 7"e) recogniBe t"at di!!erent social groups #it"in a societ) #ill "a(e di!!erent (alues+ 'ut t"e) 'elie(e t"at all rational people

#ould agree on t#o points. Eirst t"e) #ould all #ant certain 'asic rights, suc" as li'ert) and li!e+ to 'e protected 3econd+ t"e) #ould #ant so e democratic procedures !or c"anging un!air la# and !or i pro(ing societ). 2n response to t"e HeinB dile a+ stage 5 respondents a$e it clear t"at t"e) do not generall) !a(or 'rea$ing la#s8 la#s are social contracts t"at #e agree to up"old until #e can c"ange t"e ') de ocratic eans. /e(ert"eless+ t"e #i!eGs rig"t to li(e is a oral rig"t t"at ust 'e protected. 7"us+ stage 5 respondent so eti es de!end HeinBGs t"e!t in strong languageA 2t is t"e "us'and*s dut) to sa(e "is #i!e. 7"e !act t"at "er li!e is in danger transcends e(er) ot"er standard )ou ig"t use to =udge "is action. %i!e is ore i portant t"an propert). 7"is )oung an #ent on to sa) t"at 9!ro a oral standpoint9 HeinB s"ould sa(e t"e li!e o! e(en a stranger+ since to 'e consistent+ t"e (alue o! a li!e eans an) li!e. W"en as$ed i! t"e =udge s"ould punis" HeinB+ "e repliedA 6suall) t"e oral and legal standpoints coincide. Here t"e) con!lict. 7"e =udge s"ould #eig"t t"e oral standpoint ore "ea(il) 'ut preser(e t"e legal la# in punis"ing HeinB lig"tl). (&o"l'erg+ 19-6+ p. 38) 3tage 5 su'=ects+- t"en+ tal$ a'out 9 oralit)9 and 9rig"ts9 t"at ta$e so e priorit) o(er particular la#s. &o"l'erg insists+ "o#e(er+ t"at #e do not =udge people to 'e at stage 5 erel) !ro t"eir (er'al la'els. We need to loo$ at t"eir social perspecti(e and ode o! reasoning. At stage 5+ too+ su'=ects !re@uentl) tal$ a'out t"e 9rig"t to li!e+9 'ut !or t"e t"is rig"t is legiti iBed ') t"e aut"orit) o! t"eir social or religious group (e.g.+ ') t"e .i'le). Presu a'l)+ i! t"eir group (alued propert) o(er li!e+ t"e) #ould too. At stage 5+ in contrast+ people are a$ing ore o! an independent e!!ort to t"in$ out #"at an) societ) oug"t to (alue. 7"e) o!ten reason+ !or exa ple+ t"at propert) "as little eaning #it"out li!e. 7"e) are tr)ing to deter ine logicall) #"at a societ) oug"t to 'e li$e (&o"l'erg+ 1981+ pp. ,1-,,8 ?i''s et al.+ 1983+ p. 83). Stage $% &niversal Principles. 3tage 5 respondents are #or$ing to#ard a conception o! t"e good societ). 7"e) suggest t"at #e need to (a) protect certain indi(idual rig"ts and (') settle disputes t"roug" de ocratic processes. Ho#e(er+ de ocratic processes alone do not al#a)s result in outco es t"at #e intuiti(el) sense are =ust. A a=orit)+ !or exa ple+ a) (ote !or a la# t"at "inders a inorit). 7"us+ &o"l'erg 'elie(es t"at t"ere ust 'e a "ig"er stage--stage 6-#"ic" de!ines t"e principles ') #"ic" #e ac"ie(e =ustice. &o"l'erg*s conception o! =ustice !ollo#s t"at o! t"e p"ilosop"ers &ant and :a#ls+ as #ell as great oral leaders suc" as ?and"i and 1artin %ut"er &ing. According to t"ese people+ t"e principles o! =ustice re@uire us to treat t"e clai s o! all parties in an i partial anner+ respecting t"e 'asic dignit)+ o! all people as indi(iduals. 7"e principles o! =ustice are t"ere!ore uni(ersal8 t"e) appl) to all. 7"us+ !or exa ple+ #e #ould not (ote !or a la# t"at aids so e people 'ut "urts ot"ers. 7"e principles o! =ustice guide us to#ard decisions 'ased on an e@ual respect !or all. 2n actual practice+ &o"l'erg sa)s+ #e can reac" =ust decisions ') loo$ing at a situation t"roug" one anot"er*s e)es. 2n t"e HeinB dile a+ t"is #ould ean t"at all parties--t"e druggist+ HeinB+

and "is #i!e--ta$e t"e roles o! t"e ot"ers. 7o do t"is in an i partial anner+ people can assu e a 9(eil o! ignorance9 (:a#ls+ 19-1)+ acting as i! t"e) do not $no# #"ic" role t"e) #ill e(entuall) occup). 2! t"e druggist did t"is+ e(en "e #ould recogniBe t"at li!e ust ta$e priorit) o(er propert)8 !or "e #ouldn*t #ant to ris$ !inding "i sel! in t"e #i!e*s s"oes #it" propert) (alued o(er li!e. 7"us+ t"e) #ould all agree t"at t"e #i!e ust 'e sa(ed--t"is #ould 'e t"e !air solution. 3uc" a solution+ #e ust note+ re@uires not onl) i partialit)+ 'ut t"e principle t"at e(er)one is gi(en !ull and e@ual respect. 2! t"e #i!e #ere considered o! less (alue t"an t"e ot"ers+ a =ust solution could not 'e reac"ed. 6ntil recentl)+ &o"l'erg "ad 'een scoring so e o! "is su'=ects at stage 6+ 'ut "e "as te poraril) stopped doing so+ Eor one t"ing+ "e and ot"er researc"ers "ad not 'een !inding su'=ects #"o consistentl) reasoned at t"is stage. Also+ &o"l'erg "as concluded t"at "is inter(ie# dile as are not use!ul !or distinguis"ing 'et#een stage 5 and stage 6 t"in$ing. He 'elie(es t"at stage 6 "as a clearer and 'roader conception o! uni(ersal principles (#"ic" include =ustice as #ell as indi(idual rig"ts)+ 'ut !eels t"at "is inter(ie# !ails to dra# out t"is 'roader understanding. Conse@uentl)+ "e "as te poraril) dropped stage 6 !ro "is scoring anual+ calling it a 9t"eoretical stage9 and scoring all postcon(entional responses as stage 5 (Col') and &o"l'erg+ 1983+ p. ,8). 7"eoreticall)+ one issue t"at distinguis"es stage 5 !ro stage 6 is ci(il diso'edience. 3tage 5 #ould 'e ore "esitant to endorse ci(il diso'edience 'ecause o! its co it ent to t"e social contract and to c"anging la#s t"roug" de ocratic agree ents. Fnl) #"en an indi(idual rig"t is clearl) at sta$e does (iolating t"e la# see =usti!ied. At stage 6+ in contrast+ a co it ent to =ustice a$es t"e rationale !or ci(il diso'edience stronger and 'roader. 1artin %ut"er &ing+ !or exa ple+ argued t"at la#s are onl) (alid inso!ar as t"e) are grounded in =ustice+ and t"at a co it ent to =ustice carries #it" it an o'ligation to diso'e) un=ust la#s. &ing also recogniBed+ o! course+ t"e general need !or la#s and de ocratic processes (stages 5 and 5)+ and "e #as t"ere!ore #illing to accept t"e penalities !or "is actions. /e(ert"eless+ "e 'elie(ed t"at t"e "ig"er principle o! =ustice re@uired ci(il diso'edience (&o"l'erg+ 198 1+ p. 53). S'(($r% At stage 1 c"ildren t"in$ o! #"at is rig"t as t"at #"ic" aut"orit) sa)s is rig"t. <oing t"e rig"t t"ing is o'e)ing aut"orit) and a(oiding punis" ent. At stage ,+ c"ildren are no longer so i pressed ') an) single aut"orit)8 t"e) see t"at t"ere are di!!erent sides to an) issue. 3ince e(er)t"ing is relati(e+ one is !ree to pursue one*s o#n interests+ alt"oug" it is o!ten use!ul to a$e deals and exc"ange !a(ors #it" ot"ers. At stages 3 and 5+ )oung people t"in$ as e 'ers o! t"e con(entional societ) #it" its (alues+ nor s+ and expectations. At stage 3+ t"e) e p"asiBe 'eing a good person+ #"ic" 'asicall) eans "a(ing "elp!ul oti(es to#ard people close to one At stage 5+ t"e concern s"i!ts to#ard o'e)ing la#s to aintain societ) as a #"ole. At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned #it" aintaining societ) !or it o#n sa$e+ and ore concerned #it" t"e principles and (alues t"at a$e !or a good societ). At stage 5 t"e) e p"asiBe

