1. Moral Development of Children
The Moral Development of Children is the name of the project that Brad and I have been working on for our Child Growth and Development class.
With this, we tested Lawrence Kohlberg’s stage theory on the development of morality by reenacting one of his experiments with children today.
By:
Virginia Marroy and
Brad Williams

2. Moral Development Outline

3. Lawrence Kohlberg Bibliography
Kohlberg was born into wealth on October 25, 1927 in Bronxville, NY.
Even though he was wealthy, he chose to become a sailor.
Kohlberg was a psychologist who applied the developmental approach of Jean Piaget, who he studied under, to the analysis of changes in moral reasoning of children.
Kohlberg was a professor and did most of his research at Harvard University.
Kohlberg developed a tropical disease in 1973 and while he was hospitalized in 1987, he was reported missing. His body was later found in a marsh. Cause of death was rumored to be suicide. Kohlberg ended his life at the age of 59.
Lawrence Kohlberg was a great theorist in his time and is still very established in his work today. He was born into wealth and privilege, and thus, attended some of the finest schools. Although he first was determined to be a psychologist, his aspirations changed when he met with Piaget. Kohlberg was intrigued with the moral development of children. Thus, from here on out, he studied children, interviewing them on moral issues, and thus produced his stage theory on the moral development of children.

4. Six Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is comprised into six stages. These stages are stages of justice reasoning. Kohlberg compiled his data for these stages through dilemmas that posed conflicts between rights of different persons in dilemma situations. Kohlberg read the dilemma to people, and then, asked them key questions that would focus on the issues of rightness and justice. By examining the way in which the respondents answered the question, Kohlberg was able to compile six stages of moral development.
Kohlberg found that essentially children younger than 10 think about moral dilemmas very differently than do older children.
Also, Kohlberg’s study found that children move through these stages in an invariant sequence; they never skip stages or move through them in a mixed up order.

5. Level I: Preconventional ages 4-10
Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment Orientation
A child’s moral judgement is motivated by a need to avoid punishment.
Example: “I do not draw on the wall because my mommy will get mad at me.”
The first stage in moral development is Obedience and Punishment Orientation. It is here that the child assumes that powerful authorities, such as parents or teachers, hand down a fixed set of rules which they must obey. The children avoid doing wrong because of the consequences and punishments associated with such an act.
Morality is something external to themselves, it is simply something big people say they must do.
“Stealing is bad because you’ll get punished”
In stage 1, the children have an egocentric point of view. They do not consider the interest of others or recognize that they differ from the actor’s.
Stage 1 thinking is pre-conventional because children do not yet speak as members of society

6. Level I: Preconventional ages 4-10
Stage 2: Instrumental-Relativist Orientation.
A child’s moral judgement is motivated by a need to satisfy own desires.
Example: “For my allowance I will clean up my room.
Stage 2 is the Instrumental- Relativist Orientation. At this stage the focus is on individual interests. The children act a certain way to meet one’s own interest/
Many children at this stage feel that what is right is also what’s fair, what’s an equal exchange, a deal, an agreement.
At this stage, children do recognize that everybody has his own interest to pursue, and these interest may conflict, so right is relative.
Stage 2 children may still talk of punishment, but it is different than stage 1. In stage 1, punishment proves that disobedience is wrong. At stage 2, punishment is something one wants to avoid.

7. Level II: Conventional ages 10-13
Stage 3:"Good Boy/Nice Girl" Orientation
A Child’s moral judgement is motivated by a need to avoid rejection or disapproval from others.
Example: “I do not talk during a test because my teacher does not like it.”
Stage3 is the Good Boy/Nice Girl Orientation. Children may enter into this stage between the ages of 10 and 13.
Children now believe that they should live up to the expectations of the family and community.
Example: your duty as a son, a husband.
Children have belief in the Golden Rule: do good to others and others will do good to you.
This stage is characterized by caring and showing concern for others.
This stage begins the Conventional thinking because it assumes that the attitude expressed would be shared by the entire community.

8. Level II: Conventional ages 10-13
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation
A child’s moral judgement is motivated by a need to not to be criticized by an authority figure. (parent/teacher)
Example: “I do not run in the halls because that is one of the rules.”
Stage 4 is the Law and Order Orientation. In this stage the children become more concerned with society as a whole .
The emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained.
Here, people start to think of the scenario: “what would happen if everyone broke the laws when they felt they had a good reason?”
If everyone did it, there would be chaos, a breakdown of the system.
What if everyone ran in the hall? There would be chaos, and a breakdown of the school system.

