Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Background |
Piaget’s theory of moral development |
|
|
Aim of the study |
Kholberg suggested that we have three levels of moral thinking, and within each of these levels, there are two related stages. |
|
|
The 3 levels of moral development |
1st level is Pre-conventional 2nd level is Conventional 3rd level is Post-conventional |
|
|
6 stages of moral development |
1. Punishment and obedience orientation 2. Instrumental-relativist orientation 3. Good boy-good girl orientation 4. Law and order orientation 5. Social construct orientation 6. Universal principles orientation
|
|
|
Method used in the study |
Longitudinal study over a 12 year period, using the same participants, making it a repeated measured design. |
|
|
Sample |
75 young American males aged 10-16 years old at the start of the study aged 22-28 by the end. The American study was compared to studies in Canada, the UK, Mexico, Turkey and Taiwan. |
|
|
Procedure |
A series of hypothetical and philosophical moral dilemmas given to each participant during their moral development stages, every 3 years, for 12 years. This dilemma was known as the heinz dilemma, of a man stealing medicine for his sick wife. Other dilemmas were also presented. |
|
|
Qualitative and Quantitative results |
Participants progressed through the stages as they got older. 50% of each of the six stages, a participant’s thinking was at a single stage, regardless of the moral dilemma involved. Participants moved parallel to the stage that they were at but a stage had to be experienced before moving to the next. Kohlberg also found when children are confronted with the views of a child one stage further along, they seemed to prefer this next stage and to move forward. |
|
|
Conclusions |
Findings from this study agree with Kohlberg’s 6-stage theory. Some Individuals may not reach the final stage. Moral development is not significantly influenced by social, cultural or religious differences, although the speed at which individuals progress through the stages is affected by these conditions. |
|
|
Validity |
Lacks ecological validity as they had to say what they would do in a hypothetical moral dilemma, but uncertain on whether they would do so in real life.
They may want to appear more moral to the researcher to impress them, that being demand characteristics, which can impact results, therefore lacking construct validity.
Population validity was lacking as it only consisted of males, where as females may have different results. But due to the study progressing as they grew up, that could be generalisable to the population of American boys, but not to girls or people with disabilities. |
|
|
Reliability |
Internal reliability: Standardised in that the moral dilemmas where the same, but the study was longitudinal, meaning that replicating it would be difficult. External reliability: Sample size was 75 participants studied over a long period of time, meaning that a consistent effect could be detected. |
|
|
Ethnocentricism |
Not ethnocentric in that Kholberg comprised results from Canada, the UK, Mexico, Turkey, and Taiwan, as well as kohlberg found that he didn't need to create culture specific moral dilemmas. But comparing it to the American view on moral development that would only apply to Americans of the American culture, who were brought up in that culture and values, would make it ethnocentric as it doesn't factor in the potential differences. |