'asic rig"ts and t"e de ocratic processes t"at gi(e e(er)one a sa)+ and at stage 6 t"e) de!ine t"e principles ') #"ic" agree ent #ill 'e ost =ust. THEORETICAL ISSUES H ) Devel *(e!" Occ'r& &o"l'erg+ it is i portant to re e 'er+ is a close !ollo#er o! Piaget. Accordingl)+ &o"l'erg*s t"eoretical positions+ including t"at on de(elop ental c"ange+ re!lect t"ose o! "is entor. &o"l'erg (e.g.+ 19688 198 1+ C". 3) sa)s t"at "is stages are not t"e product o! aturation. 7"at is+ t"e stage structures and se@uences do not si pl) un!old according to a genetic 'lueprint. /eit"er+ &o"l'erg aintains+ are "is stages t"e product o! socialiBation. 7"at is+ socialiBing agents (e.g.+ parents and teac"ers) do not directl) teac" ne# !or s o! t"in$ing. 2ndeed+ it is di!!icult to i agine t"e s)ste aticall) teac"ing eac" ne# stage structure in its particular place in t"e se@uence. 7"e stages e erge+ instead+ !ro our o#n t"in$ing a'out oral pro'le s. 3ocial experiences do pro ote de(elop ent+ 'ut t"e) do so ') sti ulating our ental processes. As #e get into discussions and de'ates #it" ot"ers+ #e !ind our (ie#s @uestioned and c"allenged and are t"ere!ore oti(ated to co e up #it" ne#+ ore co pre"ensi(e positions. /e# stages re!lect t"ese 'roader (ie#points (&o"l'erg et al.+ 19-5). We ig"t i agine+ !or exa ple+ a )oung an and #o an discussing a ne# la#. 7"e an sa)s t"at e(er)one s"ould o'e) it+ li$e it or not+ 'ecause la#s are (ital to social organiBation (stage 5). 7"e #o an notes+ "o#e(er+ t"at so e #ell-organiBed societies+ suc" as /aBi ?er an)+ #ere not particularl) oral. 7"e an t"ere!ore sees t"at so e e(idence contradicts "is (ie#. He experiences so e cogniti(e con!lict and is oti(ated to t"in$ a'out t"e atter ore !ull)+ per"aps o(ing a 'it to#ard stage 5. &o"l'erg also so eti es spea$s o! c"ange occurring t"roug" role-ta$ing opportunities+ opportunities to consider ot"ers* (ie#points (e.g.+ 19-6). As c"ildren interact #it" ot"ers+ t"e) learn "o# (ie#points di!!er and "o# to coordinate t"e in cooperati(e acti(ities. As t"e) discuss t"eir pro'le s and #or$ out t"eir di!!erences+ t"e) de(elop t"eir conceptions o! #"at is !air and =ust. W"ate(er t"e interactions are speci!icall) li$e+ t"e) #or$ 'est+ &o"l'erg sa)s+ #"en t"e) are open and de ocratic. 7"e less c"ildren !eel pressured si pl) to con!or to aut"orit)+ t"e !reer t"e) are to settle t"eir o#n di!!erences and !or ulate t"eir o#n ideas. We #ill discuss &o"l'erg*s e!!orts to induce de(elop ental c"ange in t"e section on i plications !or education. T+e S"$,e C !ce*" Piaget+ )ou #ill recall+ proposed t"at true ental stages eet se(eral criteria. 7"e) (1) are @ualitati(el) di!!erent #a)s o! t"in$ing+ (,) are structured #"oles+ (3) progress in an in(ariant

se@uence+ (5) can 'e c"aracteriBed as "ierarc"ic integrations. and (5) are cross-cultural uni(ersals. &o"l'erg "as ta$en t"ese criteria (er) seriousl)+ tr)ing to s"o# "o# "is stages t"e all. %et us consider t"ese points one at a ti e.

eet

1. 'ualitative di((erences. 2t see s !airl) clear t"at &o"l'erg*s stages are @ualitati(el) di!!erent !ro one anot"er. Eor exa ple+ stage 1 responses+ #"ic" !ocus on o'edience to aut"orit)+ sound (er) di!!erent !ro stage , responses+ #"ic" argue t"at eac" person is !ree to 'e"a(e as "e or s"e #is"es. 7"e t#o stages do not see to di!!er along an) @uantitati(e di ension+ t"e) see @ualitati(el) di!!erent. 2. Structured )holes. .) 9structured #"oles+9 &o"l'erg eans t"at t"e stages are not =ust isolated responses 'ut are general patterns o! t"oug"t t"at #ill consistentl) s"o# up across an) di!!erent $inds o! issues. Fne gets a sense t"at t"is is true ') reading t"roug" "is scoring anual8 one !inds t"e sa e $inds o! t"in$ing reappearing on di(erse ite s. Eor exa ple+ one ite as$s+ 9W") s"ould a pro ise 'e $eptD9 As on t"e HeinB dile a+ c"ildren at stage 1 again spea$ in ter s o! o'edience to rules+ #"ereas t"ose at stage , !ocus on exc"anging !a(ors t"at are in one*s sel!-interest (e.g.+ 90ou ne(er $no# #"en )ou*re going to need t"at person to do so et"ing !or )ou9). 3i ilarl)+ as c"ildren proceed t"roug" t"e stages t"e) $eep gi(ing responses t"at are si ilar to t"ose to t"e HeinB dile a (?i''s et al.+ 1983+ pp. 315-8,). 2n addition+ &o"l'erg and "is co-#or$ers (Col') et al.+ 1983) "a(e o'tained @uantitati(e esti ates o! t"e extent to #"ic" su'=ects respond in ter s o! one particular stage. 3ince so e su'=ects ig"t 'e in transition 'et#een stages+ one does not expect per!ect consistenc). /e(ert"eless+ &o"l'erg !ound t"at su'=ects scored at t"eir do inant stage across nine dile as a'out t#o-t"irds o! t"e ti e. 7"is see s to 'e a !air degree o! consistenc)+ suggesting t"e stages a) re!lect general odes o! t"oug"t. 3. Invariant se*uence. &o"l'erg 'elie(es t"at "is stages un!old in an in(ariant se@uence. C"ildren al#a)s go !ro stage 1 to stage , to stage 3 and so !ort". 7"e) do not s$ip stages or o(e t"roug" t"e in ixed-up orders. /ot all c"ildren necessaril) reac" t"e "ig"est stages8 t"e) ig"t lac$ intellectual sti ulation. .ut to t"e extent t"e) do go t"roug" t"e stages+ t"e) proceed in order. 1ost o! &o"l'erg*s e(idence on "is stage se@uence co es !ro cross-sectional data. 7"at is+ "e inter(ie#ed di!!erent c"ildren at (arious ages to see i! t"e )ounger ones #ere at lo#er stages t"an t"e older ones. 3tages 1 and , are pri aril) !ound at t"e )oungest age+ #"ereas t"e "ig"er stages 'eco e ore pre(alent as age increases. 7"us+ t"e data support t"e stage se@uence. Cross-sectional !indings+ "o#e(er+ are inconclusi(e. 2n a cross-sectional stud)+ di!!erent c"ildren are inter(ie#ed at eac" age+ so t"ere is no guarantee t"at an) indi(idual c"ild actuall) o(es t"roug" t"e stages in order. Eor exa ple+ t"ere is no guarantee t"at a 'o) #"o is coded at stage 3 at age 13 actuall) passed t"roug" stages 1 and , in order #"en "e #as )ounger. 1ore conclusi(e e(idence ust co e !ro longitudinal studies+ in #"ic" t"e sa e c"ildren are !ollo#ed o(er ti e.

