Home  ›  According to Lawrence Kohlberg What Influences Moral Development

According to Lawrence Kohlberg What Influences Moral Development

Written By Saturday, April 2, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Psychological theory describing the evolution of moral reasoning

Lawrence Kohlberg'due south stages of moral development plant an accommodation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began piece of work on this topic as a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.[1] [ii] [3]

The theory holds that moral reasoning, a necessary (just not sufficient) status for upstanding beliefs,[4] has six developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[5] Kohlberg followed the evolution of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[vi] [5] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral evolution was principally concerned with justice and that it continued throughout the individual's life, a notion that led to dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.[7] [viii] [2]

The half dozen stages of moral development occur in phases of pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional morality. For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma and was interested in how individuals would justify their deportment if placed in like moral dilemmas. He analyzed the grade of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion and classified it into one of six stages.[2] [ix] [10] [11]

There take been critiques of the theory from several perspectives. Arguments have been made that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other moral values, such equally caring; that there is such an overlap between stages that they should more properly be regarded as domains or that evaluations of the reasons for moral choices are generally post hoc rationalizations (by both decision makers and psychologists) of intuitive decisions.[12] [thirteen]

A new field inside psychology was created by Kohlberg'due south theory, and according to Haggbloom et al.'southward written report of the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century, Kohlberg was the 16th almost frequently cited in introductory psychology textbooks throughout the century, as well every bit the 30th virtually eminent.[fourteen] Kohlberg'southward calibration is most how people justify behaviors and his stages are not a method of ranking how moral someone'south behavior is; at that place should be a correlation between how someone scores on the scale and how they behave. The general hypothesis is that moral behaviour is more responsible, consistent and predictable from people at higher levels.[15]

Stages [edit]

Kohlberg's 6 stages can be more more often than not grouped into three levels of two stages each: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional.[9] [10] [eleven] Post-obit Piaget's constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, information technology is extremely rare to backslide in stages—to lose the use of college phase abilities.[16] [17] Stages cannot exist skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors simply integrated with them.[16] [17]

Kohlberg'due south Model of Moral Development

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid penalty?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What'south in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level ii (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The skillful male child/daughter attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Police and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)

The understanding gained in each stage is retained in later stages, but may be regarded by those in afterward stages equally simplistic, lacking in sufficient attention to detail.

Pre-conventional [edit]

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children and is expected to occur in animals, although adults tin also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level estimate the morality of an activeness past its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the beginning and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric fashion. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized social club's conventions regarding what is correct or wrong just instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.[ix] [ten] [11]

In Phase one (obedience and penalty driven), individuals focus on the straight consequences of their deportment on themselves. For example, an action is perceived equally morally wrong because the perpetrator is punished. "The last time I did that I got spanked, so I will not practise it once again." The worse the punishment for the human activity is, the more "bad" the act is perceived to be. This can give rise to an inference that even innocent victims are guilty in proportion to their suffering. It is "egocentric", lacking recognition that others' points of view are different from ane's own.[19] At that place is "deference to superior ability or prestige".[19]

An example of obedience and punishment driven morality would be a kid refusing to do something because it is incorrect and that the consequences could consequence in punishment. For case, a kid'south classmate tries to cartel the kid to skip schoolhouse. The kid would apply obedience and penalty driven morality by refusing to skip school considering he would get punished.

Stage two (self-interest driven) expresses the "what'southward in it for me" position, in which right beliefs is divers by any the individual believes to be in their best interest, or any is "user-friendly," but understood in a narrow way which does not consider ane's reputation or relationships to groups of people. Stage two reasoning shows a limited involvement in the needs of others, but simply to a point where it might further the private's own interests. Every bit a consequence, concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect, only rather a "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" mentality,[five] which is commonly described as quid pro quo, a Latin term that means doing or giving something in society to get something in render. The lack of a societal perspective in the pre-conventional level is quite different from the social contract (stage five), as all deportment at this stage have the purpose of serving the individual's ain needs or interests. For the stage ii theorist, the world's perspective is often seen as morally relative. Run into also: reciprocal altruism.

