You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Lawrence Kohlberg's work on the stages of moral development is the classic study for the developmental theme of moral development, and it is one of the most influential accounts of how children come to reason about right and wrong. Its central claim is that moral reasoning — not the content of what we decide, but the structure of the thinking behind it — develops through a fixed, universal sequence of stages, in an invariant order, driven by the child's growing cognitive capacity to take other perspectives. A young child who says stealing is wrong "because you'll get punished" and an adult who says it is wrong "because it violates a principle of justice" may reach the same verdict, but they are reasoning at completely different levels; Kohlberg's project was to map those levels and to show that everyone passes through them in the same order.
This lesson tells the study in the OCR "tell the story" format: the background (Piaget's earlier work and the question Kohlberg set out to answer); the aim; the method (its longitudinal and cross-cultural design, the sample of American boys, and the moral-dilemma interview procedure); the results — the famous six stages across three levels; the conclusions; and a full evaluation of method, data, ethics, validity, reliability, sampling and cultural reach, including the well-known criticisms of androcentrism and ethnocentrism. It closes by linking the study to its theme, the developmental area, the relevant perspective and debates. Because Kohlberg anchors the moral-development theme and pairs with Lee, knowing his stages precisely is essential for Component 02.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Background: Piaget's moral development; the question of how moral reasoning develops | Section A — Developmental; theme: moral development (classic) | AO1 knowledge |
| Aim (to chart the development of moral reasoning) | Section A — Core study (Kohlberg) | AO1 |
| Method: longitudinal and cross-cultural design; sample; the moral-dilemma interview | Section A — Core study | AO1; AO2 |
| Results (the six stages across three levels) | Section A — Core study | AO1 |
| Conclusions (an invariant, universal stage sequence) | Section A — Core study | AO1; AO3 |
| Evaluation: method, data, ethics, validity, reliability, sampling, ethnocentrism, androcentrism | Section A; Section B debates | AO3 |
| Links to theme, area (Developmental), perspective, debates | Section B — Areas, perspectives, debates | AO1; AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (aim, procedure, the stage model, conclusions), AO2 (identifying levels of moral reasoning in novel material) and AO3 (evaluating the study's method, universality and sampling).
Kohlberg built directly on the pioneering work of Jean Piaget, who had argued that children's moral thinking, like their logical thinking, develops in stages tied to cognitive maturation. Piaget had described a shift from a younger child's heteronomous morality — rules seen as fixed, external and absolute, and wrongdoing judged by its consequences (how much damage was done) — to an older child's autonomous morality, in which rules are understood as human agreements that can be questioned, and wrongdoing is judged by intention. Piaget's insight was that morality is not simply taught as a set of rules to be absorbed, but constructed by the child as their capacity to reason and to take other people's perspectives matures.
Kohlberg found Piaget's framework compelling but incomplete. Piaget had concentrated on younger children and treated moral development as largely finished by early adolescence. Kohlberg suspected that moral reasoning continues to develop well into adolescence and adulthood, through more stages than Piaget had identified, and — crucially — that the sequence of stages might be universal, the same across all cultures, because it reflects a universal underlying growth in the capacity for social perspective-taking rather than the particular moral content of any one society. If that were true, it would be a remarkable finding: it would mean that beneath the surface diversity of the world's moral codes lies a common developmental architecture, a shared ladder of moral reasoning that all human beings climb in the same order.
To test this, Kohlberg needed a method that would reveal the structure of a person's moral reasoning rather than just their moral conclusions. Simply asking "is stealing wrong?" is useless for this purpose, because people at every stage might say "yes" — what differs is why. Kohlberg's solution was the moral dilemma: a short story posing a genuine moral conflict with no clean answer, followed by probing questions not about what the person would do but about why. The most famous is the Heinz dilemma: a man named Heinz has a wife dying of a cancer for which a local druggist has discovered a cure, but the druggist charges ten times what it cost to make and far more than Heinz can afford or raise; the druggist refuses to sell cheaper or to let Heinz pay later; so Heinz breaks into the shop to steal the drug for his wife. The interviewee is then asked: Should Heinz have done that? Was it wrong? Does he have a duty? Should he steal it for a stranger? Is it worse to let someone die or to break the law? The reasoning behind the answers — not the answers themselves — reveals the stage.
There is a deep methodological point here that is worth making explicit, because it is central to understanding what Kohlberg was and was not measuring. Kohlberg was a cognitive-developmental theorist: for him, moral development is the development of a kind of thinking. He was therefore entirely uninterested in whether someone behaves morally, and even uninterested in which side of a dilemma they came down on. Two people who both say "Heinz should steal the drug" could be reasoning at opposite ends of the scale — one because "his wife might reward him" (a low stage), another because "human life is worth more than property, as a matter of principle" (a high stage). Conversely, two people who disagree about what Heinz should do might be reasoning at the same stage. What Kohlberg was scoring was the form of the justification — its level of abstraction, its basis (punishment, reward, approval, law, principle), the breadth of perspective it took. Grasping that Kohlberg measured the structure of reasoning, not the content of the verdict or the morality of the behaviour, is the single most important idea in the whole study, and it is where weaker answers most often go wrong.