7"e !irst t#o a=or longitudinal studies (&o"l'erg and &ra er+ 19698 Holstein+ 19-3) 'egan #it" sa ples o! teenagers and t"en tested t"e at t"ree-)ear inter(als. 7"ese studies produced a 'iguous results. 2n 'ot"+ ost su'=ects eit"er re ained at t"e sa e stage or o(ed up one stage+ 'ut t"ere #ere also so e #"o ig"t "a(e s$ipped a stage. Eurt"er ore+ t"ese studies indicated t"at so e su'=ects "ad regressed+ and t"is !inding also 'ot"ered &o"l'erg+ 'ecause "e 'elie(es t"at o(e ent t"roug" "is stages s"ould al#a)s 'e !or#ard. &o"l'erg*s response to t"ese trou'leso e !indings #as to re(ise "is scoring et"od. He "ad alread) 'eco e unco !orta'le #it" "is !irst (1958') scoring anual+ 'elie(ing t"at it relied too "ea(il) on t"e content o! su'=ects* ans#ers rat"er t"an t"eir underl)ing reasoning. and "e "ad ade so e i pro(e ents on it. 3o+ #"en t"ese longitudinal !indings e erged+ "e decided to de(elop a uc" ore precise and ade@uate scoring s)ste and+ to so e extent+ to re(ise "is de!initions o! t"e stages. 7o create t"e latest scoring anual+ &o"l'erg and "is co-#or$ers (Col') et al.+ 1983) #or$ed #it" se(en 'o)s !ro "is original (1958) sa ple #"o "ad 'een retested e(er) t"ree or !our )ears !or ,> )ears. 2t #as during t"is #or$ t"at &o"l'erg decided to drop stage 6. &o"l'erg t"en exa ined t"e ")pot"esis o! in(ariant se@uence !or 51 ot"er 'o)s !ro "is original sa ple+ #"o also "ad 'een retested at least t#ice (e(er) t"ree or !our )ears) o(er t"e ,>-)ear period. 7"is ti e+ &o"l'erg and "is colleagues (Col') et al.+ 1983) !ound no stage-s$ipping+ and onl) a'out 6 percent o! t"e su'=ects s"o#ed signs o! regressing. Eour recent longitudinal studies "a(e o'tained si ilar results alt"oug"+ t#o "a(e !ound so e#"at ore regression (up to 15 percent) (see Col') et al.+ 1983). 2n general+ t"en+ t"e ne# longitudinal studies see to support t"e in(ariant-se@uence ")pot"esis. &o"l'erg*s ne#+ longitudinal stud) "as also c"anged t"e earlier picture o! oral de(elop ent in ot"er #a)s. 3tage 5 "ad 'eco e t"e do inant stage ') age 16. 2n t"e ne# scoring s)ste + "o#e(er+ it is ore di!!icult to ac"ie(e t"e "ig"er stages--t"e reasoning ust 'e ore clearl) de onstrated--and &o"l'erg !inds t"at stage 5 does not 'eco e do inant until t"e 'o)s are in t"eir ,>s and 3>s. 3tage 5+ too+ onl) appears in t"e id-,>s and ne(er 'eco es (er) pre(alent. . +ierarchic integration. W"en &o"l'erg sa)s t"at "is stages are "ierarc"icall) integrated+ "e eans t"at people do not lose t"e insig"ts gained at earlier stages+ 'ut integrate t"e into ne#+ 'roader !ra e#or$s. Eor exa ple+ people at stage 5 can still understand stage 3 argu ents+ 'ut t"e) no# su'ordinate t"e to #ider considerations. 7"e) understand t"at HeinB "ad good oti(es !or stealing+ 'ut t"e) point out t"at i! #e all stole #"ene(er #e "ad a good oti(e+ t"e social structure #ould 'rea$ do#n. 7"us stage 5 su'ordinates a concern !or oti(es to a #ider concern !or t"e societ) as a #"ole. 7"e concept o! "ierarc"ic integration is (er) i portant !or &o"l'erg 'ecause it ena'les "i to explain t"e direction o! "is stage se@uence. 3ince "e is not a aturationist+ "e cannot si pl) sa) t"at t"e se@uence is #ired into t"e genes. 3o "e #ants to s"o# "o# eac" ne# stage pro(ides a 'roader !ra e#or$ !or dealing #it" oral issues. 3tage 5+ as entioned+ transcends t"e li itations o! stage 3 and 'eco es ore 'roadl) concerned #it" social organiBation. 3tage 5+ in turn+ sees t"e #ea$ness o! stage 58 a #ell-organiBed societ) is not necessaril) a oral one. 3tage