Conventional [edit]

The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to estimate the morality of actions by comparing them to society'southward views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an credence of order'due south conventions concerning correct and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows club's norms even when in that location are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule'south appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.[9] [x] [xi]

In Phase three (expert intentions as determined by social consensus), the self enters club past conforming to social standards. Individuals are receptive to approval or disapproval from others as it reflects society's views. They try to exist a "proficient boy" or "good daughter" to live up to these expectations,[5] having learned that being regarded equally good benefits the self. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an activity by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things similar respect, gratitude, and the "golden dominion". "I want to exist liked and thought well of; apparently, non existence naughty makes people like me." Befitting to the rules for one's social office is non yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; ane may experience more forgiving if one thinks that "they hateful well".[5]

In Phase 4 (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dicta, and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual blessing exhibited in stage 3. A primal ideal or ethics ofttimes prescribe what is correct and wrong. If i person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus at that place is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a police, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as information technology separates the bad domains from the practiced ones. Most active members of order remain at phase four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.[5]

Mail-conventional [edit]

The postal service-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked past a growing realization that individuals are dissever entities from order, and that the private's ain perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live past their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules equally useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules tin can maintain the general social society and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage 6, can exist confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level.[20] [ citation needed ]

Some theorists take speculated that many people may never reach this level of abstract moral reasoning.[nine] [10] [11]

In Stage 5 (social contract driven), the world is viewed as holding different opinions, rights, and values. Such perspectives should be mutually respected as unique to each person or community. Laws are regarded equally social contracts rather than rigid edicts. Those that practise not promote the general welfare should be changed when necessary to/that meet "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".[10] This is achieved through bulk decision and inevitable compromise. Democratic authorities is ostensibly based on stage 5 reasoning.

In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal upstanding principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are non essential for deontic moral activity. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.[21] This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to exist true.[22] The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an cease in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it avoids punishment, is in their best interest, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that phase half-dozen exists, he constitute information technology difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level.[17] Touro Higher Researcher Arthur P. Sullivan helped support the accuracy of Kohlberg's outset 5 stages through data analysis, but could non provide statistical bear witness for the being of Kohlberg'due south sixth stage. Therefore, it is difficult to define/recognize as a physical stage in moral development.

Further stages [edit]

In his empirical studies of individuals throughout their life, Kohlberg observed that some had patently undergone moral stage regression. This could be resolved either by allowing for moral regression or by extending the theory. Kohlberg chose the latter, postulating the existence of sub-stages in which the emerging stage has not however been fully integrated into the personality.[10] In particular Kohlberg noted a stage 4½ or 4+, a transition from stage four to five, that shared characteristics of both.[x] In this phase the individual is disaffected with the arbitrary nature of police force and order reasoning; culpability is often turned from being defined by guild to viewing society itself equally culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of phase 2, every bit the individual views those interests of society that conflict with their ain every bit beingness relatively and morally wrong.[10] Kohlberg noted that this was often observed in students entering college.[10] [17]

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning.[23] Kohlberg'south difficulties in obtaining empirical bear witness for even a sixth stage,[17] however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.[8]

Theoretical assumptions (philosophy) [edit]

Kohlberg'southward stages of moral development are based on the assumption that humans are inherently chatty, capable of reason and possess a desire to understand others and the world around them. The stages of this model relate to the qualitative moral reasonings adopted past individuals and do not interpret directly into praise or arraign of any private's deportment or character. Arguing that his theory measures moral reasoning and non particular moral conclusions, Kohlberg insists that the course and construction of moral arguments is contained of the content of those arguments, a position he calls "formalism".[2] [nine]

Kohlberg's theory follows the notion that justice is the essential characteristic of moral reasoning. Justice itself relies heavily upon the notion of sound reasoning based on principles. Despite being a justice-centered theory of morality, Kohlberg considered it to be uniform with plausible formulations of deontology[21] and eudaimonia.

Kohlberg's theory understands values every bit a disquisitional component of "the correct". Any the right is, for Kohlberg, information technology must exist universally valid among societies (a position known as "moral universalism"):[ix] there tin exist no relativism. Morals are non natural features of the world; they are prescriptive. Nonetheless, moral judgments tin can exist evaluated in logical terms of truth and falsity.