The reason this cognitive-developmental framing matters so much is that it explains why Kohlberg expected the sequence to be universal in the first place. If moral development were just the learning of a society's particular rules, then children in different societies — taught different rules — would end up morally different, and there would be no reason to expect any universal sequence at all. But Kohlberg's claim was subtler: he held that what develops is not the rules but the cognitive machinery for reasoning about them — specifically, the growing ability to take other people's perspectives. A very young child can only see a situation from their own point of view, which is why their morality is self-centred (avoid punishment, get rewards); as the capacity for perspective-taking matures, the child can grasp others' expectations (the conventional level), and eventually can reason about the abstract principles that would be fair from everyone's standpoint (the post-conventional level). Because this underlying cognitive growth — from egocentric to increasingly decentred perspective-taking — is, Kohlberg argued, a universal feature of human development, the moral sequence built on it should be universal too, regardless of which particular rules a culture teaches. This is a genuinely elegant argument, and understanding it is what lets you see precisely where Lee's contemporary study takes aim: not at the claim that perspective-taking matures, but at the claim that the evaluations children reach are therefore the same across cultures.
A further feature of Kohlberg's approach that bears on the evaluation is his commitment to studying morality developmentally rather than cross-sectionally alone. It would have been far easier simply to interview children of different ages once and infer a sequence from the age differences — but that design, as we saw in the area introduction, confounds age with cohort and cannot show that any individual actually moves through the stages in order. Kohlberg's insistence on the far more demanding longitudinal design, re-interviewing the same individuals across two decades, was precisely so that he could demonstrate genuine movement through the stages within a person, and could check his central claim that the sequence is invariant — that people do not skip stages or regress. That methodological ambition is one of the study's real strengths, and it is worth crediting even as one criticises the sample.
The aim was to investigate the development of moral reasoning across childhood, adolescence and into adulthood — to discover whether moral thinking develops in a sequence of distinct, ordered stages, whether that sequence is the same for everyone (invariant in order), and whether it is universal across cultures. Kohlberg's underlying hypothesis, extending Piaget, was that moral reasoning matures through a fixed series of stages reflecting a growing capacity to take the perspective of others.
The study combined two powerful developmental designs. It was longitudinal: Kohlberg followed the same group of boys over a long period — around 20 years in the full programme, re-interviewing them at intervals of roughly three years — so that he could observe whether the same individuals moved through the stages in order over time. It was also cross-cultural: the moral-dilemma method was administered to children and young people in several different countries, so that Kohlberg could test whether the same stage sequence appeared regardless of culture. The core instrument throughout was the semi-structured interview built around a set of hypothetical moral dilemmas.
The original core sample was 72 boys (some accounts give 75) from Chicago, USA, aged from about 10 to 16 at the start, drawn from both middle-class and working-class backgrounds. This longitudinal core was followed over the years into adulthood. For the cross-cultural component, comparable groups of boys were studied in a range of other societies — including Taiwan, Mexico, Turkey, the USA, and, in related work, isolated village settings (for example in the Yucatan and among Atayal populations) — so that the sequence could be checked across urban and non-urban, Western and non-Western cultures. The exclusive use of boys in the original American sample is one of the study's most-discussed limitations.
Each participant was interviewed individually. They were presented with a series of hypothetical moral dilemmas — the Heinz dilemma is the best known, but there were others, each pitting two moral considerations against one another (for example, a duty to obey the law against a duty to preserve life, or loyalty to a person against fairness to a group). After hearing each dilemma, the participant was asked a set of open, probing "why" questions: not merely whether the protagonist should act, but why that action was right or wrong, what duties applied, whether the answer would change if the people involved were strangers rather than loved ones, and how competing values (life, law, property, promise-keeping) should be weighed.
The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the participants' reasoning was then analysed and classified. Kohlberg was not tallying which decision the person reached; he was examining the justifications — their logical structure, the kind of consideration they appealed to, and the breadth of perspective they took — and assigning the reasoning to a stage. Because the data were open-ended verbal responses, the scoring required careful, criterion-based judgement, and Kohlberg developed a detailed scoring manual over the years to make the classification as consistent as possible. In the longitudinal design, the same individuals' reasoning was scored at successive interviews, allowing Kohlberg to track movement through the stages within a person over time.
From the reasoning his participants gave, Kohlberg identified six stages of moral development, grouped into three broad levels. He argued that these stages form an invariant sequence — everyone passes through them in the same order, without skipping stages and without regressing — though people differ in how far along the sequence they get, and many adults never reach the highest stages.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 9 lessons in this course.