5 t"ere!ore considers t"e rig"ts and orderl) processes t"at a$e !or a oral societ). 4ac" ne# stage retains t"e insig"ts o! t"e prior stage+ 'ut it recasts t"e into a 'roader !ra e#or$. 2n t"is sense+ eac" ne# stage is ore cogniti(el) ade@uate t"an t"e prior stage. 2! &o"l'erg is rig"t a'out t"e "ierarc"ic nature o! "is stages+ #e #ould expect t"at people #ould still 'e a'le to understand earlier stages 'ut consider t"e in!erior+ 2n !act+ #"en :est (:est et al.+ 19698 :est+ 19-3) presented adolescents #it" argu ents !ro di!!erent stages+ t"is is #"at "e !ound. 7"e) understood lo#er-stage reasoning+ 'ut t"e) disli$ed it. W"at t"e) pre!erred #as t"e "ig"est stage t"e) "eard+ #"et"er t"e) !ull) understood it or not. 7"is !inding suggests+ per"aps+ t"at t"e) "ad so e intuiti(e sense o! t"e greater ade@uac) o! t"e "ig"er stages. Werner+ #e re e 'er !ro C"apter 5+ descri'ed "ierarc"ic integration as a process t"at occurs alongside differentiation, and &o"l'erg 'elie(es "is stages represent increasingl) di!!erentiated structures as #ell. &o"l'erg points out t"at t"e stage 5 (alue on li!e+ !or exa ple+ "as 'eco e di!!erentiated !ro ot"er considerations. 3tage 5 respondents sa) t"at #e oug"t to (alue li!e !or its o#n sa$e+ regardless o! its (alue to aut"orities (stage 1)+ its use!ulness to onesel! (stage ,)+ t"e a!!ection it arouses in us (stage 3)+ or its (alue #it"in a particular social order (stage 5). 3tage 5 su'=ects "a(e a'stracted t"is (alue !ro ot"er considerations and no# treat it as a purel) oral ideal. 7"eir t"in$ing+ &o"l'erg sa)s+ is 'eco ing li$e t"at o! t"e oral p"ilosop"ers in t"e &antian tradition (1981+ p. 1-1). ". &niversal se*uence. &o"l'erg+ li$e all stage t"eorists+ aintains t"at "is stage se@uence is uni(ersal8 it is t"e sa e in all cultures. At !irst glance+ t"is proposal ig"t 'e surprising. <on*t di!!erent cultures socialiBe t"eir c"ildren di!!erentl)+ teac"ing t"e (er) di!!erent oral 'elie!sD &o"l'erg*s response is t"at di!!erent cultures do teac" di!!erent 'elie!s+ 'ut t"at "is stages re!er not to speci!ic 'elie!s 'ut to underl)ing odes o! reasoning (&o"l'erg and ?illigan+ 19- 1). Eor exa ple+ one culture ig"t discourage p")sical !ig"ting+ #"ile anot"er encourages it ore. As a result+ c"ildren #ill "a(e di!!erent 'elie!s a'out !ig"ting+ 'ut t"e) #ill still reason a'out it in t"e sa e #a) at t"e sa e stage. At stage 1+ !or exa ple+ one c"ild ig"t sa) t"at it is #rong to !ig"t #"en insulted 9'ecause )ou #ill get punis"ed !or it+ 9#"ile anot"er sa)s t"at 9it is all rig"t to !ig"t8 )ou #on*t get punis"ed.9 7"e 'elie!s di!!er+ 'ut 'ot" c"ildren reason a'out t"e in t"e sa e underl)ing #a)+ in ter s o! t"e p")sical conse@uences (punis" ent). 7"e) do so 'ecause t"is is #"at t"e) can cogniti(el) grasp. %ater on+ t"e !irst c"ild ig"t argue t"at !ig"ting is 'ad 9'ecause i! e(er)one !oug"t all t"e ti e t"ere #ould 'e anarc")+9 #"ile t"e second c"ild argues t"at 9people ust de!end t"eir "onor+ 'ecause i! t"e) don*t e(er)one #ill 'e insulting e(er)one+ and t"e #"ole societ) #ill 'rea$ do#n.9 Fnce again+ t"e speci!ic 'elie!s di!!er+ re!lecting di!!erent cultural teac"ings+ 'ut t"e underl)ing reasoning is t"e sa e--in t"is case it is stage 5+ #"ere people can consider so et"ing as a'stract as t"e social order. C"ildren+ regardless o! t"eir 'elie!s+ #ill al#a)s o(e to stage 5 t"in$ing so e ti e a!ter stage 1 t"in$ing 'ecause it is cogniti(el) so uc" ore sop"isticated. &o"l'erg+ t"en+ proposes t"at "is stage se@uence #ill 'e t"e sa e in all cultures+ !or eac" stage is conceptuall) ore ad(anced t"an t"e next. He and ot"er researc"ers "a(e gi(en "is inter(ie# to c"ildren and adults in a (ariet) o! cultures+ including 1exico+ 7ai#an+ 7ur$e)+ 2srael+ t"e 0ucatan+ &en)a+ t"e .a"a as+ and 2ndia. 1ost o! t"e studies "a(e 'een cross sectional+ 'ut a

!e# "a(e 'een longitudinal. 7"us !ar+ t"e studies "a(e supported &o"l'erg*s stage se@uence. 7o t"e extent t"at c"ildren o(e t"roug" t"e stages+ t"e) appear to o(e in order (4d#ards+ 198>). At t"e sa e ti e+ people in di!!erent cultures see to o(e t"roug" t"e se@uence at di!!erent rates and to reac" di!!erent end-points. 2n t"e 6nited 3tates ost ur'an iddle-class adults reac" stage 5+ #it" a s all percentage using so e stage 5 reasoning. 2n ur'an areas o! ot"er countries t"e picture is !airl) si ilar. 2n t"e isolated (illages and tri'al co unities o! an) countries+ "o#e(er+ it is rare to !ind an) adult 'e)ond stage 3 (4d#ards+ 198>). &o"l'erg (/isan and &o"l'erg+ 198,) suggests t"at one can understand t"ese !indings in ter s o! Piagetian t"eor). Cultural !actors+ in t"is t"eor)+ do not directl) s"ape t"e c"ild*s oral t"oug"t+ 'ut t"e) do sti ulate t"in$ing. 3ocial experiences can c"allenge c"ildren*s ideas+ oti(ating t"e to co e up #it" ne# ones. 2n traditional (illages+ "o#e(er+ t"ere a) 'e little to c"allenge a stage 3 oralit)8 t"e nor s o! care and e pat") #or$ (er) #ell in go(erning t"e !ace-to-!ace interactions o! t"e group. 7"us+ t"ere is little to sti ulate t"in$ing 'e)ond t"is stage. W"en+ in contrast+ )oung people lea(e t"e (illage and go o!! to t"e cit)+ t"e) #itness t"e 'rea$do#n o! interpersonal ties. 7"e) see t"at group nor s o! care and e pat") "a(e little i pact on t"e i personal interactions o! cit) li!e+ and t"e) see t"e need !or a !or al legal structure to ensure oral conduct. 7"e) 'egin to t"in$ in ter s o! stage 5 oralit). Eurt"er ore+ as &eniston (19-1) notes+ i! )oung people attend t"e uni(ersities+ t"e) a) ta$e classes in #"ic" t"e teac"ers deli'eratel) @uestion t"e unexa ined assu ptions o! t"eir c"ild"oods and adolescences. 7"us t"e) are sti ulated to t"in$ a'out oral atters in ne# #a)s. M r$l T+ ',+" $!- M r$l Be+$v# r &o"l'erg*s scale "as to do #it" oral t"in$ing+ not oral action. As e(er)one $no#s+ people #"o can tal$ at a "ig" oral le(el a) not 'e"a(e accordingl). Conse@uentl)+ #e #ould not expect per!ect correlations 'et#een oral =udg ent and oral action. 3till+ &o"l'erg t"in$s t"at t"ere s"ould 'e so e relations"ip. As a general ")pot"esis+ "e proposes t"at oral 'e"a(ior is ore consistent+ predicta'le. and responsi'le at t"e "ig"er stages (&o"l'erg et al.+ 19-5)+ 'ecause t"e stages t"e sel(es increasingl) e plo) ore sta'le and general standards. Eor exa ple+ #"ereas stage 3 'ases decisions on ot"ers* !eelings+ #"ic" can (ar)+ stage 5 re!ers to set rules and la#s. 7"us+ #e can expect t"at oral 'e"a(ior+ too+ #ill 'eco e ore consistent as people o(e up t"e se@uence. ?enerall) spea$ing+ t"ere is so e researc" support !or t"is ")pot"esis (e.g.+ #it" respect to c"eating)+ 'ut t"e e(idence is not clear-cut (.lasi+ 198>8 .ro#n and Herrnstein+ 19-5). 3o e researc" "as !ocused on t"e relations"ips 'et#een particular stages and speci!ic $inds o! 'e"a(ior. Eor exa ple+ one ig"t expect t"at =u(enile delin@uents or cri inals #ould t)picall) reason at stages 1 or ,+ (ie#ing oralit) as so et"ing i posed !ro #it"out (stage 1) or as a atter o! sel!-interest (stage ,)+ rat"er t"an identi!)ing #it" societ)*s con(entional expectations (stages 3 and 5). Again+ so e researc" supports t"is ")pot"esis+ 'ut t"ere also are so e a 'iguous results (.lasi+ 198>).