According to Kohlberg, someone progressing to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For case, an individual cannot jump from existence concerned by and large with peer judgments (stage three) to beingness a proponent of social contracts (stage five).[17] On encountering a moral dilemma and finding their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, an individual will wait to the next level. Realizing the limitations of the current stage of thinking is the driving force behind moral development, as each progressive stage is more adequate than the concluding.[17] The process is therefore considered to be constructive, as it is initiated by the witting construction of the individual and is non in any meaningful sense a component of the individual'due south innate dispositions or a issue of past inductions.

Formal elements [edit]

Kohlberg moral stages vop.gif

Progress through Kohlberg'south stages happens every bit a event of the individual'southward increasing competence, psychologically and in balancing alien social-value claims. The process of resolving alien claims to reach an equilibrium is called "justice functioning". Kohlberg identifies ii of these justice operations: "equality", which involves an impartial regard for persons and "reciprocity", which means a regard for the function of personal merit. For Kohlberg, the virtually adequate issue of both operations is "reversibility", in which a moral or dutiful act inside a particular situation is evaluated in terms of whether or non the act would be satisfactory even if particular persons were to switch roles within that situation (also known colloquially as "moral musical chairs").[2]

Noesis and learning contribute to moral evolution. Specifically important are the individual's "view of persons" and their "social perspective level", each of which becomes more circuitous and mature with each advancing stage. The "view of persons" can be understood as the individual's grasp of the psychology of other persons; it may be pictured as a spectrum, with stage one having no view of other persons at all, and stage six existence entirely socio-axial.[2] The social perspective level involves the understanding of the social universe, differing from the view of persons in that it involves an appreciation of social norms.

Examples of applied moral dilemmas [edit]

Kohlberg established the Moral Sentence Interview in his original 1958 dissertation.[vii] During the roughly 45-minute tape recorded semi-structured interview, the interviewer uses moral dilemmas to determine which phase of moral reasoning a person uses. The dilemmas are fictional short stories that draw situations in which a person has to make a moral conclusion. The participant is asked a systemic serial of open-ended questions, like what they think the correct course of activeness is, equally well as justifications as to why certain deportment are right or wrong. The form and structure of these replies are scored and non the content; over a ready of multiple moral dilemmas an overall score is derived.[7] [11]

A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original research was the druggist's dilemma: Heinz Steals the Drug In Europe. Other stories on moral dilemma that Kohlberg used in his inquiry were about two young men trying to skip town, both steal money to leave boondocks but the question then becomes whose crime was worse out of the two. A boy, Joe, saving up money for camp and must decide whether to use his coin for military camp or give it to his begetter who wants to use the coin to go on a trip with his friends. And a story about Judy and Louise, two sisters, and whether Louise should tell their mother the truth virtually Judy telling a lie to their mother, that she didn't have coin to spend on clothes because she went to a concert.[viii]

Critiques [edit]

Androcentrism [edit]

A critique of Kohlberg'due south theory is that information technology emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Ballad Gilligan, in her book In a Unlike Voice, has argued that Kohlberg's theory is excessively androcentric.[12] Kohlberg'due south theory was initially based on empirical inquiry using but male participants; Gilligan argued that information technology did not adequately describe the concerns of women.[24] Kohlberg stated that women tend to become stuck at level 3, being primarily concerned with details of how to maintain relationships and promote the welfare of family and friends. Men are likely to move on to the abstract principles and thus have less business concern with the particulars of who is involved.[25] Consequent with this observation, Gilligan's theory of moral development does non value justice above other considerations. She developed an alternative theory of moral reasoning based on the ethics of caring.[12] Critics such equally Christina Hoff Sommers argued that Gilligan's research is ill-founded and that no evidence exists to support her conclusion.[26] [ page needed ]

Cross-cultural generalizability [edit]

Kohlberg's stages are non culturally neutral, every bit demonstrated past its use for several cultures (particularly in the case of the highest developmental stages).[1] [27] Although they progress through the stages in the same order, individuals in different cultures seem to do and so at unlike rates.[28] Kohlberg has responded by saying that although cultures inculcate different behavior, his stages correspond to underlying modes of reasoning, rather than to beliefs.[1] [29] Virtually cultures do identify some value of life, truth, and law, but to assert that these values are virtually universal requires more research.[27] While there had been some research done to support Kohlberg's assumption of universality for his stages of moral evolution, at that place are yet plenty of caveats and variations yet to be understood and researched. Regarding universality, stages 1, 2, and 3 of Kohlberg'due south theory can exist seen as universal stages cross culturally, only until stages 4 and v does universality begin to be scrutinized.[30] Co-ordinate to Snarey and Kelio, Kohlberg's theory of moral development is non represented in ideas like Gemeinschaft of the communitive feeling.[31] While in that location had been criticism directed towards the cross-cultural universality of Kohlberg's theory, Carolyn Edwards argued that the dilemma interview method, the standard scoring organization, and the cognitive-development theory are all valid and productive in teaching and understanding of moral reasoning across all cultures.[32]