9. Level III: Postconventional (adolescence - adulthood)
Stage 5: Social Contract
An individual’s moral judgement is motivated by community respect, respecting social order, and respect for legally/determined laws.
Example: “I do not speed because it is against the law.”
Stage 5 is the Social Contract. People usually reach this stage between adolescence and adulthood.
People agree that they do not favor breaking laws; laws should be upheld because they are of the social contracts that we agree to uphold.
Values like life and liberty should be upheld in any society.
“Life is more important than property”
At stage 5, people are making an individual effort to to think out what society should value.

10. Level III: Postconventional (adolescence - adulthood)
Stage 6: Universal, Ethical Principles
An individual’s moral judgement is motivated by his or her own conscience.
Example: “I do not pay my taxes because it is the law, but because it is the right thing to do.”
Stage 6 is the Universal, Ethical Principles.
Stage 6 thinking deals with universal principles of justice; the principles of justice apply to all. The individual has a sense of personal commitment to these universal principles.
(“I pledge allegiance to the flag…and justice for all”)
Kohlberg believes that we can reach just decisions by looking at situation through another’s eyes.
(Suppose the druggist put himself in the wife’s shoes…would she want property to be valued higher than her life?)

11. The Moral Dilemma The Moral Dilemma
Kohlberg tested people’s moral judgements with moral dilemmas.
Moral judgements refer to moral meanings in the world, such as to rules, laws, and states of justice.
Kohlberg compiled the data for his 6 stage theory through hypothetical dilemmas.
These dilemmas pose conflicts between the rights or claims of different persons in dilemma situations.
Kohlberg would read children these hypothetical dilemmas and then ask them questions to see WHY they agree or disagree with the dilemma.

12. Should Heinz of done that?
The Heinz Dilemma
Heinz’s wife was dying from cancer. One special drug recently discovered by a local druggist might save her. The druggist could make the drug for about $200 but was selling it for 10 times the amount. So Heinz went to everyone he knew to try to borrow the $2,000 he needed, but he could only scrape together $1,000. “My wife’s dying,” he told the druggist, asking him to sell the drug cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist refused. Desperate, Heinz broke into the drugstore and stole the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz of done that?
Why or why not?
One of Kohlberg’s dilemmas is the Heinz Dilemma. (read dilemma if have time) In this dilemma, the husband breaks into the druggist’s office and steals the drug that could save his wife’s life.
The question of :should Heinz have stolen the drug, why or why not, will show which stage the subjects are in.
Again, Kohlberg is interested in the why because this ultimately shows their reasoning.

13. 2nd and 5th Grade Version of the Heinz Dilemma.
Joe’s wife was dying from cancer. Joe recently heard about a miracle drug that might save his wife’s life. Joe found out that the doctor who sold this miracle drug was selling it for 10 times the amount it was worth. The drug only cost $200 dollars to make, but the doctor was selling it for $2,000. Joe went to his family, friends, and anyone who he thought would be able to help him pay for the miracle drug, but he could only come up with $1,000. Joe went to the doctor and said, “my wife is dying. Can you please sell the drug for $1,000 instead of $2,000 or let me pay the rest of it later?” But the doctor refused Joe’s offer. Joe was desperate. That night, Joe broke into the doctor’s office and stole the drug that might save his wife’s life. Should Joe have stolen the drug? Why or why not?
For our experiment, we tested 2nd and 5th graders with the Heinz Dilemma to see if the stages that they fell into fit with Kohlberg’s theory.
We changed the Heinz dilemma somewhat to make sure that the 2nd and 5th graders could understand the dilemma.
We put it into simpler terms.
We changed the name of the man from Heinz to Joe.
We changed the druggist to the doctor to ease confusion.
It is essential that the children that we test understand the dilemma if they are in fact going to answer the question.

14. Problem
Will our experiment of Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma follow appropriately his six stages of moral development?
The question we were testing in our experiment was: If our experiment of Kohlberg’s Heinz dilemma would follow appropriately his six stages of moral development?

15. Setting
We will test the Heinz dilemma at the Holy Family school, specifically targeting second and fifth grade students.
We will also test the Heinz dilemma at the Highlands after school program, which will target the same age group as above: 7 and 8 year olds and 10 and 11 year olds.
We wanted to test the Heinz dilemma on both 2nd and 5th graders. Brad and I went to Holy Family School and tested both 2nd and 5th graders there. The experiment went very smoothly. We went to both classes at 8:15 a.m. This was an ideal time because the kids were attentive and were very well-behaved. It may have been harder if we went in the afternoon, because kids do become more restless as afternoon hits.
I did see how this restlessness was when we went to the Highlands After school program. The kids were distracted, and it was much harder to have their undivided attention. But, once we got them sitting at a table and listening to the dilemma, they seemed to tune in pretty well.
We also tested a 5th grade Talented and Gifted class at Gilbert Elementary School.