3e(eral studies "a(e exa ined t"e relations"ip 'et#een postcon(entional t"in$ing and student protest. 2n a land ar$ stud)+ Haan et al. (1968) exa ined t"e oral reasoning o! t"ose #"o participated in t"e .er$ele) Eree 3peec" 1o(e ent in 1965. Haan !ound t"at t"eir t"in$ing #as ore strongl) postcon(entional t"an t"at o! a atc"ed sa ple o! nonparticipants+ 'ut t"is ! inding #as not replicated !or so e ot"er protests+ apparentl) 'ecause oral principles #ere not at sta$e (&eniston+ 19-1+ pp. ,6>-6 1). .lasi (198>)+ a!ter re(ie#ing -5 studies+ concludes t"at o(erall t"ere is a relations"ip 'et#een oral t"oug"t and action+ 'ut "e suggests t"at #e need to introduce ot"er (aria'les to clari!) t"is relations"ip. Fne (aria'le a) si pl) 'e t"e extent to #"ic" indi(iduals t"e sel(es !eel t"e need to aintain consistenc) 'et#een t"eir oral t"oug"ts and actions (.lasi+ 198>+ &o"l'erg and Candee+ 1981). M r$l T+ ',+" $!- O"+er F r(& . C ,!#"# ! &o"l'erg "as also tried to relate "is oral stages to ot"er !or s o! cognition. He "as !irst anal)Bed "is stages in ter s o! t"eir underl)ing cogniti(e structures and "as t"en loo$ed !or parallels in purel) logical and social t"oug"t. Eor t"is purpose+ "e "as anal)Bed "is o#n stages in ter s o! i plicit role-taking capacities, capacities to consider ot"ers* (ie#points (&o"l'erg+ 19-68 see also 3el an+ 19-6+ and :est+ 1983). At !irst+ at stage 1+ c"ildren "ardl) see to recogniBe t"at (ie#points di!!er. 7"e) assu e t"at t"ere is onl) one rig"t (ie#+ t"at o! aut"orities. At stage ,+ in contrast+ t"e) recogniBe t"at people "a(e di!!erent interests and (ie#points. 7"e) see to 'e o(erco ing egocentris 8 t"e) see t"at perspecti(es are relati(e to t"e indi(idual . 7"e) also 'egin to consider "o# indi(iduals ig"t coordinate t"eir interests in ter s o! utuall) 'ene!icial deals. At stage 3+ people conceptualiBe role-ta$ing as a deeper+ ore e pat"ic process8 one 'eco es concerned #it" t"e ot"er*s !eelings. 3tage 5+ in turn+ "as a 'roader+ societ)-#ide conception o! "o# people coordinate t"eir roles t"roug" t"e legal s)ste .. 3tages 5 and 6+ !inall)+ ta$e a ore idealiBed loo$ at "o# people ig"t coordinate t"eir interests. 3tage 5 e p"asiBes de ocratic processes+ and stage 6 considers "o# all parties ta$e one anot"er*s perspecti(es according to t"e principles o! =ustice. 7"e oral stages+ t"en+ re!lect expanded insig"ts into "o# perspecti(es di!!er and ig"t 'e coordinated. As suc"+ t"e oral stages ig"t 'e related to stages o! logical and social t"oug"t #"ic" contain si ilar insig"ts. 3o !ar+ t"e e pirical e(idence suggests t"at ad(ances in oral t"in$ing a) rest upon prior ac"ie(e ents in t"ese ot"er real s (&o"l'erg+ 19-68 &u"n et al.+ 19--). Eor exa ple+ c"ildren see to ad(ance to stage ,+ o(erco ing t"eir egocentris in t"e oral sp"ere+ onl) a!ter t"e) "a(e ade e@ui(alent progress in t"eir logical and social t"oug"t. 2! t"is pattern is correct+ #e can expect to !ind an) indi(iduals #"o are logical and e(en sociall) insig"t!ul 'ut still underde(eloped in t"eir oral =udg ent. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

&o"l'erg #ould li$e to see people ad(ance to t"e "ig"est possi'le stage o! oral t"oug"t. 7"e 'est possi'le societ) #ould contain indi(iduals #"o not onl) understand t"e need !or social order (stage 5) 'ut can entertain (isions o! uni(ersal principles+ suc" as =ustice and li'ert) (stage 6) (&o"l'erg+ 19->). Ho#+ t"en+ can one pro ote oral de(elop entD 7uriel (1966) !ound t"at #"en c"ildren listened to adults* oral =udg ents+ t"e resulting c"ange #as slig"t. 7"is is #"at &o"l'erg ig"t "a(e expected+ !or "e 'elie(es t"at i! c"ildren are to reorganiBe t"eir t"in$ing+ t"e) ust 'e ore acti(e. Accordingl)+ &o"l'erg encouraged anot"er student+ 1os"e .latt+ to lead discussion groups in #"ic" c"ildren "ad a c"ance to grapple acti(el) #it" oral issues (.latt and &o"l'erg+ 19-5). .latt presented oral dile as #"ic" engaged t"e classes in a good deal o! "eated de'ate. He tried to lea(e uc" o! t"e discussion to t"e c"ildren t"e sel(es+ stepping in onl) to su ariBe+ clari!)+ and so eti es present a (ie# "i sel! (p. 133). He encouraged argu ents t"at #ere one stage a'o(e t"ose o! ost o! t"e class. 2n essence+ "e tried to i ple ent one o! &o"l'erg*s ain ideas on "o# c"ildren o(e t"roug" t"e stages. 7"e) do so ') encountering (ie#s #"ic" c"allenge t"eir t"in$ing and sti ulate t"e to !or ulate 'etter argu ents (&o"l'erg et al.+ 19-5). .latt 'egan a t)pical discussion ') telling a stor) a'out a an na ed 1r. ;ones #"o "ad a seriousl) in=ured son and #anted to rus" "i to t"e "ospital. 1r. ;ones "ad no car+ so "e approac"ed a stranger+ told "i a'out t"e situation+ and as$ed to 'orro# "is car. 7"e stranger+ "o#e(er+ re!used+ sa)ing "e "ad an i portant appoint ent to $eep. 3o 1r. ;ones too$ t"e car ') !orce. .latt t"en as$ed #"et"er 1r. ;ones s"ould "a(e done t"at. 2n t"e discussion t"at !ollo#ed+ one c"ild+ 3tudent .+ !elt t"at 1r. ;ones "ad a good cause !or ta$ing t"e car and also 'elie(ed t"at t"e stranger could 'e c"arged #it" urder i! t"e son died. 3tudent C pointed out t"at t"e stranger (iolated no la#. 3tudent . still !elt t"at t"e stranger*s 'e"a(ior #as so e"o# #rong+ e(en t"oug" "e no# realiBed t"at it #as not legall) #rong. 7"us+ 3tudent . #as in a $ind o! con!lict. He "ad a sense o! t"e #rongness o! t"e stranger*s 'e"a(ior+ 'ut "e could not articulate t"is sense in ter s t"at #ould eet t"e o'=ection. He #as c"allenged to t"in$ a'out t"e pro'le ore deepl). 2n t"e end+ .latt ga(e "i t"e ans#er. 7"e stranger*s 'e"a(ior+ .latt said+ #as not legall) #rong+ 'ut orall) #rong--#rong according to ?od*s la#s (t"is #as a 3unda) 3c"ool Class). At t"is point+ .latt #as an aut"orit) teac"ing t"e 9correct9 (ie#. 2n so doing+ "e ig"t "a(e ro''ed 3tudent . o! t"e c"ance to !or ulate spontaneousl) "is o#n position. He ig"t "a(e done 'etter to as$ a @uestion or to si pl) clari!) t"e student*s con!lict (e.g++ 93o it*s not legall) #rong+ 'ut )ou still "a(e a sense t"at+ it*s so e"o# #rong. . .9). 2n an) case+ it see s clear t"at part o! t"is discussion #as (alua'le !or t"is student. 3ince "e "i sel! struggled to !or ulate a distinction t"at could "andle t"e o'=ection+ "e could !ull) appreciate and assi ilate a ne# (ie# t"at "e #as loo$ing !or. 7"e &o"l'erg-.latt et"od o! inducing cogniti(e con!lict exe pli!ies Piaget*s e@uili'ration odel. 7"e c"ild ta$es one (ie#+ 'eco es con!used ') discrepant in!or ation+ and t"en resol(es