Inconsistency in moral judgments [edit]

Another criticism of Kohlberg'due south theory is that people frequently demonstrate significant inconsistency in their moral judgements.[33] This often occurs in moral dilemmas involving drinking and driving and concern situations where participants have been shown to reason at a subpar stage, typically using more cocky-interested reasoning (phase two) than authority and social club obedience reasoning (stage four).[33] [34] Kohlberg'south theory is generally considered to be incompatible with inconsistencies in moral reasoning.[33] Carpendale has argued that Kohlberg's theory should be modified to focus on the view that the process of moral reasoning involves integrating varying perspectives of a moral dilemma rather than simply fixating on applying rules.[34] This view would allow for inconsistency in moral reasoning since individuals may be hampered by their disability to consider dissimilar perspectives.[33] Krebs and Denton have besides attempted to change Kohlberg's theory to business relationship for conflicting findings merely eventually ended that the theory cannot account for how virtually individuals make moral decisions in their everyday lives.[35]

Reasoning vs. intuition [edit]

Other psychologists have questioned the assumption that moral action is primarily a result of formal reasoning. Social intuitionists such every bit Jonathan Haidt argue that individuals often make moral judgments without weighing concerns such equally fairness, law, human rights or ethical values. Thus the arguments analyzed by Kohlberg and other rationalist psychologists could be considered post hoc rationalizations of intuitive decisions; moral reasoning may exist less relevant to moral activity than Kohlberg'southward theory suggests.[13]

Apparent lack of postconventional reasoning in moral exemplars [edit]

In 1999, some of Kohlberg'southward measures were tested when Anne Colby and William Damon published a study in which the development was examined in the lives of moral exemplars that exhibited high levels of moral commitment in their everyday behavior.[36] The researchers utilized the moral sentence interview (MJI) and two standard dilemmas to compare the 23 exemplars with a more ordinary group of people. The intention was to learn more almost moral exemplars and to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Kohlberg measure. They institute that the MJI scores were not clustered at the high cease of Kohlberg'south scale; they ranged from stage 3 to stage 5. Half landed at the conventional level (stages three, 3/4, and 4) and the other one-half landed at the postconventional level (stages 4/v and five). Compared to the general population, the scores of the moral exemplars may exist somewhat higher than those of groups non selected for outstanding moral behaviour. Researchers noted that the "moral sentence scores are conspicuously related to subjects' educational attainment in this study". Among the participants that had attained college education or above, there was no difference in moral judgement scores between genders. The study noted that although the exemplars' scores may take been college than those of nonexemplars, it is also articulate that 1 is not required to score at Kohlberg's highest stages in order to exhibit loftier degrees of moral commitment and exemplary behaviour.[37] Autonomously from their scores, it was found that the 23 participating moral exemplars described 3 similar themes inside all of their moral developments: certainty, positivity, and the unity of self and moral goals. The unity between self and moral goals was highlighted equally the most important theme every bit it is what truly sets the exemplars apart from the 'ordinary' people. It was discovered that the moral exemplars encounter their morality as a part of their sense of identity and sense of cocky, not as a witting selection or chore. Besides, the moral exemplars showed a much broader range of moral concern than did the ordinary people and go beyond the normal acts of daily moral engagements.