16. Hypotheses
We predict that we will find very similar results to Kohlberg’s studies on moral development. We believe that when we evaluate the second graders, the majority will fall into pre- conventional stage We believe that when we evaluate the fifth graders, the majority will fall into the conventional stage We do not expect to find any children at the post-conventional stage.
We predicted that we would find very similar results to Kohlberg’s study on moral development.
We thought that the majority of 2nd graders, ages 7 and 8, would fall into the pre-conventional stage.
We predicted the the majority of 5th graders, ages 10 and 11, would fall into the conventional stage.
We did not expect to find any children at the post-conventional stage because not even all adults reach this stage.

17. Delimitations Limits on this project include:
Whether or not the children actually understand the dilemma enough to respond to it.
Whether or not the children are actually going to be able to express their answers on paper.
If we will be able to interpret the children’s answers accordingly.
Delimitations include:
if the children understand the dilemma enough to respond to it.
If the children will be able to express their answers on paper. Also, will the children write their own answers and not look at others answers?
If we will be able to interpret the children’s answers accordingly. Example: will we be able to read the child’s handwriting?

18. We Hereby Assume,
We assume that the children will be listening attentively to the dilemma and will answer the question we present to them.
We assume that the older children’s answers will be more coherent.
We assume that the children will be listening to the dilemma that we are reading. Hopefully, they will not be daydreaming. (This is another reason it was good to do our experiment in the morning when their minds are fresh)
We assume that the older children’s answers will be more coherent. (the older children did write in more coherent sentences, and they did provide more explanation.)

19. An Example of a Second Grader’s answer to the Heinz Dilemma
This child is pre-conventional because his entire answer is based on what he just learned in class. His answer is a response to authority, which is a very common sign of pre-conventional thinking.

20. Another Example of a Second Grader’s answer to the Heinz Dilemma
Another Pre-Conventional answer from a child who obviously can only see himself in the world. The child answers “It was bad” because an authoritative figure, parent or teacher, told him it was bad to steal.

21. An Example of a Fifth Grader’s Answer to the Heinz Dilemma
This answer is Conventional because the child recognizes that the doctor is selfish and morally wrong. Though the doctor does not break the law, this child sees him as the true criminal.

23. 2nd Grade Data (Holy Family School and Highlands School)
Many of the second graders answered the dilemma question: Should Joe have stolen the drug? Why or Why Not? With saying that he should not have stolen the drug because it was not right to steal, it is not nice to steal, or with that it was bad to steal. All of these responses go along with stage 1 of moral development.
Interestingly enough, many brought in the 7th Commandment, “Thou shall not steal” into their response.
“No, because he has broken the 7th Commandment”
The Commandments came from the highest authority of all, God, and that is reason enough for them not to break the commandments. This goes along with stage 1 thinking: the superior power of authorities.
15 out of the 17 2nd graders responded to the question with No!
2 out of the 17 2nd graders responded to the question with Yes!

24. Female 5th Grade Data (Holy Family School and Highlands School)
The 5th grade data, of the 10 and 11 year olds, did differ slightly from the 2nd grade data in the fact that their answers were much more coherent and that they did provide more explanations for the reason Why Joe should have or should not have stolen the drug.
Of the female 5th graders, many of the responses are still in the pre-conventional thinking. They still talk of stealing as against the 10 Commandments, but they start to recognize that the doctor was cheating people just to get more money. They start to be able to take a more broad viewpoint, not as individualistic.

25. Male 5th Grade Data (Holy Family School and Highlands School)
The Male 5th grade data is very similar to the female 5th grade data. The responses still show the 7th Commandment as a reason that Joe should not have stolen the drug. But, again, a small number begin to recognize that the doctor was in wrong also.
“The doctor should have sold the drug for what it was worth”

26. 5th Grade Data (Gilbert Elementary School TAG class)
This data is from a 5th grade Talented and Gifted Class at Gilbert Elementary School. I was testing to see if their though processes were more advanced, and thus would put them at a higher stage in moral development.
We found that there were a variety of answers.
Interestingly enough, there was no mention of the 7th Commandment in these responses. Perhaps, this has to do with Gilbert Elem. School being a public school versus the data compiled from 2 private Catholic schools. Essentially, it must be that the emphasis in the Catholic schools is much different from the public schools. Religion is brought into the everyday life at the Catholic schools.
One particular answer caught our attention: “Yes, because saving a life is worth more than getting in trouble.” This response is definitely conventional thinking.
Again, some recognized that the doctor was in wrong by selling the drug for too much money. These responses have stepped out of the egocentric view.

27. Internet Sources For more information on Kohlberg’s Stage Theory, go to these internet websites.
If you would like more information on Kohlberg and his Six Stage Theory, these websites may be very helpful.