t"e con!usion ') !or ing a ore ad(anced and co pre"ensi(e position. 7"e et"od is also t"e dialectic process o! 3ocratic teac"ing. 7"e students gi(e a (ie#+ t"e teac"er as$s @uestions #"ic" get t"e to see t"e inade@uacies o! t"eir (ie#s+ and t"e) are t"en oti(ated to !or ulate 'etter positions. 2n .latt*s !irst experi ent+ t"e students (sixt" graders) participated in 1, #ee$l) discussion groups. .latt !ound t"at o(er "al! t"e students o(ed up one !ull stage a!ter t"e 1, #ee$s. .latt and ot"ers "a(e tried to replicate t"ese !indings+ so eti es using ot"er age groups and lengt"ier series o! classes. As o!ten "appens #it" replications+ t"e results "a(e not 'een @uite so success!ul8 up#ard c"anges "a(e 'een s aller--usuall) a t"ird o! a stage or less+ 3till+ it generall) see s t"at 3ocratic classroo discussions "eld o(er se(eral ont"s can produce c"anges t"at+ #"ile s all+ are signi!icantl) greater t"an t"ose !ound in control groups #"o do not recei(e t"ese experiences (:est+ 1983). Fne o! .latt*s supple entar) !indings #as t"at t"ose students #"o reported t"at t"e) #ere ost 9interested9 in t"e discussions ade t"e greatest a ount o! c"ange. 7"is !inding is in $eeping #it" Piagetian t"eor). C"ildren de(elop not 'ecause t"e) are s"aped t"roug" external rein!orce ents 'ut 'ecause t"eir curiosit) is aroused. 7"e) 'eco e interested in in!or ation t"at does not @uite !it into t"eir existing cogniti(e structures and are t"ere') oti(ated to re(ise t"eir t"in$ing Anot"er &o"l'erg student--1. .er$o#itB (198>)--is exa ining actual dialogues to see i! t"ose #"o 'eco e ost c"allenged and in(ol(ed in t"e tensions o! oral de'ate are also t"ose #"o o(e !or#ard. Alt"oug" &o"l'erg re ains co itted to t"e cogniti(e-con!lict odel o! c"ange+ "e "as also 'eco e interested in ot"er strategies. Fne is t"e 9=ust Co unit)9 approac". Here t"e !ocus is not t"e indi(iduals 'ut groups. Eor exa ple+ &o"l'erg and so e o! "is colleagues (Po#er and :ei er+ 19-9) set up a special de ocratic "ig" sc"ool group and acti(el) encouraged t"e students to t"in$ o! t"e sel(es as a co unit). 2nitiall)+ little co unit) !eeling #as present. 7"e group*s do inant orientation #as stage ,8 it treated pro'le s suc" as stealing as purel) indi(idual atters. 2! a 'o) "ad so et"ing stolen+ it #as too 'ad !or "i . A!ter a )ear+ "o#e(er+ t"e group nor s ad(anced to stage 38 t"e students no# considered stealing to 'e a co unit) issue t"at re!lected on t"e degree o! trust and care in t"e group. 2t #ill 'e interesting to see i! t"e =ust co unit) approac" can pro ote !urt"er ad(ances in oral t"in$ing. 2n t"e eanti e+ t"is approac" "as aroused so e uneasiness a ong so e o! &o"l'erg*s associates. 2n particular+ :ei er et al. (1983) "a(e #ondered #"et"er &o"l'erg+ ') explicitl) encouraging t"e students to t"in$ o! t"e sel(es as a co unit)+ is not practicing a !or o! indoctrination. :ei er sa)s t"at "e "as tal$ed to &o"l'erg a'out t"is+ and "e "as co e a#a) con(inced t"at &o"l'erg is co itted to de ocratic groups in #"ic" students are encouraged 9to t"in$ criticall)+ to discuss assu ptions+ and. #"en t"e) !eel it is necessar)+ to c"allenge t"e teac"er*s suggestions9 (p. ,5,). 7"us+ oral de(elop ent re ains a product o! t"e students* o#n t"in$ing. EVALUATION

&o"l'erg+ a !ollo#er o! Piaget+ "as o!!ered a ne#+ ore detailed stage se@uence !or oral t"in$ing. W"ereas Piaget 'asicall) !ound t#o stages o! oral t"in$ing+ t"e second o! #"ic" e erges in earl) adolescence+ &o"l'erg "as unco(ered additional stages #"ic" de(elop #ell into adolescence and adult"ood. He "as suggested t"at so e people e(en reac" a postcon(entional le(el o! oral t"in$ing #"ere t"e) no longer accept t"eir o#n societ) as gi(en 'ut t"in$ re!lecti(el) and autono ousl) a'out #"at a good societ) s"ould 'e. 7"e suggestion o! a postcon(entional oralit) is unusual in t"e social sciences. Per"aps it too$ a cogniti(e de(elop entalist list to suggest suc" a t"ing. Eor #"ereas ost social scientists "a(e 'een i pressed ') t"e #a)s in #"ic" societies old and s"ape c"ildren*s t"in$ing+ cogniti(ede(elop entalists are ore i pressed ') t"e capacities !or independent t"oug"t. 2! c"ildren engage in enoug" independent t"in$ing+ &o"l'erg suggests+ t"e) #ill e(entuall) 'egin to !or ulate conceptions o! rig"ts+ (alues+ and principles ') #"ic" t"e) e(aluate existing social arrange ents. Per"aps so e #ill e(en ad(ance to t"e $inds o! t"in$ing t"at c"aracteriBe so e o! t"e great oral leaders and p"ilosop"ers #"o "a(e at ti es ad(ocated ci(il diso'edience in t"e na e o! uni(ersal et"ical principles. &o"l'erg*s t"eor) "as pro(o$ed a good deal o! criticis . /ot e(er)one+ !irst o! all+ is ent"usiastic a'out t"e concept o! a postcon(entional oralit). Hogan (19-3+ 19-5)+ !or exa ple+ !eels t"at it is dangerous !or people to place t"eir o#n principles a'o(e societ) and t"e la#. 2t a) 'e t"at an) ps)c"ologists react to &o"l'erg in a si ilar #a)+ and t"at t"is reaction underlies an) o! t"e de'ates o(er t"e scienti!ic erits o! "is researc". Ft"ers "a(e argued t"at &o"l'erg*s stages are culturall) 'iased. 3i pson (19-5)+ !or exa ple+ sa)s t"at &o"l'erg "as de(eloped a stage odel 'ased on t"e Western p"ilosop"ical tradition and "as t"en applied t"is odel to non-Western cultures #it"out considering t"e extent to #"ic" t"e) "a(e di!!erent oral outloo$s. 7"is criticis a) "a(e erit. Fne #onders "o# #ell &o"l'erg*s stages appl) to t"e great 4astern p"ilosop"ies. Fne also #onders i! "is stages do =ustice to oral de(elop ent in an) traditional (illage cultures. :esearc"ers !ind t"at (illagers stop at stage 3+ 'ut per"aps t"e) continue to de(elop oralities in directions t"at &o"l'erg*s stages !ail to capture. Anot"er criticis is t"at &o"l'erg*s t"eor) is sex-'iased+ a (ie# t"at "as 'een t"oug"t!ull) expressed ') one o! &o"l'erg*s associates and co-aut"ors+ Carol ?illigan (198,). ?illigan o'ser(es t"at &o"l'erg*s stages #ere deri(ed exclusi(el) !ro inter(ie#s #it" ales+ and s"e c"arges t"at t"e stages re!lect a decidedl) ale orientation. Eor ales+ ad(anced oral t"oug"t re(ol(es around rules+ rig"ts+ and a'stract principles. 7"e ideal is !or al =ustice+ in #"ic" all parties e(aluate one anot"er*s clai s in an i partial anner. 7"is conception o! oralit)+ ?illigan argues+ !ails to capture t"e distinctl) !e ale (oice on oral atters. Eor #o en+ ?illigan sa)s+ oralit) centers not on rig"ts and rules 'ut on interpersonal relations"ips and t"e et"ics o! co passion and care. 7"e ideal is not i personal =ustice 'ut ore a!!iliati(e #a)s o! li(ing. Wo en*s oralit)+ in addition+ is ore contextualiBed+ it is tied to real+ ongoing relations"ips rat"er t"an a'stract solutions to ")pot"etical dile as.