Rather than confirm the beingness of a unmarried highest stage, Larry Walker'due south cluster analysis of a wide diversity of interview and survey variables for moral exemplars found iii types: the "caring" or "communal" cluster was strongly relational and generative, the "deliberative" cluster had sophisticated epistemic and moral reasoning, and the "brave" or "ordinary" cluster was less distinguished by personality.[38]

Continued relevance [edit]

Kohlberg's body of work on the stages of moral development has been utilized past others working in the field. I instance is the Defining Bug Exam (DIT) created in 1979 by James Rest,[39] originally as a pencil-and-paper alternative to the Moral Sentence Interview.[twoscore] Heavily influenced by the six-stage model, it made efforts to improve the validity criteria by using a quantitative test, the Likert calibration, to rate moral dilemmas similar to Kohlberg's.[41] It also used a large trunk of Kohlbergian theory such as the idea of "post-conventional thinking".[42] [43] In 1999 the DIT was revised as the DIT-2;[40] the test continues to be used in many areas where moral testing is required,[44] such as divinity, politics, and medicine.[45] [46] [47]

William Damon'southward contribution to Kohlberg's moral theory [edit]

The American psychologist William Damon developed a theory that is based on Kohlberg's research. Still, it has the merit of focusing on and analysing moral reasoning's behavioural aspects and not only the idea of justice and rightness. Damon's methodology was experimental, using children aged between three and 9 who were required to share toys. The study practical the sharing resources technique to operationalise the dependent variable it measured: equity or justice.[48]

The results demonstrated an obvious stage presentation of the righteous, just behaviour.

According to William Damon's findings, justice, transposed into action, has 6 successive levels:[49]

Level i – cipher stops the egocentric tendency. The children want all the toys without feeling the need to justify their preference. The justice benchmark is the absolute wish of the self;

Level 2 – the child wants almost all of the toys and justifies his choice in an arbitrary or egocentric fashion (e.yard., "I should play with them because I have a ruddy clothes", "They are mine considering I like them!");

Level 3 – the equality criterion emerges (e.yard., "We should all accept the same number of toys");

Level four – the merit benchmark emerges (e.g., "Johnny should accept more because he was such a skillful boy");

Level 5 – necessity is seen as the nigh important selection criterion (due east.k., "She should take the about because she was sick", "Requite more to Matt because he is poor");

Level 6 – the dilemmas begin to come up up: can justice be achieved, considering only i criterion? The consequence is the combining of criteria: equality + merit, equality + necessity, necessity + merit, equality = necessity + merit.

The final level of Damon'south mini theory is an interesting display, in the social setting, of the logical cognitive operationalisation. This permits decentration and the combination of many points of view, favouring allocentrism.

Run across also [edit]

  • Elliot Turiel
  • James Due west. Fowler – Stages of organized religion evolution
  • Jane Loevinger – Stages of ego development
  • Michael Eatables – Model of hierarchical complexity
  • Moral hierarchy
  • Positive disintegration
  • Social cognitive theory of morality
  • Universal value

