H567/02 Section A - Kohlberg (1968): stages of moral development
Kohlberg investigated the development of reasons for moral choices. His question was how a person justifies a decision, rather than whether everyone gives the same yes-or-no answer to a dilemma.
Moral reasoning and the proposed stages
Building on Piaget's cognitive-developmental approach, Kohlberg proposed that moral thinking develops through increasingly complex forms of reasoning. Moral reasoning concerns the justification for what ought to be done. Two people can choose the same action for different reasons and therefore show different reasoning in this framework. Disobeying a rule is not automatically postconventional; the justification matters.
| Level | Stage | Main basis of a judgement |
|---|---|---|
| Preconventional | 1: punishment and obedience | Avoid punishment; obey authority because of consequences |
| Preconventional | 2: instrumental exchange | Serve personal needs or make a mutually useful exchange |
| Conventional | 3: interpersonal approval | Be seen as a good person; preserve valued relationships |
| Conventional | 4: law and social order | Fulfil duties and uphold rules needed for society |
| Postconventional | 5: social contract and rights | Consider rights and welfare; recognise that laws can be changed by agreement |
| Postconventional | 6: universal ethical principles | Follow self-chosen principles of justice and equal human worth, even when they conflict with a law |
The proposed sequence is about the structure of reasoning, not a fixed birthday timetable. It does not mean everyone reaches Stage 6. Stage 5 is more than personal dislike of a law: it judges law against rights and shared welfare. Stage 6 is more than doing whatever feels right: the principles are intended to apply consistently to everyone. The later stages were Kohlberg's theoretical interpretation; the evidence should be assessed rather than treating the hierarchy as an unquestionable ranking of people's moral worth.
For an original dilemma about reporting a friend who damaged school property, 'I must report it or I will be punished' reflects Stage 1 reasoning. 'Rules protect everyone and reporting is my duty' reflects Stage 4. Both reach the same decision, but use different grounds.
Sample, dilemmas and longitudinal interviews
The original American longitudinal sample comprised 75 boys initially aged 10–16. The investigation discussed in the prescribed account followed development over 12 years, using interviews at three-year intervals; the original age range would then extend to 22–28. The broader programme continued beyond this account, so later follow-up details should not be substituted for its reported period. Cross-cultural work also examined boys in Great Britain, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico and Turkey.
The research used hypothetical moral dilemmas as interview materials. Participants considered difficult choices involving competing obligations, such as whether taking food could be justified to save a starving spouse. Questions probed whether the action should occur and, crucially, why. Follow-up questions explored the basis of the justification. Responses were analysed through 25 moral concepts or aspects, including the value of human life and the motive for obeying rules, and classified in terms of stages of reasoning. This was not a laboratory manipulation of a child's developmental age.
Longitudinal interviews could reveal changes within the same person, rather than attributing a difference between unrelated age groups to development. Open reasons provided more detail than a simple yes-or-no vote. Repeated use of a common interview framework made comparison possible, but interpreting those reasons required judgement. Hypothetical dilemmas measured stated reasoning, not whether a participant would behave that way when personally facing the choice.
Evidence for development and its limits
The account described movement towards more complex forms of reasoning with age. One illustrative case, Richard, gave a mixture of Stage 2 and 3 responses about the value of life at age 13. At 16, his reasons emphasised a moral and religious order, classified as Stage 4. At 20, they emphasised rights and welfare, Stage 5; at 24, inherent equal human worth, Stage 6. These examples concern the changing justification, not proof that choosing to preserve life first appears at the highest stage. One case illustrates a pattern without showing that every boy followed the same timetable.
The research reported substantial consistency across different dilemmas: roughly half of a person's thinking could be classified at a single stage. This is not the claim that half the sample reached Stage 6 or that every answer from a person always belonged to one stage. Mixed reasoning was possible. The selected original account also acknowledged uncertainty about whether Stages 5 and 6 were strictly successive forms or alternative mature orientations, a useful limit on an overly rigid summary.
Cross-cultural findings suggested a similar broad progression, with differences in pace and the highest forms commonly expressed. Middle-class participants tended to progress faster or further than working-class or village participants in the reported comparisons. Kohlberg interpreted the shared sequence as evidence for a general developmental process, while recognising variation in experience. Such findings do not mean all cultures or all individuals move at an identical rate.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account