.ecause o! t"ese sex di!!erences+ ?illigan sa)s+ en and #o en !re@uentl) score at di!!erent stages on &o"l'erg*s scale. Wo en t)picall) score at stage 3+ #it" its !ocus on interpersonal !eelings+ #"ereas en ore co onl) score at stages 5 and 5+ #"ic" re!lect ore a'stract conceptions o! social organiBation. 7"us+ #o en score lo#er t"an en. 2!+ "o#e(er+ &o"l'erg*s scale #ere ore sensiti(e to #o en*s distinctl) interpersonal orientations+ it #ould s"o# t"at #o en also continue to de(elop t"eir t"in$ing 'e)ond stage 3. ?illigan "as ade an initial e!!ort to trace #o en*s oral de(elop ent. 3ince s"e 'elie(es t"at #o en*s conceptions o! care and a!!iliation are e 'edded in real-li!e situations+ s"e "as inter(ie#ed #o en !acing a personal crisis--t"e decision to "a(e an a'ortion. 7"roug" t"ese inter(ie#s+ ?illigan "as tried to s"o# t"at #o en o(e !ro a con(entional to a postcon(entional ode o! t"in$ing. 7"at is+ t"e) no longer consider t"eir responsi'ilities in ter s o! #"at is con(entionall) expected+ o! t"e 'ut in ter s o! t"eir o#n insig"ts into t"e et"ics o! care and responsi'ilit). /ot e(er)one agrees #it" ?illigan*s criti@ue. :est (1983)+ in particular+ argues t"at ?illigan "as exaggerated t"e extent o! t"e sex di!!erences !ound on &o"l'erg*s scale. An e(aluation o! t"is @uestion+ "o#e(er+ ust a#ait closer re(ie#s o! t"e literature. 2n t"e eanti e+ ?illigan "as raised an interesting t"eoretical possi'ilit). %i$e Werner+ s"e is suggesting t"at de(elop ent a) proceed along ore t"an one line. Fne line o! oral t"oug"t !ocuses on logic+ =ustice+ and social organiBation+ t"e ot"er on interpersonal relations"ips. 2! t"is is so+ t"ere is t"e !urt"er possi'ilit) t"at t"ese t#o lines at so e point 'eco e integrated #it"in eac" sex. 7"at is+ eac" sex ig"t 'eco e ore responsi(e to t"e do inant orientation o! t"e ot"er. Per"aps+ as ?illigan 'rie!l) suggests (198,+ C". 6)+ t"is integration is a a=or tas$ o! t"e adult )ears. (Eor !urt"er t"oug"ts in t"is (ein+ see C"apter 15 on ;ung*s t"eor) o! adult de(elop ent.) 7"ere are ot"er criticis s o! &o"l'erg*s #or$. 1an) o! t"ese "a(e to do #it" e pirical atters+ suc" as t"e pro'le o! in(ariant se@uence+ t"e pre(alence o! regression+ and t"e relations"ips 'et#een t"oug"t and action. 3ince 2 "a(e entioned t"ese earlier+ 2 #ould li$e to conclude #it" a ore general @uestion. &o"l'erg #rites in a !orce!ul anner and "e pro otes stage 6 as i! it pro(ides t"e decision- a$ing tools #e need !or t"e toug"est et"ical dile as. Ho#e(er+ t"ere a) 'e issues t"at t"e principles o! =ustice !re@uentl) !ail to resol(e. Fne suc" issue is a'ortion. 3tage 6 #ould as$ us to consider t"e p")sical li!e o! t"e !etus as #ell as all t"e parties* rig"t to !ul!illing li(es+ 'ut does stage 6 routinel) lead to decisions t"at #e !eel are rig"tD &o"l'erg*s students+ :ei er et al. (1983+ pp. 56-5-+ 88-89) discuss a stage 6 approac" to a ")pot"etical a'ortion decision #it"out reac"ing uc" o! a conclusion. 7"e decision+ t"e) sa)+ #ill "a(e to (ar) #it" t"e situation. 3tage 6. o! course+ is not intended to pro(ide a set o! ans#ers--it is a ode o! decision- a$ing. 3till+ &o"l'erg so eti es see s to s$i o(er t"e incredi'le di!!icult) t"at so e et"ical pro'le s present--a di!!icult) t"at is ore directl) expressed in t"e #riting o! &ant (1-88). /e(ert"eless+ #"ate(er criticis s and @uestions #e ig"t "a(e+ t"ere is no dou't t"at &o"l'erg*s acco plis" ent is great. He "as not =ust expanded on Piaget*s stages o! oral =udg ent 'ut "as done so in an inspiring #a). He "as studied t"e de(elop ent o! oral reasoning as it ig"t #or$

its #a) to#ard t"e t"in$ing o! t"e great oral p"ilosop"ers. 3o+ alt"oug" !e# people a) e(er 'egin to t"in$ a'out oral issues li$e 3ocrates+ &ant+ or 1artin %ut"er &ing+ &o"l'erg "as nonet"eless pro(ided us #it" a c"allenging (ision o! #"at de(elop ent ig"t 'e.
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

Lawrence Kohlberg 1927-1987

Throughout the course of the last two decades, scores of undergraduate psychology students have been introduced to the work of Lawrence Kohlberg in their Introductory sychology courses and Lifespan !evelopment courses. "is research, and the research of several of his contemporaries and colleagues, such as #arol $illigan, was the first of its kind to foster a contemporary understanding of how individuals develop as moral beings. %hether or not we have had the opportunity to learn about Kohlberg&s work, most of us have asked ourselves those fundamental 'uestions about the ways we make decisions, particularly those decisions that cannot be linked to the reduction of a primary drive, or those decisions that do not reward us with a tangible, easily recogni(able reward. )s human beings living in societies, many of us have struggled with the ways decisions and policies are implemented in our *ustice system. Kohlberg&s work aids both our understanding of the ways in which individuals make moral decisions, and demands that we use a more discerning system to criti'ue the systems of *ustice that are in place in our societies.

Who

What

When

How

Legacy

+eferences: http://www.psy.pd,.edu/ si#afe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.htm-)bout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence.Kohlberg http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/larry/00/1000.page/.html http://www.ripon.edu/academics/leadership/#L2/LaurenceKohlberg.htm http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm http://www.psy.pd,.edu/ si#afe/KeyTheorists/Kohlberg.htm-+esearch 3This is a good place to ac'uire the moral dilemmas that Kohlberg used, it also has links to criticisms of his theory and additional details on his stages of moral development.4

!eveloped by +obyn Long for 5#6 7/80: "istory of sychology !r. +oger Thomas

Who

Lawrence Kohlberg was born in /91: in ;ron,ville, 2ew 6ork. ;orn into wealth, Kohlberg displayed an early concern for the welfare of others by volunteering as a sailor in %orld %ar II and, later, working to smuggle <ews through the ;ritish ;lockade into alestine. )s a teenager, Kohlberg attended hillips )cademy, a prestigious private preparatory school, and later remarked that he had been better known for his mischief at hillips than his scholarship. It was upon his graduation from hillips, however, that Kohlberg first began to recogni(e his passion for the =ionist cause, and, following his graduation, he enlisted as an engineer on a carrier ship. Kohlberg and his compatriots were successful in smuggling <ews from >urope to alestine by placing beds inside banana crates. This illustration of a theorist&s personal choices in regard to a moral decision must surely have impacted his later work and the direction of his scholarship. ?pon return from the war, Kohlberg enrolled at The ?niversity of #hicago and completed his bachelor&s degree in psychology in *ust one year 3/9@94. >lecting to pursue his doctoral education at #hicago, Kohlberg grew increasingly fascinated by the cognitive development work proposed by 5wiss theorist <ean iaget, and focused his efforts on the moral development of

children for his dissertation. Kohlberg&s primary work, his development of stages of moral development, was born out of his doctoral dissertation. Arom /9B8, upon the completion of his dissertation, until /978, Kohlberg taught at The ?niversity of #hicago, primarily affiliated with The #ommittee on "uman !evelopment, cementing his identity as a developmental psychologist. In /978, following his marriage and the birth of two children, Kohlberg accepted a position at "arvard ?niversity, where he taught both education and social psychology, a true melding of his interests in psychology, moral development, and social *ustice. In /979, Kohlberg visited Israel, and was stunned by the advanced moral development of the youths he met that had *ourneyed the kibbut(. This e,perience inspired Kohlberg&s decision to create C*ust communitiesD, primarily schools, 3although he created a C*ust communityD in a prison as well4 upon his return from Israel. C<ust communitiesD were school environments in which students were encouraged and supported to form relationships of basic trust and respect with one another, and these school communities provided students the opportunity to be selfEgoverned, and encouraged a democratic form of government within each community. Kohlberg&s first C*ust communityD was The #luster 5chool, upon which he modeled subse'uent communities. 5adly, it is Kohlberg&s untimely end that is oftEremembered, though it serves as a powerful reminder of how one individual makes moral decisions. In /9:/, Kohlberg contracted a tropical disease while he was completing research in ;eli(e. The effects of this disease included both physical pain and depression, which persisted for si,teen years. Fn <anuary /9 th, /98:, Kohlberg took a oneEday leave of absence from the hospital where he was being treated for the illness, drove himself to the coast, and drowned himself. It is unclear whether or not <anuary /9th was the official day of his death, but it is widely accepted that !r. Kohlberg committed suicide. Fne year after they pulled !r. Kohlberg&s body from ;oston "arbor, 700 people gathered at the "arvard $raduate 5chool of >ducation and declared )pril /B th as Lawrence Kohlberg !ay. %illiam !amon, a scholar from #lark ?niversity, 3now at 5tanford ?niversity4 summed up the sentiments of many, CIt is going to take a long time to figure out what 3Kohlberg&s4 work meant in all of it&s implications.D

What

Kohlberg&s doctoral dissertation made him a star among psychologists when he proposed his si, stages of moral development, which contrasted with the moral development theory of his primary influence, <ean iaget, who had proposed only two stages of moral development. Kohlberg based his theory on interviews that he conducted in #hicago with :1 #aucasian male youths, largely lower and middle class. "e later added more diversity to his sample, including delin'uents, females, younger children and youth raised in other cultures. >ach of the youth were asked to make moral decisions about CThe !ilemma of "ein(D, a story about a fictional and financially strapped man who must make a decision about stealing medication for his dying wife. %hether than simply investigating a CyesD or CnoD response from the youth, however, Kohlberg was interested in the reasoning that they youth employed in making their decisions. It is upon his empirical observation of this reasoning that Kohlberg based his theory, and identified si, stages of moral development. Kohberg observed that young children felt they had no choice but to observe the rules handed down by a society, and would almost universally say CnoD to "ein( stealing the drug. ;ut as children aged, Kohlberg noted that the youth recogni(ed that they had additional choices, the youth began to make choices based on selfEinterest, and, eventually, as they age, based on the interests of a moral society.

Kohlberg&s work began to view the Cchild as a moral philosopherD and broke from psychoanalytic traditions that viewed children simply as the recipient of their parents& moral values and the behaviorist tradition that viewed moral decisions solely as a system of rewards and punishments. Kohlberg argued the children&s moral thinking was influenced instead by social relationships and emotions, such as empathy, love, respect and attachment. The methods of research that Kohlberg employed earned him the due respect of psychology and education researchers alike. The 5i, 5tages of Goral !evelopment are as follows:

Level I: Preconventional Morality 3age @ E /04 Goral value resides in a personHs own needs and wants tage1: Fbedience and unishment Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to avoid punishment. tage 2: InstrumentalE+elativist Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to satisfy own desires. Level II: !onventional Morality3age /0 E /I4 Goral values reside in performing good or right roles, in maintaining the convention order, and in pleasing others. tage ": J$ood ;oy/2ice $irlJ Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to avoid re*ection, disaffection, or disapproval from others. tage #: Law and Frder Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by a need to not be critici(ed by a true authority figure. Level III: Po$tconventional Morality 3adolescence E adulthood4 Goral Kalues reside in principles, separate from those who hold moral values in principles, separate from those who enforce them, and a part from a personHs identification with the enforcing group. Gost people never reach this last level.

tage %: Legalistic Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by community respect for all, respecting social order, and living under legally determined laws. tage &: ?niversal, >thical Frientation IndividualHs moral *udgment is motivated by oneHs own conscience '(a)*le$ o+ tage$ 1 ,hro-gh &

,he +ollowing are e(a)*le$ o+ each $tage at each o+ Kohlberg.$ level$/ tage 1: I do not say bad words because if I do, mommy will get mad at me. tage 2: Aor a cookie, I will pick up my toys. tage ": I do not eat in class because my teacher does not like it. tage #: I do not talk during a fire drill because that is one of the rules. tage %: I pay ta,es because it is the law. tage &: I pay ta,es not because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to do.

When

Timeline of Kohlbergs Life and Work

Fctober /B, /91::

Kohlberg born in ;ron,ville, 2ew 6ork

/9@8:

)fter passing a number of e,ams with outstanding scores, Kohlberg enters The ?niversity of #hicago and completes his bachelor&s degree in sychology in one year

/9@9:

Kohlberg begins his doctoral work at The ?niversity of #hicago

/9B:E/9B8:

?sing the !ilemma of "eni(, Kohlberg completes his doctoral dissertation research on the moral development of children, and proposes his si, stages

/9B8E/978:

Kohlberg teaches at his alma mater, The ?niversity of #hicago

/978: professional

)s a result of his dissertation research, Kohlberg found

fame and was recruited by "arvard ?niversity, where he began teaching education and social psychology and e,panded his professional research related to moral development

/979:

Kohlberg travels to Israel where he is impressed by the moral development of youth participating in kibbut(, or a collective farm in Israel that once mirrored much of communist thought,

today, they are often privately owned and operated because of changing forces in the economic climate. ) secondary criticism of the kibbut( was the time that the youth who operated the kibbut( spent away from their parents, often spending as little as one night a week at home. The creator of this website conducted a phone interview with librarian Tamra $ershonL for more information on the kibbut(, see: http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/KI;;?T=EGarch&0/.html Influenced by the kibbut(, Kohlberg returns to The ?nited 5tates and founds several C*ust communitiesD, his first being The #luster 5chool

/9:/:

%hile conducting crossEcultural work in ;eli(e, Kohlberg contracts a tropical disease that will plague him physically and mentally for the ne,t si,teen years

/98::

Fn leave from a Gassachusetts hospital where he is seeking treatment for the above illness, Kohlberg commits suicide by drowning himself in ;oston "arbor. "e was B9 years old

How

Kohlberg conducted his doctoral research, as mentioned above, in #hicago, looking at the moral reasoning with which :1 youth addressed a number of dilemmas. Fver the course of his career, Kohlberg diversified the population with which he conducted this research, and was deeply influenced by his colleague #arol $illigan at "arvard, who challenged Kohlberg&s theory and its applicability to females. Guch has been made of their professional rivalry, but in /99:, ten years after Kohlberg&s death, !r. $illigan addressed an audience, sharing her impressions of her colleague:

"Something of a false story had been circulating, that I was Larry's student, that we were involved in a war," she said. "So the news that, for example, we taught together about our disagreements, and that what was at stake were real and serious issues on both sides, came as a reminder to some people as to what both his work and my work were really about."

!r. $illigan shared that she welcomed the opportunity to honor Kohlberg, to 'uell rumors and revisit the past. http://relong.myweb.uga.edu/