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c Crain, William C. (1985). Theories of Development (2Rev ed.). Prentice-Hall. ISBN978-0-13-913617-vii.
  2. ^ a b c d e f Kohlberg, Lawrence; Charles Levine; Alexandra Hewer (1983). Moral stages : a current conception and a response to critics. Basel, NY: Karger. ISBN978-iii-8055-3716-2.
  3. ^ Levine, Charles; Kohlberg, Lawrence; Hewer, Alexandra (1985). "The Current Conception of Kohlberg's Theory and a Response to Critics". Human Development. 28 (2): 94–100. doi:10.1159/000272945.
  4. ^ Kohlberg, Lawrence; Hersh, Richard H. (1977). "Moral development: A review of the theory". Theory into Practice. sixteen (two): 53–59. doi:10.1080/00405847709542675.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973). "The Claim to Moral Capability of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment". Journal of Philosophy. seventy (18): 630–646. doi:x.2307/2025030. JSTOR 2025030.
  6. ^ Piaget, Jean (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Kid. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. ISBN978-0-02-925240-six.
  7. ^ a b c Kohlberg, Lawrence (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16 (Ph.D. dissertation). Academy of Chicago.
  8. ^ a b c Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Evolution, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN978-0-06-064760-5.
  9. ^ a b c d e f grand Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971). From Is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get Away with Information technology in the Report of Moral Development. New York: Academic Printing.
  10. ^ a b c d e f thou h i j Kohlberg, Lawrence (1976). "Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach". In Lickona, T. (ed.). Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research and Social Issues. Holt, NY: Rinehart and Winston.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Colby, Anne; Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment Vol. 2: Standard Result Scoring Manual. Cambridge Academy Printing. ISBN978-0-521-24447-three.
  12. ^ a b c Gilligan, Carol (1982). "In a Unlike Vocalization: Women'south Conceptions of Self and Morality". Harvard Educational Review. 47 (4).
  13. ^ a b Haidt, J (2001). "The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment". Psychological Review. 108 (4): 814–834. CiteSeerXten.1.1.620.5536. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814. PMID 11699120.
  14. ^ Haggbloom, South.J.; et al. (2002). "The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century". Review of General Psychology. vi (two): 139–15. CiteSeerXx.ane.one.586.1913. doi:ten.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139. S2CID 145668721.
  15. ^ Section on Kohlberg's stages from "Theories of Evolution" by Due west.C. Crain (1985) Archived 2011-ten-04 at the Wayback Motorcar
  16. ^ a b Walker, Lawrence, J. (February 1989). "A longitudinal study of moral reasoning". Child Development. threescore (1): 157–166. doi:10.2307/1131081. JSTOR 1131081. PMID 2702866.
  17. ^ a b c d e f g Colby, Anne; Gibbs, J.; Lieberman, M.; Kohlberg, 50. (1983). A Longitudinal Study of Moral Judgment: A Monograph for the Gild of Research in Child Evolution. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Printing. ISBN978-99932-7-870-ii.
  18. ^ a b Kohlberg, Lawrence (Oct 1974). "Education, Moral Evolution and Religion". Journal of Moral Education. four (1): 5–16. doi:x.1080/0305724740040102.
  19. ^ "Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development | Education, Gild, & the K-12 Learner". courses.lumenlearning.com . Retrieved 2021-03-23 .
  20. ^ a b Kant, Immanuel (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. ISBN978-0-06-131159-8.
  21. ^ * Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belkap Printing of Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-01772-half dozen.
  22. ^ Kohlberg, Lawrence; Power, Clark (1981). "Moral Evolution, Religious Thinking, and the Question of a 7th Stage". In Kohlberg, Lawrence (ed.). Essays on Moral Evolution Vol. I: Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN978-0-06-064760-v.
  23. ^ Woolfolk, Anita (2012). Educational Psychology. Prentice Hall. p. 101. ISBN9780132893589.
  24. ^ Waller, Bruce (2005). Consider Ideals: Theory, Readings, and Gimmicky Issues. Pearson Education. p. 115. ISBN978-0321202802.
  25. ^ Sommers, C.H. (2015). The State of war Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. Simon & Schuster. ISBN978-1-5011-2542-3.
  26. ^ a b Gibbs, John C.; Basinger, Karen S.; Crud, Rebecca 50.; Snarey, John R. (December 2007). "Moral judgment evolution across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg'due south universality claims". Developmental Review. 27 (four): 443–500. doi:ten.1016/j.medico2007.04.001.
  27. ^ Harkness, Sara; Edwards, Carolyn P.; Super, Charles Yard. (1981). "The Claim to Moral Capability of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment". Developmental Psychology. 17 (5): 595–603. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.v.595.
  28. ^ Kohlberg, Lawrence; Ballad Gilligan (1971). The Adolescent every bit a Philosopher: The Discovery of the Self in a Postconventional World. Daedalus.
  29. ^ Ma, Hing Keung (Jan 1988). "The Chinese Perspectives on Moral Judgment Evolution". International Periodical of Psychology. 23 (i–six): 201–227. doi:x.1080/00207598808247761. ISSN 0020-7594.
  30. ^ Snarey, John R. (1985). "Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian inquiry". Psychological Bulletin. 97 (2): 202–232. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.202. ISSN 1939-1455. PMID 3983300.
  31. ^ "Cross-Cultural Enquiry on Kohlberg'southward Stages: The Basisfor Consensus", Lawrence Kohlberg, Routledge, pp. 419–430, 1986-05-22, doi:10.4324/9780203823781-41, ISBN978-0-429-23764-5 , retrieved 2021-03-twenty
  32. ^ a b c d Parke, R. D.; Gauvain, Thousand.; Schmuckler, Yard. A. (2010). Child psychology : a contemporary viewpoint (tertiary Canadian ed.). Whitby, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. ISBN978-0070782389.
  33. ^ a b Carpendale, J (1 June 2000). "Kohlberg and Piaget on Stages and Moral Reasoning". Developmental Review. xx (2): 181–205. doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0500.
  34. ^ Krebs, Dennis L.; Denton, Kathy (1 January 2005). "Toward a More Pragmatic Approach to Morality: A Critical Evaluation of Kohlberg'south Model" (PDF). Psychological Review. 112 (3): 629–649. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.3.629. PMID 16060754.
  35. ^ Colby, Anne; Damon, William (October 1999). "The development of boggling moral commitment". In Killen, Melanie; Hart, Daniel (eds.). Morality in everyday life : developmental perspectives. Cambridge University Press. pp. 342–370. ISBN9780521665865.
  36. ^ Colby, Anne; Kohlberg, Lawrence (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment. Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-32565-3.
  37. ^ Walker, Lawrence J.; Frimer, Jeremy A.; Dunlop, William L. (2010). "Varieties of moral personality: across the boiler of heroism". Journal of Personality. 78 (iii): 907–942. doi:ten.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00637.x. PMID 20573130.
  38. ^ Remainder, James (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. University of Minnesota Printing. ISBN978-0-8166-0891-one.
  39. ^ a b Remainder, James; Narvaez, D.; Bebeau, 1000.; Thoma, Southward. (1999). "DIT-2: Devising and testing a new musical instrument of moral judgment". Journal of Educational Psychology. 91 (iv): 644–659. CiteSeerX10.1.1.415.6248. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.644.
  40. ^ "Middle for the Report of Ethical Evolution". DIT --Sample Dilemma: Heinz and the Drug. Archived from the original (Website) on 2007-06-29. Retrieved 2006-12-05 .
  41. ^ Rest, James; Narvaez, D.; Bebeau, M.; Thoma, S. (1999). "A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach: The DIT and Schema Theory". Educational Psychology Review. eleven (4): 291–324. doi:10.1023/A:1022053215271. S2CID 14483253.
  42. ^ Rest, James; Narvaez, D.; Bebeau, 1000.; Thoma, Due south. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assembly. ISBN978-0-8058-3285-3.
  43. ^ Rest, James (1986). Moral development: Advances in inquiry and theory. In collaboration with Barnett, R.; Bebeau, Grand.; Deemer, D.; Getz, I.; Moon, Y.; Spickelmeier, J.; Thoma, S. and Volker, J. Praeger Publishers. ISBN978-0-275-92254-2.
  44. ^ Bunch, Wilton H. (2005). "Changing moral sentence in divinity students". Journal of Moral Education. 34 (3): 363–370. doi:10.1080/03057240500211543. S2CID 144346620.
  45. ^ Muhlberger, P. (2000). "Moral reasoning effects on political participation". Political Psychology. 21 (4): 667–695. doi:ten.1111/0162-895X.00212.
  46. ^ Hedl, John J.; Glazer, H.; Chan, F. (2005). "Improving the Moral Reasoning of Allied Health Students". Journal of Allied Health. 34 (ii): 121–122. PMID 16032920.
  47. ^ Vander Zanden, James Wilfried (1985). Homo Development. Knopf. ISBN978-0-3943-3621-3.
  48. ^ "Homo Evolution. Envision your Evolution Project" (Website) . Retrieved 2021-03-27 .

Farther reading [edit]

  • Crain, William C. (1985). Theories of Development (2Rev ed.). Prentice-Hall. ISBN978-0-13-913617-7.
  • Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971). "From 'is' to 'ought': How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with information technology in the study of moral evolution". In Theodore Mischel (ed.). Cognitive development and epistemology. New York: Academic Press. pp. 151–284. ISBN978-0-12-498640-4.
  • Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973). "The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment". Journal of Philosophy. seventy (xviii): 630–646. doi:10.2307/2025030. JSTOR 2025030.
  • Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN978-0-06-064760-v.
  • Kohlberg, Lawrence; Charles Levine; Alexandra Hewer (1983). Moral stages : a electric current conception and a response to critics. Basel, NY: Karger. ISBN978-3-8055-3716-2.

External links [edit]

  • Moral Development and Moral Education: An Overview
  • Kohlberg'south Moral Stages
  • Do the Right Thing: Cognitive science'southward search for a mutual morality (Boston Review)
  • Kohlberg'southward Stages of Moral Development at the Wayback Machine (archived 2014-10-29)
  • A Summary Of Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages Of Moral Development
  • Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development (Envision your Evolution)

feltoncastis.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

0 Response to "According to Lawrence Kohlberg What Influences Moral Development"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel